Last Night on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin seemingly admitted that those higher up in the media put tremendous pressure on the press corps to report favorably on the President in the run up to the war. Here's the video via HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/cnns-yellin-on-run-up-to_n_104058.html
And a direct quote from Jessica Yellin:
"And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president."
In my last blog post I accused the media of not doing their job, as in not acting as the "government watchdog". This is just another perfect example of the media not doing its job. Like in the Scott McClellan issue, Jessica Yellin just said what a lot of people (or those on the left) have been thinking: corporate executives had put tremendous pressure on reporters and the press corps to report the President in a positive light. Granted this was when the government was making the case for the war and when his favorability rating was at a high. The execs were more concerned about their image (and money of course) and did not want to be seen us unpatriotic and such.
A concern about image should not be a problem. The media should not be a mouthpiece for the Whitehouse. This is not a Communist or Fascist nation. The five major networks, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News (they're barely a news organization) needs to report to the American people, no to government elites. Hopefully that will change in the future. At least now the internet has become vitally important in how news is reported.
And in lighter news, Rupert Murdoch, the unassuming conservative mogul of Fox, has just said Obama will win in the general and called McCain "unpredictable." Here's video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Rules Are Rules
The rules are the rules, whether the Clinton campaign likes it or not. Before the primary season started, the DNC, made up of Clinton loyalist and supporters, created the rules that the Clinton campaign is now currently in dispute about. Both candidates signed pledges not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because of them breaking the rules in jumping forward before the 4 approved states. Michigan knowingly broke the law, while Florida had no choice because the Republican-controlled government moved up the primary date. The result was that both states were stripped of all their delegates. No one complained about this (unless you were either Michigan or Florida) and the ruling stood...until Clinton started losing.
Clinton was on record in saying that the Michigan primary "was not going to count for anything." And what happen when she failed to knock Obama out of the race on Feb. 5th (where she thought she would lock up the nomination)? All of a sudden she wanted Michigan and Florida to be seated, knowing full well that that was going to be her best chance to win the nomination.
The most annoying thing about this was that the rules was written by people who now support Clinton. Why then has she done a total 360? Because she is a sore loser. They tried to pit the blame on Obama for this debacle, saying that he disenfranchising millions of voters. That allegation was totally absurd. The ones the Clinton campaign should be blaming should be the respective state governments. What in the world were they thinking in knowingly breaking the law? Would the DNC have just turned a blind eye? That did not happen, and now the Clinton cmap is crying foul.
Pit the Blame on the Michigan and Florida governments. They were the ones who broke the laws, they were the ones who disenfranchised millions of voters. Kind of ironic that the race has gone on for this long that the two states would still relevant and extremely important in picking a nominee. See, sometimes just waiting could bring good things. And what happens when you do not wait? Clinton camp whines like a baby...
Clinton was on record in saying that the Michigan primary "was not going to count for anything." And what happen when she failed to knock Obama out of the race on Feb. 5th (where she thought she would lock up the nomination)? All of a sudden she wanted Michigan and Florida to be seated, knowing full well that that was going to be her best chance to win the nomination.
The most annoying thing about this was that the rules was written by people who now support Clinton. Why then has she done a total 360? Because she is a sore loser. They tried to pit the blame on Obama for this debacle, saying that he disenfranchising millions of voters. That allegation was totally absurd. The ones the Clinton campaign should be blaming should be the respective state governments. What in the world were they thinking in knowingly breaking the law? Would the DNC have just turned a blind eye? That did not happen, and now the Clinton cmap is crying foul.
Pit the Blame on the Michigan and Florida governments. They were the ones who broke the laws, they were the ones who disenfranchised millions of voters. Kind of ironic that the race has gone on for this long that the two states would still relevant and extremely important in picking a nominee. See, sometimes just waiting could bring good things. And what happens when you do not wait? Clinton camp whines like a baby...
Thrown Under The Bus
Scott McClellan, former Whitehouse spokesmen for Bush from 2003 to 2006, has just thrown President Bush (and Cheney, Rice, Rove, the whole Administration) under the bus, or more frankly, a freight train. In a new book coming today, McClellan details his time as press secretary, and has some scathing words and accusations towards the Bush Administration. From various news sites (Washington Post, Politico), McClellan described Bush as "out-of-touch", used "propoganda" to sell the war to the American people, among other things.
Of course the Whitehouse fired back, calling him "disgruntled". Rove called him a "left wing blogger" while Ari Fleischer was heartbroken.
And the most amazing thing, the MSM was shocked by this revelation, a "bombshell" of sorts.
Is it just now that the media FINALLY found out that the government was using propaganda to create support for the war? Isn't the job of the media is to be a watchdog to the government? The media is finally reporting what bloggers have been reporting for a while already. What made this story more powerful (or compelled the media to report it) was that it was from someone inside the Administration, someone who knew (for the most part) the inside dealings of the Administration. Apparently McClellan was more credible than a couple of speculating bloggers.
Sadly though, this is a case of "too little, too late." If he had misgivings, I mean ANY, he should have confided to someone. Then again, he might have been fired. If the latter, then he could've gone to the media to express his case and blow the whistle on the Administration. The damage has already been done with the disaster of a war going on 5 years already and the Administration still not held accountable by the media (Scooter Libby case and the Valerie Plame case). If the media is accussed to be "liberal" by conservatives, why then hasn't the media hold the Bush Administration accountable. We can't have a media that is scared of the government when the media is suppose to "police" what the government does. This Scott MCClellan issue should have been a big issue couple of years agao, not now.
Of course the Whitehouse fired back, calling him "disgruntled". Rove called him a "left wing blogger" while Ari Fleischer was heartbroken.
And the most amazing thing, the MSM was shocked by this revelation, a "bombshell" of sorts.
Is it just now that the media FINALLY found out that the government was using propaganda to create support for the war? Isn't the job of the media is to be a watchdog to the government? The media is finally reporting what bloggers have been reporting for a while already. What made this story more powerful (or compelled the media to report it) was that it was from someone inside the Administration, someone who knew (for the most part) the inside dealings of the Administration. Apparently McClellan was more credible than a couple of speculating bloggers.
Sadly though, this is a case of "too little, too late." If he had misgivings, I mean ANY, he should have confided to someone. Then again, he might have been fired. If the latter, then he could've gone to the media to express his case and blow the whistle on the Administration. The damage has already been done with the disaster of a war going on 5 years already and the Administration still not held accountable by the media (Scooter Libby case and the Valerie Plame case). If the media is accussed to be "liberal" by conservatives, why then hasn't the media hold the Bush Administration accountable. We can't have a media that is scared of the government when the media is suppose to "police" what the government does. This Scott MCClellan issue should have been a big issue couple of years agao, not now.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
On To The General Election
Now that Barack Obama seems like the likely presidential nominee for the Democratic Party (as if there was any doubt), much of the media has focused on the growing battle between Obama and McCain. In most of his speeches, Obama has attacked McCain for not supporting the New G.I. Bill put forward by Senate colleague (and potential V.P.) Jim Webb of Virginia, the ongoing war in Iraq, and of course, the economy. Obama, to the best of his campaign, has tried to link McCain to Bush, in hopes of trying to make McCain seems like another Bush term if he were elected. McCain, has fired back calling Obama "naive" and "inexperienced". These back and forth attacks have been going on for almost a month now, as the media has begun to focus on these two candidates, rendering Hillary Clinton as just another news story.
In one of my earlier blog post, I noted how Obama could win the general election in a variety of ways. Recently, there have been posts out regarding several key battleground states. Here are some of the states.
From SurveyUSA: http://surveyusa.com/
Iowa (5/21-22)
O: 47
M: 38
Ohio (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 39
Virginia (5/16-18)
O: 49
M: 42
Pennsylvania (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 40
As seen by the above polls, Obama will have a somewhat easy time in getting the nomination. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, he can manage to lose Ohio and Florida by winning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states in which polling show Obama is currently winning. So far, it looks like the long primary fight is not hurting Obama too much just yet. Obama should do a lot better in polls when Obama finally becomes the clear nominee.
In one of my earlier blog post, I noted how Obama could win the general election in a variety of ways. Recently, there have been posts out regarding several key battleground states. Here are some of the states.
From SurveyUSA: http://surveyusa.com/
Iowa (5/21-22)
O: 47
M: 38
Ohio (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 39
Virginia (5/16-18)
O: 49
M: 42
Pennsylvania (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 40
As seen by the above polls, Obama will have a somewhat easy time in getting the nomination. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, he can manage to lose Ohio and Florida by winning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states in which polling show Obama is currently winning. So far, it looks like the long primary fight is not hurting Obama too much just yet. Obama should do a lot better in polls when Obama finally becomes the clear nominee.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Now It's Obama's Fault?
Found this on the Washington Post's blog site:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components
Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.
"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."
That small excerpt there shows a desperate campaign gasping for its last breath. So their spin machine is now trying to put the blame on Obama for her RFK remarks. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson have been the laughing stock of her campaign. Their spins are getting so ridiculous that it is on the verge of outrageous and comedic. Obama had already made a statement saying that he will take her word, and that he believed that it was just a case of someone choosing some unfortunate words (take for example his "bitter" remarks, which the Clinton campaign gladly fanned to the media). It is the Clinton campaign flailing wildly, hoping to land a blow to Obama, or hoping he commits a major gaffe in the near future.
It is not Obama's fault that Hillary committed the increible gaffe. Trying to pit the blame on Obama just sunk and already sinking campaign into further oblivion.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components
Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.
"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."
That small excerpt there shows a desperate campaign gasping for its last breath. So their spin machine is now trying to put the blame on Obama for her RFK remarks. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson have been the laughing stock of her campaign. Their spins are getting so ridiculous that it is on the verge of outrageous and comedic. Obama had already made a statement saying that he will take her word, and that he believed that it was just a case of someone choosing some unfortunate words (take for example his "bitter" remarks, which the Clinton campaign gladly fanned to the media). It is the Clinton campaign flailing wildly, hoping to land a blow to Obama, or hoping he commits a major gaffe in the near future.
It is not Obama's fault that Hillary committed the increible gaffe. Trying to pit the blame on Obama just sunk and already sinking campaign into further oblivion.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Clinton Makes Reference To Obama Assassination
What in the world is Hillary Clinton trying to say? Yes it is fine to make a reference to Bill Clinton's nomination not being final until June in 1992, but why on earth would she bring up Robert Kennedy's assassination? What was the point?
I think it is clear what she was trying to say. Technically, she's trying to say that she will stay in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated. I don't know what other point she is trying to make. She should know full well how sensitive this issue is, especially when there's an African American and Woman running for president. This is a major gaffe on her part. Or maybe she knew full well what she was saying. But whatever the implication, this has to be one of the dumbest things ever said in American politics.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The "White Working Class"
By now we have heard all of the MSM claiming that Obama has trouble with the "white working class". The more I hear them saying this, I had to ask myself: Does Obama really have a problem with this group? The simple answer: NO. Saying that he has a problem with this group is a grave oversimplification. Instead, Obama's trouble is more geographic than demographic.
Perfect example of this would be the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. As expected, Obama won Oregon easily, Clinton winning Kentucky easily. What is worth noting is that Obama won every age demographic except those over 60. And how about those white working class voters that the MSM love to talk about? He won those also. Here's the link to the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ORDEM
Where Obama does have a problem is in the Appalachia region. If you look at the CNN website...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
The states (and counties) in the Appalachia region went heavily for Clinton. However, outside this region Obama has done relatively well among this group (Wisconsin is a perfect example).
So MSM, stop with all this BS. Obama does not have a problem with the white working class. He has a problem with people in the Appalachia region.
Perfect example of this would be the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. As expected, Obama won Oregon easily, Clinton winning Kentucky easily. What is worth noting is that Obama won every age demographic except those over 60. And how about those white working class voters that the MSM love to talk about? He won those also. Here's the link to the exit polls:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ORDEM
Where Obama does have a problem is in the Appalachia region. If you look at the CNN website...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
The states (and counties) in the Appalachia region went heavily for Clinton. However, outside this region Obama has done relatively well among this group (Wisconsin is a perfect example).
So MSM, stop with all this BS. Obama does not have a problem with the white working class. He has a problem with people in the Appalachia region.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama vs. McBush
By now you probably have heard President Bush's speech at the Knesset in Israel late last week. At this speech, Bush compared (indirectly but pretty clear who he was talking about) Obama to those who appeased Hitler at the start of World War II. Even John McCain jumped on this to criticize Obama for being "naive" and "inexperience" (where have we heard that before) to deal with foreign affairs. Democrats, on the other hand, were outraged at what Bush had said and were quick to fire back against Bush. But what Joe Biden said was classic: "This is bulls***". Nicely and bluntly said.
Because of this, Obama responded quickly and forcefully. From the AP:
"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings."
This seems to be a present in disguise for Obama. For the past couple of days, the media has been abuzz about this, saying that this is Obama vs. Bush. So why is this good for Obama? Nobody was talking about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the media was on this supposed attack on Obama from Bush. And how has that fared for Obama? He has shot up in the head to head match up against Clinton
As you can see from the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, the start of Obama's uptick started when the news of Bush's attack on Obama. Since then, he has seen steady growth of support culminating to his largest lead over Clinton (16%). Can we finally be seeing Democratic voters coalescing behind the soon to be nominee? A couple more days of polling will show if they are or not.
However, the blatant attack from Bush might just be what Obama needs to galvanize support from Democrats and even disaffected Republicans.
Because of this, Obama responded quickly and forcefully. From the AP:
"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings."
This seems to be a present in disguise for Obama. For the past couple of days, the media has been abuzz about this, saying that this is Obama vs. Bush. So why is this good for Obama? Nobody was talking about Hillary Clinton. The focus of the media was on this supposed attack on Obama from Bush. And how has that fared for Obama? He has shot up in the head to head match up against Clinton
As you can see from the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, the start of Obama's uptick started when the news of Bush's attack on Obama. Since then, he has seen steady growth of support culminating to his largest lead over Clinton (16%). Can we finally be seeing Democratic voters coalescing behind the soon to be nominee? A couple more days of polling will show if they are or not.
However, the blatant attack from Bush might just be what Obama needs to galvanize support from Democrats and even disaffected Republicans.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
75,000 Strong
Now what about 75,000? What am I referring to? Barack Obama held a rally today in Portland, Oregon, two days before the state of Oregon goes to the polls to choose the Democratic Party nominee for President. And boy, what a crowd Obama drew. Take a look at this picture...
Here is a brief blog post on the Washington Post's website...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
"The size of a city" states the Washington Post. That just puts things into perspective on how large his rallies have been. Here's another picture...
A wider shot of the rally. I find it fascinating that there were people on boats and even on the bridge in the distance (according to the Washington Post) listening to Obama. Just unbelievable. And this is only to see a politician....
Here is a brief blog post on the Washington Post's website...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City
By Matthew Mosk
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Sen. Barack Obama has seen his share of large crowds over the last 15 months, but his campaign said they have not approached the numbers gathered along the waterfront here right now.
The campaign, citing figures from Duane Bray, battalion chief of Portland Fire & Rescue, estimated that 75,000 people are watching him speak.
The scene suggests this is not an exaggeration. The sea of heads stretches for half a mile along the grassy embankment, while others watch from kayaks and power boats bobbing on the Willamette River. More hug the rails of the steel bridge that stretches across the water and crowds are even watching from jetties on the opposite shore"The size of a city" states the Washington Post. That just puts things into perspective on how large his rallies have been. Here's another picture...
A wider shot of the rally. I find it fascinating that there were people on boats and even on the bridge in the distance (according to the Washington Post) listening to Obama. Just unbelievable. And this is only to see a politician....
Friday, May 16, 2008
Republican Party In Trouble?
In a story (or stories) that has not been widely reported by the MSM has been the stunning loses by the GOP of House seats in areas that are generally Republican strongholds. Here's the article from the Chicago Tribune about these loses:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-republican-congress15may15,0,6089346.story
They said the first was an outlier. The second, a fluke. But after losing their third seat this year in a special election, House Republicans faced the possibility on Wednesday that if they don't repair their image with voters, they could be in for another rough November.
A Democratic pick-up streak that started with Rep. Bill Foster's upset victory in the March election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) crested Tuesday night, when Democrat Travis Childers won a solidly Republican open seat in Mississippi.
...
That small excerpt shows what could be a bloddbath for the GOP. As stated in the article, this all started in a special election in a Congressional seat that was vacated by retiring Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). The former House Speaker had held the seat for over 20 years. It was safe to say that the district was strongly Republican. Then Democrat nominee for the seat Ben Foster won the seat, a seat held by a Republican for two decades. Then another special election in Louisiana, Democrat Don Cazayoux won the seat that was also held by a Republican. Then Mississippi held another special election, and you can guess what happen. Democrat Travis Childers won the heavily Republican district rather handily.
Can we be seeing de ja vu? Can we be seeing what had happen to the Democrats during the midterm elections in 1994, when the GOP swept into a majority in the House AND Senate? Only time will tell...
On a special note, I just wanted to make note that in the elections Cazayoux and Childers, the GOP had tried to tie the respective candidates to Barack Obama and his now infamous former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We saw how well that went for the GOP...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-republican-congress15may15,0,6089346.story
For GOP, third lost seat may be cause for alarm
Article tools
E-mail
Print
Reprints
- Post comment
- Text size:
A Democratic pick-up streak that started with Rep. Bill Foster's upset victory in the March election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) crested Tuesday night, when Democrat Travis Childers won a solidly Republican open seat in Mississippi.
...
That small excerpt shows what could be a bloddbath for the GOP. As stated in the article, this all started in a special election in a Congressional seat that was vacated by retiring Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). The former House Speaker had held the seat for over 20 years. It was safe to say that the district was strongly Republican. Then Democrat nominee for the seat Ben Foster won the seat, a seat held by a Republican for two decades. Then another special election in Louisiana, Democrat Don Cazayoux won the seat that was also held by a Republican. Then Mississippi held another special election, and you can guess what happen. Democrat Travis Childers won the heavily Republican district rather handily.
Can we be seeing de ja vu? Can we be seeing what had happen to the Democrats during the midterm elections in 1994, when the GOP swept into a majority in the House AND Senate? Only time will tell...
On a special note, I just wanted to make note that in the elections Cazayoux and Childers, the GOP had tried to tie the respective candidates to Barack Obama and his now infamous former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We saw how well that went for the GOP...
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Preview to the General Election
The General Election is a little more than 5 months away, an eternity in politics. It looks increasingly likely that Republican nominee John McCain will go up against Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the first African American to be nominated for the presidency. Many people think that Democrats are a shoo-in to for the presidency, but I will be skeptical until November 5th, when the American people will vote. The election will be historic. We'll either elect the oldest man ever to take the presidency or elect the first African American as President, which is extremely symbolic given America's dark history with slavery.
Throughout the summer, we'll here pundit after pundit discuss what the battleground states will be during the general. The reason Obama will be the better candidate for president is because he can put more states into play. There could be as much as 20 states that could be toss-ups. However, Obama could put numerous Southern states into play, such as
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Mississippi
Louisiana
The South has a relatively large African American population, and Obama's vote among this demographic is close to monolithic, meaning that Obama will get close or over 90% of the AA vote. Because of that, Obama will put a number of southern states into play.
Other battleground states will sound familiar, such as:
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Florida
New Mexico
I believe Pennsylvania and Michigan will go for Obama during the general. The other three states listed are less certain.
I found this website which shows which states voted for what candidate during an election, dating back to the nation's first election in 1789. The website also gives you the opportunity to play with the electoral map, allowing you to do certain scenarios on what states each candidate could win.
http://www.270towin.com/
Obama has numerous ways to win given that he holds the states Kerry won in 2004.
2004 Election
Bush
Electoral- 286
Popular- 62,039,073
Kerry
Electoral- 252
Popular- 59,027,478
Scenario 1- Obama Loses Ohio and Florida
Obama could lose these two states and still end up winning. Obama could win by winning a combination of states:
1. Virginia and one other state with 5 or more electoral votes (Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado)
2. A bunch of small states with 5 or more electoral votes, like the states noted above
3. Winning multiple states in the South
If Obama manages to win one of the Southern states, it could be a long night for John McCain. Of course, this is only May, anything can happen in that span of time...
Throughout the summer, we'll here pundit after pundit discuss what the battleground states will be during the general. The reason Obama will be the better candidate for president is because he can put more states into play. There could be as much as 20 states that could be toss-ups. However, Obama could put numerous Southern states into play, such as
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Mississippi
Louisiana
The South has a relatively large African American population, and Obama's vote among this demographic is close to monolithic, meaning that Obama will get close or over 90% of the AA vote. Because of that, Obama will put a number of southern states into play.
Other battleground states will sound familiar, such as:
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Florida
New Mexico
I believe Pennsylvania and Michigan will go for Obama during the general. The other three states listed are less certain.
I found this website which shows which states voted for what candidate during an election, dating back to the nation's first election in 1789. The website also gives you the opportunity to play with the electoral map, allowing you to do certain scenarios on what states each candidate could win.
http://www.270towin.com/
Obama has numerous ways to win given that he holds the states Kerry won in 2004.
2004 Election
Bush
Electoral- 286
Popular- 62,039,073
Kerry
Electoral- 252
Popular- 59,027,478
Scenario 1- Obama Loses Ohio and Florida
Obama could lose these two states and still end up winning. Obama could win by winning a combination of states:
1. Virginia and one other state with 5 or more electoral votes (Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado)
2. A bunch of small states with 5 or more electoral votes, like the states noted above
3. Winning multiple states in the South
If Obama manages to win one of the Southern states, it could be a long night for John McCain. Of course, this is only May, anything can happen in that span of time...
A Thing About Landslide Victories
Well it looks like Clinton has won her first landslide victory today in West Virginia. It looks like she will win by a margin of 30-40%. But what about Obama's numerous landslide wins? From CNN's website:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Looking at the states that already voted, Obama had a larger margin of victory than what Clinton is projected to win in 7 states. What states? Here are the seven:
From the states that voted on Feb. 5th:
Georgia
O: 67%
C:31%
Minnesota
O: 66%
C: 32%
Colorado
O: 67%
C: 32%
Alaska
O: 75%
C: 25%
Idaho
O: 79%
C: 17%
And the rest of the states that voted after Feb. 5th:
Hawaii
O: 76%
C: 24%
Washington
O: 68%
C: 31%
Now Clinton backers would say that the majority of these states were caucus states and she does not do well in them, but coming from Clinton, "a win is a win". I would like to add that Georgia was a primary, and Obama destroyed her there. It is promising that the state might be competitive during the general election.
Landslides
O: 7
C:1
The media needs to point that out...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Looking at the states that already voted, Obama had a larger margin of victory than what Clinton is projected to win in 7 states. What states? Here are the seven:
From the states that voted on Feb. 5th:
Georgia
O: 67%
C:31%
Minnesota
O: 66%
C: 32%
Colorado
O: 67%
C: 32%
Alaska
O: 75%
C: 25%
Idaho
O: 79%
C: 17%
And the rest of the states that voted after Feb. 5th:
Hawaii
O: 76%
C: 24%
Washington
O: 68%
C: 31%
Now Clinton backers would say that the majority of these states were caucus states and she does not do well in them, but coming from Clinton, "a win is a win". I would like to add that Georgia was a primary, and Obama destroyed her there. It is promising that the state might be competitive during the general election.
Landslides
O: 7
C:1
The media needs to point that out...
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Who Should Be Obama's VP?
Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee for President for the Democratic Party, much will be discussed about who he will choose for Vice President. Does he need someone with foreign policy experience? Someone who is seasoned in Washington to offset his perceived inexperience? There are many aspects in choosing a running mate, but probably the most important trait is someone who compliments Obama well (along with the questions posed above). I emphatically dismiss this notion of a so-called "Dream Ticket" with Obama picking Clinton as his running mate. Obama does not need her as much as she needs him. By picking Clinton would diminish what Obama has been running on this whole time.
So with Clinton out of the way, who should Obama pick for vice president? Here are my top 3 picks for Obama's vice president (in order from first preference).
1. Bill Richardson
My number1 pick and most ideal running mate for Obama. He is currently the Governor of New Mexico, having served in that capacity since 2003. Before becoming governor of New Mexico, he served under the Clinton Administration. In the administration, he was U.N. Ambassador and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He also has negotiated the release of hostages from various nations such as Iraq and North Korea.
As you can see, Richardson has the foreign policy resume to go toe-to-toe with whatever the Republicans can offer. I think there are a couple of traits about Richardson that will be helpful to Obama. First, he has the experience of running a state. Richardson has done a relatively great job as governor, being one of the most fiscally responsible Governors in the nation. Second, he has experience in the international scene, most notably in negotiating with rogue states.
Probably the most important trait he has: his race. For anyone who does not know yet, Richardson is Hispanic. As we all know, the Latino vote will be extremely critical in this year's election. Richardson can be influential in several key swing states, such as Colorado and Florida. He can even put Texas into play because of the large Latino population.
2. Tim Kaine/ Jim Webb: I combined these two into the same category mainly because 1). They are both from Virginia and 2). With Obama's strong showing during the primary there, Virginia is now trending ever so lsightly blue and is an important toss-up state in the fall.
Tim Kaine- He's the current Governor of Virginia and extremely popular within the state. He has the executive experience that would compliment well with Obama. The only problem that Kaine may have is his lack of foreign policy experience. He's a strong supporter of Obama.
Jim Webb- He's the junior senator and is attractive as a vice presidential candidate because of his experience and his moderate views. He served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. What makes Webb an ideal choice is because he has the foreign policy experience that matches up well against the Republicans. The only minor drawback to Webb is that he's an aggressive attack dog on the campaign trail, along with a fiery persona.
3. Kathleen Sebelius- She's a two-term Governor from the state of Kansas, the home state of Obama's mother. Being a two term Governor in a heavily red state shows the appeal she has among Republicans, thus her high approval rating. She would be an ideal pick for vice president because she has been able to work with Republicans on various issues. How persuasive is she? She convinced Mark Parkinson, the former chair of the GOP in Kansas, to switch parties and run with her as her Lt. Governor. She has done a relatively great job as Governor. A downside in picking Sebelius would be her lack of foreign policy experience. There can also be some doubts about her ability to help carry Kansas in the general election.
These four candidates, in my opinion, would compliment Obama well in the general election and hopefully in an Obama Administration. Each candidates have their own pros and cons, but I believe that their pros outweighs their cons.
So with Clinton out of the way, who should Obama pick for vice president? Here are my top 3 picks for Obama's vice president (in order from first preference).
1. Bill Richardson
My number1 pick and most ideal running mate for Obama. He is currently the Governor of New Mexico, having served in that capacity since 2003. Before becoming governor of New Mexico, he served under the Clinton Administration. In the administration, he was U.N. Ambassador and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He also has negotiated the release of hostages from various nations such as Iraq and North Korea.
As you can see, Richardson has the foreign policy resume to go toe-to-toe with whatever the Republicans can offer. I think there are a couple of traits about Richardson that will be helpful to Obama. First, he has the experience of running a state. Richardson has done a relatively great job as governor, being one of the most fiscally responsible Governors in the nation. Second, he has experience in the international scene, most notably in negotiating with rogue states.
Probably the most important trait he has: his race. For anyone who does not know yet, Richardson is Hispanic. As we all know, the Latino vote will be extremely critical in this year's election. Richardson can be influential in several key swing states, such as Colorado and Florida. He can even put Texas into play because of the large Latino population.
2. Tim Kaine/ Jim Webb: I combined these two into the same category mainly because 1). They are both from Virginia and 2). With Obama's strong showing during the primary there, Virginia is now trending ever so lsightly blue and is an important toss-up state in the fall.
Tim Kaine- He's the current Governor of Virginia and extremely popular within the state. He has the executive experience that would compliment well with Obama. The only problem that Kaine may have is his lack of foreign policy experience. He's a strong supporter of Obama.
Jim Webb- He's the junior senator and is attractive as a vice presidential candidate because of his experience and his moderate views. He served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. What makes Webb an ideal choice is because he has the foreign policy experience that matches up well against the Republicans. The only minor drawback to Webb is that he's an aggressive attack dog on the campaign trail, along with a fiery persona.
3. Kathleen Sebelius- She's a two-term Governor from the state of Kansas, the home state of Obama's mother. Being a two term Governor in a heavily red state shows the appeal she has among Republicans, thus her high approval rating. She would be an ideal pick for vice president because she has been able to work with Republicans on various issues. How persuasive is she? She convinced Mark Parkinson, the former chair of the GOP in Kansas, to switch parties and run with her as her Lt. Governor. She has done a relatively great job as Governor. A downside in picking Sebelius would be her lack of foreign policy experience. There can also be some doubts about her ability to help carry Kansas in the general election.
These four candidates, in my opinion, would compliment Obama well in the general election and hopefully in an Obama Administration. Each candidates have their own pros and cons, but I believe that their pros outweighs their cons.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
More Race-baiting from Hillary Campaign?
When you thought Hillary would be less negative towards Obama now that Obama is the clear Democratic nominee for President, Hillary and her campaign surrogates are bringing race back into the picture in a negative way. First, Hillary Clinton had an interview with USA Today which published an article today about that interview. Here's a small excerpt...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Clinton makes case for wide appeal
What in the world is Hillary trying to say? She is claiming that her coalition of voters is much more broader than Obama's? That's just a bunch of nonsense. There's a reason Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and leading in the popular vote. Hillary is just trying to pull random stuff out of her ass right now. Most of her voters will vote for Obama anyways in the general election. Those who won't are just die hard lunatics who would rather have a Republican in the White House, or technically a 3rd Bush term. Shows you how smart they are. And remember, the Republicans back in 2000 also had a bitterly fought primary season between Bush and McCain. Remember when McCain voters said they wouldn't vote for Bush? And what happen? They voted for him. So as of right now, I'm just going to ignore all the stuff about Clinton supporters not supporting Obama come November.
And take a look at what Clinton surrogate Paul Begala said about Obama's coalition of voters:
"Eggheads" and "African Americans"? What in the world was that? That is incredible what he just said. That is extremely insulting to Obama supporters and Clinton supporters should be ashamed by how he just characterized Obama supporters. And you got to give Donna Brazile credit for standing up for the Democratic Party. Paul Begala had the nerve to say that this was his party and his coalition was more important than Obama's. Incredibly insulting and idiotic. No wonder many now view the Clinton's as polarizing and divisive.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Clinton makes case for wide appeal
| Updated 1h 51m ago | Comments2,347 | Recommend83 | E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |  |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
By Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
What in the world is Hillary trying to say? She is claiming that her coalition of voters is much more broader than Obama's? That's just a bunch of nonsense. There's a reason Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and leading in the popular vote. Hillary is just trying to pull random stuff out of her ass right now. Most of her voters will vote for Obama anyways in the general election. Those who won't are just die hard lunatics who would rather have a Republican in the White House, or technically a 3rd Bush term. Shows you how smart they are. And remember, the Republicans back in 2000 also had a bitterly fought primary season between Bush and McCain. Remember when McCain voters said they wouldn't vote for Bush? And what happen? They voted for him. So as of right now, I'm just going to ignore all the stuff about Clinton supporters not supporting Obama come November.
And take a look at what Clinton surrogate Paul Begala said about Obama's coalition of voters:
"Eggheads" and "African Americans"? What in the world was that? That is incredible what he just said. That is extremely insulting to Obama supporters and Clinton supporters should be ashamed by how he just characterized Obama supporters. And you got to give Donna Brazile credit for standing up for the Democratic Party. Paul Begala had the nerve to say that this was his party and his coalition was more important than Obama's. Incredibly insulting and idiotic. No wonder many now view the Clinton's as polarizing and divisive.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's Over...
Here's another video from CBS News detailing the primary race is about to end...
It is now just a matter of time before Super-delegates start endorsing Obama in greater numbers. Then again, many people thought that would happen numerous times before. But now, it does really look like the race is about to end. When you have several of your top supporters doubting or even switching allegiances (aka George McGovern), then things really look dim for you. Include that Hillary Clinton had to loan her campaign even more money, some just have to wonder why in the world she's still even in this race. She lost all her momentum and her campaign is broke once again. There comes a point where she just needs to end this (like last month). Yes the Democrats are gaining new voters but at what cost? Tearing the Democratic party apart.
It is now just a matter of time before Super-delegates start endorsing Obama in greater numbers. Then again, many people thought that would happen numerous times before. But now, it does really look like the race is about to end. When you have several of your top supporters doubting or even switching allegiances (aka George McGovern), then things really look dim for you. Include that Hillary Clinton had to loan her campaign even more money, some just have to wonder why in the world she's still even in this race. She lost all her momentum and her campaign is broke once again. There comes a point where she just needs to end this (like last month). Yes the Democrats are gaining new voters but at what cost? Tearing the Democratic party apart.
The Presumptive Nominee
This is going to be extremely short entry. Just wanted to mentioned that several blogs have made the distinction that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. HuffingtonPost and The Drudge Report have headlines on their front pages proclaiming Obama as the nominee. *Headlines as of Midnight 5/07*
Here's a video of Tim Russert saying the race of over:
Here's a video of Tim Russert saying the race of over:
Monday, May 5, 2008
John McClinton
With every single day passing, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are seemingly becoming the same person. Probably the most recent example would be regarding their idea to suspend the gas tax during the summer months. The only presidential nominee to oppose this (along with numerous economists and the majority of the Democratic Party) would be Barack Obama. For anybody who saw Hillary on This Week, she had the nerve to put the majority of economists who are against the suspension of the gas tax as "elitist". I think we all want to see gas prices go lower. But the suspension of the gas tax is not the way to go. We have to change our energy consumption habits. He are way too dependent on oil from the Middle East. Using more gasoline, thus more oil, will just drive up prices even more. Whatever we save from the gas tax will be replaced by higher prices at the pump. We need to be less dependent on oil, not use more of it.
And another example where Hillary and McCain totally agree: the war in Iraq. I read an interesting piece on Huffingtonpost this morning about what Hillary had said back in 2005. What did she say? She agreed with McCain on a long term troop presence in Iraq. Here's a small excerpt from HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
And another example where Hillary and McCain totally agree: the war in Iraq. I read an interesting piece on Huffingtonpost this morning about what Hillary had said back in 2005. What did she say? She agreed with McCain on a long term troop presence in Iraq. Here's a small excerpt from HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."
Sounds awfully familiar to what John McCain said earlier this month about staying in Iraq for "50, even a hundred years." Do Hillary and McCain share the same brain? Do they share the same advisers? It is increasing embarrasing for her to call herself a Democrat when in these two instances she goes against the conventional wisdom of her own party. What is she trying to prove, prove that she can as tough on foreign policy as John McCain? She's never win that battle. It is amazing some of the stuff Hillary says. Saying stuff like this is irresponsible. Don't get me started about her "obliterating Iran" comment. She sounds even more of a war mongerer than George Bush (ok, maybe that's stretching it a bit). You get my point...
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A Rebound For Obama?
Well the days following Jeremiah Wright's performance at the National Press Club, Obama took a hit in the polls. Now it seems Obama is set for a rebound. Following his press conference in which he distance himself from Rev. Wright, Obama's poll numbers have trended up ever so slowly. Here's the Gallup daily tacking poll:
As you can see, Obama was down by four points a couple of days ago. In today's poll, he's up by four. I'd say that would be a nice turnaround. And here's another poll from CBS/New York Times:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In both polls, Obama has recovered relatively nicely from what is seemingly a temporary hit on his poll numbers. Much has been said that Obama is a "tephlon" politician, where any negative thing thrown at him just slips right off. That could be true, but I believe that Obama is truly a different politician. His appeal to many is that he is different from those in Washington for the longest times. In more cynical terms, he's less "corrupt" than the rest of the politicians. As stated in my earlier blog post, Tuesday will be another defining moment.
As you can see, Obama was down by four points a couple of days ago. In today's poll, he's up by four. I'd say that would be a nice turnaround. And here's another poll from CBS/New York Times:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
In both polls, Obama has recovered relatively nicely from what is seemingly a temporary hit on his poll numbers. Much has been said that Obama is a "tephlon" politician, where any negative thing thrown at him just slips right off. That could be true, but I believe that Obama is truly a different politician. His appeal to many is that he is different from those in Washington for the longest times. In more cynical terms, he's less "corrupt" than the rest of the politicians. As stated in my earlier blog post, Tuesday will be another defining moment.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
A Preview for Tuesday's Primaries
Here we go again, the Democratic primary battleground has moved to the states of North Carolina and Indiana, with their voters going to the polls on Tuesday. Many pundits believe that Obama will win North Carolina, but his margin of victory has caused some uncertainty, mainly due to the recent media coverage of Jeremiah Wright. On RealClearPolitics.com, various polls have him up by only 5 (SurveyUSA) to as much as 16 (Zogby). The polls in Indiana show a much closer race, thus having a somewhat more important role on Tuesday. If Obama can win both states, he will greatly solidify his footing on the nomination. Super-delegates should then come out en mass to support Obama's path to the presidency and end this one and for all. If he doesn't win Indiana, then most certainly the race will end on June 2nd. Sounds a whole lot familiar regarding the circumstances in Pennsylvania...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)