SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cirrus who wrote (113526)8/23/2007 11:20:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
The Pragmatic Obama: He's Shaping the Debate on Foreign Policy
_____________________________________________________________

By David Ignatius
Columnist
The Washington Post
Thursday, August 23, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Sen. Barack Obama is getting polite applause at best when he tells the delegates at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here this week that in running for president, "I know I am running to become commander in chief." And then he tries to convince this intensely skeptical audience that he's the right man for the job.

Obama reminds them that he opposed the war in Iraq, even though most of the delegates doubtless supported it. He lauds the soldiers fighting there even as he criticizes the Bush administration civilians who have managed the war. He says that we have "no good options in Iraq" and that the United States must be careful about how it withdraws. He warns that when a president sends soldiers to war next time, the country must be united enough to sustain the fight.

The vets certainly aren't cheering wildly when Obama is done, but to judge from the dozens who rush up to meet him, he seems to have reassured this conservative audience that he's not a left-wing devil. When a local reporter asks him if he's surprised by the "warm response" he got, Obama displays the almost eerie self-confidence that has marked his rise as a candidate.

Obama has indisputable star power. Travel with him on the campaign trail and you see the high-voltage connection he can establish with people. When he walks through a hotel lobby or jumps out of his motorcade in shirtsleeves to greet an impromptu crowd, the persona is closer to a rock star than a typical politician. And for all the loose talk about whether Obama is "black enough," I saw many dozens of African Americans here crowd around him with obvious pride and passion.

Obama is now attempting to translate this charisma into a serious political movement -- one that would allow him not simply to win the Democratic nomination but also to govern effectively as president. He is emphasizing defense and foreign policy, where voters have often not trusted Democrats to protect the country. And as he did in his speech here, he's putting more substance into his pitch than candidates often do.

Indeed, you can argue that over the past month, Obama has been shaping the foreign policy debate for the Democrats -- and getting the best of the arguments. By last Sunday's televised debate in Iowa, nobody else seemed eager to challenge Obama's postulate that "strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries." And there was little repetition, either, of the tut-tutting that greeted his statement that he would be prepared to go after al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, with or without President Pervez Musharraf's blessing.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's stance has been more cautious, seeking to convey a general but vaguely defined sense that her toughness and experience would make her a strong president. Obama is taking the opposite tack.

Obama added some new (and potentially controversial) foreign policy details in an interview Tuesday afternoon, before he hopped a plane for his next stop, in New Hampshire. He said he expects there will still be U.S. troops in Iraq when the next president takes office, and he is discussing with his advisers how this residual force should be used. "For getting out in an orderly way, withdrawing one to two brigades a month is realistic," he said. With 20 combat brigades in Iraq, that would imply a withdrawal schedule of at least a year.

So what should the remaining troops do? Obama says he would support keeping U.S. forces in and around Iraq for protection of U.S. personnel there, for counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, for protecting Iraq's borders and perhaps for continued training of Iraq's military if that country's political situation permits. He also said U.S. troops should be available to help stop any future "bloodbath" in Iraq, but only as part of a wider international effort.

And what of diplomatic contacts with America's adversaries, such as Iran? Obama said he would talk to Iranian leaders about stabilizing Iraq, where he says they have a common interest; about halting Iranian terrorist activities in Iraq; and about the Iranian nuclear program. He said he would make suspension of nuclear enrichment by Iran a topic for discussions rather than a condition for talks, as it is for the Bush administration.

Obama is deftly managing to outflank his Democratic rivals on both the left and right on key foreign policy issues. That may be a piece of political opportunism on his part, but a top Obama adviser gives it a different spin, which may reveal the essence of the man: "He is totally pragmatic. He asks what would work and what wouldn't."

washingtonpost.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)8/30/2007 3:33:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362352
 
Obama offers hard truths to supporters

miamiherald.com

Posted on Wed, Aug. 29, 2007
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama has a habit of telling interest groups what they don't want to hear, even at the risk of alienating audiences critical to the prospects of a presidential candidate.

Not to be undone by his rivals, the Illinois senator has made remarks befitting the myriad of forums and debates he's attended, praising the work of unions, upholding Israel to Jewish groups and decrying President Bush's spending on education.

But he's also uttered words not often heard, especially when Democratic constituencies gather. For example:

-Obama told the National Education Association that performance-based merit pay ought to be considered in public schools.

-Cuban exiles are considered one of the keys to winning Florida, but he disagreed with leaders who want a full embargo against Fidel Castro's government and instead called for allowing travel and money to the island.

-Michigan voters play an important role in national politics, but Obama visited Detroit to lecture the state's biggest industry for failing to improve automobile fuel efficiency.

"I don't do this for shock value," Obama said in a recent interview while campaigning in New Hampshire.

"There may be people who chose not to support me because I'm not telling them what they want to hear or reinforcing their preconceptions," he told The Associated Press. "I want to be elected to the presidency not by having pretended I was one thing and then surprise people with an agenda, but to get the agenda elected, to get a mandate for change. And you can't do that if you're not doing some truth telling."

Obama's approach was a signature of chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband in the 1992 presidential campaign. The strategy is known in modern politics as a "Sister Souljah."

In addressing a black audience, Bill Clinton accused the hip hop artist of inciting violence against whites. Some black leaders criticized Clinton, but it helped reinforce his image as a voice of moderation against crime who refused to pander.

Also in 1992, Clinton gave back-to-back speeches to a black audience in Detroit and a white audience in the city's suburbs, challenging both to reach across the racial divide to bring political change. A year into his presidency, Clinton told black ministers in Memphis that they must do more to stop violent crime in black communities.

"Telling a friendly audience something they don't want to hear is a signal that you can stand up on the tough issues," said Democratic consultant Jamal Simmons. "There will be people who will be upset, but many times the audiences aren't the people in the room but the people on televisions who see you telling you something to a friend that they don't like."

Simmons said the politician also has to have enough credibility with the audience to deliver a tough message like telling blacks they need to do more to stop crime. "Other than Bill Clinton, I don't know a white politician who could say it," he said.

Since Obama offers blacks a chance to put one of their own in the White House for the first time, he comes with instant credibility.

He has told blacks that they are letting homophobia stop them from fighting the spread of AIDS. He repeated a similar message at the largely white Saddleback megachurch, telling the congregation that they should stop preaching abstinence only and instead promote condom use.

He says blacks need to vote and clean up their neighborhoods. He has decried movements against affirmative action and unequal spending in black and white schools, but he has said parents also have a responsibility to better educate their children.

"Turn off the television set and put away the Game Boy and make sure that you're talking to your teacher and that we get over the anti-intellectualism that exists in some of our communities where if you conjugate your verbs and if you read a book that somehow means you are acting white," he said during a speech in Selma, Ala., to commemorate the civil rights march there.

The comments were reminiscent of controversial statements made by comedian Bill Cosby, who said lower-economic people are not parenting and are failing the civil rights movement by "not holding up their end in this deal."

Cosby was criticized by many blacks and accused of elitism and reinforcing stereotypes. Obama sees a difference in their approaches.

"I think language matters," he said. "I think that the African-American community recognizes there are problems in terms of black men not being home and an element of anti-intellectualism that's in the community. And I think people can hear that as long as you also recognize that the larger society has neglected these communities and that some of this is an outgrowth of segregation and slavery. So you put it in context so it doesn't seem like out of the blue you are quote-unquote 'blaming the victim.'"

Perhaps his ultimate diss came when he said he won't go to any more forums because he said he needs the time to campaign to voters beyond the party's core activists. It also cuts into his time fundraising and he has acknowledged that the short time for answers at the debates are not his best format.

"I do think that the Democratic Party should be greater than the sum of its parts," Obama said.



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)9/8/2007 4:54:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362352
 
"Obama is the RFK of today"

Message 23864796



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)9/9/2007 3:00:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Winfrey draws rich and famous to Obama bash
______________________________________________________________

By John McCormick and Christi Parsons
Chicago Tribune staff reporters
September 9, 2007

MONTECITO, Calif. — Helicopters carrying camera crews buzzed overhead, and tinted glass covered the windows of almost every vehicle entering as Oprah Winfrey welcomed 1,500 guests Saturday evening to her sprawling estate for what was the biggest fundraiser of Sen. Barack Obama's political career.

Obama bumped elbows with comedians Chris Rock and Whoopi Goldberg. Singer Stevie Wonder an Obama favorite, performed.

But it was the joint appearance by Obama and Winfrey, who never before has involved herself in politics in such a large way, that generated the greatest star power of the evening.

"I call my home the Promised Land because I get to live Dr. King's dream," Winfrey told her guests, a source inside the event recalled Winfrey saying. "I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States."

The star-studded gathering marked the most visible effort yet for the billionaire media magnate in her effort to help the Illinois Democrat in his quest to win his party's presidential nomination.

As Winfrey introduced Obama's wife, Michelle, who was wearing a dress by Chicago designer Maria Pinto, the hostess called her the "first lady."

At times, Winfrey echoed Obama's stump speech. "How many hours you have spent in the halls of Washington is not the issue," she said, the source recalled. "I want a man that has good sense."

Winfrey said she never expected to be involved in a presidential campaign. "When you have been called, no one can stand in the way of destiny," she reportedly said.

Once inside, guests, who dined on mini-hamburgers, chicken tenders and corn on the cob, had various levels of access, ranging from seats in the grass on lime-green blankets that had "Obama '08" embroidered on them, to a VIP reception, to a later, much more exclusive dinner.

Smartly timed with Monday's season premiere of Winfrey's show, the event was part fundraiser, part Hollywood red carpet and part circus. Photographers hovered outside entrances of Winfrey's 42-acre property, where VIP guests were allowed to drive right in. Others had to park and ride from a horse-show grounds in nearby Santa Barbara. Journalists were kept outside.

At the horse-show grounds, guests parked, had their possessions searched and boarded buses for the trip to Winfrey's property about 8 miles away. Recording devices and cameras were not allowed, and government-issued photo IDs were compared to a guest list.

The power of Oprah

In an interview Friday, Obama said he first fully realized Winfrey's power one day when he was running late for work at the Capitol and a beefy security guard in dark sunglasses stopped his car and peered in sternly to ask for identification.

Suddenly, though, the Senate ID wasn't necessary for the freshman lawmaker. "Hey, you were on 'Oprah'!" the man said, stepping back to direct Obama's car through the checkpoint with a friendly wave.

"It's at that point that I realized the power of Oprah Winfrey," Obama recalled. "Her reach extended beyond the stereotypical demographic. ... And the appearance on her show amplified my profile around the country."

At that time, Obama was several months past the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that had made him a political star, and his first published memoir was selling well.

But an appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" had widened his path into the world of pop culture, a critical domain as he began to build his celebrity-infused political portfolio. The relationship has grown along with Obama's rise, as the two Chicago celebrities have turned a passing acquaintance into a powerful friendship with national implications.

Saturday's gathering was expected to raise more than $3 million. And it may be only the beginning of her support, with television ads featuring Winfrey and even speaking appearances possible.

It is not a simple prospect for any star, especially for one who so jealously guards her brand identity. In joining Obama's campaign, Winfrey is flouting the lessons of celebrities who have closely associated themselves with candidates, only to turn off a certain segment of their audiences and diminish their own marketability.

She's also testing the boundaries of her power. Winfrey has turned obscure writers into best sellers and started a top magazine from scratch, yet she never before has tried so tangibly to translate her influence into the political realm.

Some suggest that if any star is well-established enough to risk it, it is Winfrey. She is especially popular with women and African-Americans, crucial demographics for Obama as he competes against front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who enjoys solid support from both those groups.

"As a marketer, [Winfrey's] power lies in being able to make her recommendations seem very friendly, like they are coming from a girlfriend," said Kathleen Rooney, who is updating a 2005 book about the influence of Winfrey's book club.

Or, as Winfrey recently told Larry King, "My support of him is probably worth more than any check that I could write."

So when she expressed interest in helping Obama, his staff was more than happy to start the discussions. They didn't need a recent Gallup Poll to tell them Winfrey is one of the most influential women in America. (She ranked second in the most recent poll to Clinton.)

Winfrey, who declined an interview request, has become good friends with Obama and his wife in the past couple of years.

They didn't really know each other well until the fall of 2004, when Winfrey, inspired by Obama's national convention address, asked to interview the Obamas for her magazine. She visited their house and, as is evident from the laughter and warm chatter in the recording of their conversation, the three hit it off right away.

After that interview, say people who know them, Winfrey and the Obamas became social friends, with the couple even visiting her Chicago home. Later, Winfrey and the senator flew together from Chicago to view the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and displaced Gulf Coast residents.

Just months after Obama's Senate term began, a confidant says, Obama told friends about a visit he and his wife paid to Winfrey's California home as part of her Legends Ball weekend honoring African-American women.

The group included music legend Quincy Jones, and it was on that May 2005 visit to Winfrey's Montecito estate that the idea of Winfrey hosting a political event apparently came up.

Obama has said he was not actively planning a White House run at the time, but it may have been something Winfrey was contemplating for him.

" 'Wouldn't this be a great place for a fundraiser?' I said jokingly," Winfrey recalled of the gathering that weekend during a recent interview on her satellite radio channel.

The glitz that weekend was nothing compared to what transpired Saturday on Winfrey's property, which features a man-made lake and a 23,000-square-foot mansion located between the ocean and mountains.

One of Obama's top national fundraisers said more than one high-wattage guest cut short a European vacation to be here.

Because so many celebrities and wealthy donors have already given the maximum allowed by federal law, the California fundraiser said many needed to raise money from smaller donors to get a ticket.

"It's hard to find people who haven't given to him," the fundraiser said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of angering Obama or Winfrey.

Hollywood in a giving mood

Many Hollywood actors already have given the maximum allowed to Obama. Morgan Freeman has, as have Halle Berry, Eddie Murphy, Leonard Nimoy, Chris Rock, George Clooney and Jennifer Aniston.

Others are doubling down, giving to two or more candidates. Actor Tom Hanks, for example, already has given the maximum allowed to Obama and Clinton. Ben Stiller, meanwhile, has given to those two, as well as to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

While the scene was flashy even by Hollywood standards, the attire Saturday was fairly casual, with women wearing summer dresses and many men in sport coats.

Calling her estate a "special, sacred, spiritual" place, Winfrey had warned guests to be on their best behavior. "To offer it ... is no small thing for me," she said during the satellite radio interview. "There are going to be some serious restrictions and requirements to get in here."

She wasn't kidding. Visitors were instructed to wear flat shoes and other "garden attire," because the event mostly took place in a meadow.

Only approved photographers were allowed inside, and organizers had searched the guest list to try to make sure no paparazzi snuck in by paying the $2,300 admission.

Students of the Oprah phenomenon say Winfrey has an almost obsessive protectiveness, not just of her home but also her image and brand. Some are skeptical of just how much her endorsement will help Obama in early-voting states where his fate likely will be decided.

Obama agrees it is difficult to predict how much Winfrey's backing will help.

"It's very hard to say," he said. "I think a presidential race is unique. The job is unique. People who might buy my book because of an appearance on Oprah are obviously going to have a much more serious and sober deliberation when it comes to deciding who the next leader of the free world is."

Still, he said, he has no doubt that Winfrey's support will help him, at the very least, to reach voters who might not otherwise hear what he has to say.

"Ultimately, they've got to be persuaded by me that I'm the right person for the job," Obama said, but "Oprah is somebody who has enormous reach, and that means that I may get a hearing in certain quarters."

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)10/3/2007 8:14:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Obama starts hitting the notes the base wants to hear

thecarpetbaggerreport.com

Posted October 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 am

If Barack Obama is going to catch up to Hillary Clinton — a scenario that becomes more of a challenge all the time — he’s going to have to build on what he’s done so far this year, and add a new dimension to his campaign. There’s no shortage of suggestions, but I’d argue that yesterday’s speech on foreign policy was definitely a step in the right direction.

One of the things that I’ve found most intriguing about Obama’s rhetorical strategy the last several months is that he emphasizes bringing people together, being able to work with people with whom he disagrees, and ending partisan bickering. This, arguably, is the right message for a general election, but the wrong message for a competitive primary — Democratic activists aren’t interested in working with Republicans; they’re interested in beating them. Primary/caucus voters don’t want to hear about a candidate’s ability to reach across the aisle; they want to hear about advancing a progressive agenda.

I think I understand the subtle message behind Obama’s pitch — “Vote for me and I’ll win in November” — but it may very well be too subtle for a mass audience.

With that in mind, I was impressed with yesterday’s Obama’s speech at DePaul, on both substantive and stylistic grounds. The main policy headline from the remarks emphasized nuclear proliferation, but I was also struck by the senator’s comments about the media and the DC establishment.

“[T]he conventional thinking today is just as entrenched as it was in 2002. This is the conventional thinking that measures experience only by the years you’ve been in Washington, not by your time spent serving in the wider world.

“This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war, but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place — the outdated assumptions and the refusal to talk openly to the American people.

“Well I’m not running for President to conform to Washington’s conventional thinking — I’m running to challenge it. I’m not running to join the kind of Washington groupthink that led us to war in Iraq – I’m running to change our politics and our policy so we can leave the world a better place than our generation has found it. […]

“I want to be straight with you. If you want conventional Washington thinking, I’m not your man. If you want rigid ideology, I’m not your man. If you think that fundamental change can wait, I’m definitely not your man. But if you want to bring this country together, if you want experience that’s broader than just learning the ways of Washington, if you think that the global challenges we face are too urgent to wait, and if you think that America must offer the world a new and hopeful face, then I offer a different choice in this race and a different vision for our future.”

He used the word “conventional” eight times in the speech, all of them in the context of criticism.

More here:

talkingpointsmemo.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)10/16/2007 5:15:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362352
 
Obama's field offices laying groundwork in Iowa

swamppolitics.com

by Mike Dorning

DES MOINES - In the squat former ice rink that houses Sen. Barack Obama's Iowa headquarters, progress is measured in ones and twos.

It's an old-fashioned counting system redolent of yesteryear's precinct walks that rates voters based on personal contact, usually face-to-face meetings or one-on-one conversations over the telephone.

The "ones" are the candidate's strongest supporters -- by Iowa tradition, those who have signed cards pledging to show up on caucus night and back the candidate. The "twos" are supporters who have declared their backing less formally.

Count correctly. Keep adding. If the number rises high enough, the outcome is victory.

That is, if the same army of campaign workers and volunteers that has called, coaxed and cajoled for months also can get those supporters to turn out on a bitter-cold January evening at 1,784 precincts across the state. And if those supporters will stay in place for two hours, standing their ground in front of friends, neighbors and business acquaintances.

More than any other political contest, the idiosyncratic Iowa presidential caucuses require an exceptional organization on the ground.

While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) leads in national polls -- recently she has pulled ahead in Iowa too -- her two main rivals have established deep-rooted field operations here, with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina building on a network of supporters that goes back to his second-place finish in the 2004 caucuses.

See the rest of the report in today's Tribune:

Obama, in particular, has invested heavily in a ground campaign in Iowa and other early voting states.

The senator from Illinois has opened 31 field offices across the state, more than any other candidate, establishing local headquarters everywhere from Des Moines to tiny Elkader, population 1,374. Recent campaign filings showed Obama outspending Clinton in Iowa by 20 percent, and by larger margins in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

In an organizational feat that required busing in people from across the state, the Obama campaign says it drew 3,000 supporters to rally at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry last month, an event that traditionally serves as the informal kickoff to the race here. And while the campaign would not disclose the size of its paid staff in Iowa, Democratic activists unaffiliated with any candidate said it is clear Obama has by far the most employees in the state.

Campaign officials say Obama's emphasis on ground organization reflects the nature of a campaign that styles itself a popular movement and the preferences of a man whose early career was spent as a street-level community organizer.

The campaign's success in fundraising -- particularly raising money early in the year, when there was plenty of time to negotiate office leases and build a field staff -- has provided the resources. Though Clinton's fundraising surpassed Obama's in the third quarter of this year, the Obama campaign still has raised the most money overall for the primary campaign, $75million as of Sept. 30.

But aides said Obama's intensive ground operation also fits the strategy of trying to leverage the enthusiasm he has generated among his core supporters. With Obama's appeal to independents, he also could benefit from expanding the universe of caucus and primary voters beyond the most partisan Democrats. The campaign would especially like to increase participation among historically low-turnout young and minority voters, from whom Obama enjoys strong support.

In Iowa, where anyone who will be 18 by the November 2008 election is eligible for the caucuses, the campaign has set up "Barack Stars" chapters at high schools around the state. The campaign is collecting cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses of supporters in colleges so they can be reached during the run-up to caucus night, which is likely to come while colleges still are on holiday break.

Any scenario for Obama winning the Democratic nomination depends heavily on his performance in Iowa. Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, recently said that unless he wins Iowa, the White House bid is no more than "a dream." And even campaign advisers wary of setting high expectations acknowledge Obama must at least "come close" in Iowa.

Iowa is where the campaign phenomenon of 2004, Howard Dean and the Internet-based movement of orange-hatted "Deaniacs" who flooded into the state during the weeks before the caucuses, collapsed in spectacular defeat. The organizational shortcomings that contributed to Dean's loss have served as a lesson in what not to do for the Obama campaign.

"There's been a lot of talk of Barack Obama campaigning as a movement, but it's also a very organized effort," said Mitch Stewart, Obama's Iowa caucus director.

Every morning, Stewart, a lanky, 6-foot-4 South Dakota native, pores over an Excel spreadsheet on his laptop computer, scrolling through daily updates. How many supporters has the campaign identified? How many voters contacted? How many precinct captains recruited? How many trained for caucus night?

The numbers are tabulated county by county, precinct by precinct, field organizer by field organizer, set against goals for each.

"If, for whatever reason, one organizer is struggling, we can get someone in there to help," Stewart explained.

On a recent evening at the campaign's Des Moines headquarters, about 50 people gathered in a corner for a training session for caucus precinct captains. A campaign staffer diagramed the layout of a typical caucus room, using a blue marker to draw circles and X's on white butcher paper.

In the Iowa caucuses, which have none of the electioneering restrictions common to polling places, tricks of the trade include positioning friendly greeters at the front of the room to slap stickers on supporters and guide them to the corner owhere the candidate's followers will be counted; distributing baked treats to keep them there; and deploying "corralers" at the edge of the camp to dissuade waverers from wandering.

At Obama headquarters recently, volunteers and paid campaign staffers worked phone banks set up on folding tables.

Laptop computers displayed information on voters as they were called. For Obama supporters, screens often showed 10 or more lines, each indicating a separate attempt to reach them. Each time a campaign worker speaks to a voter, he or she is supposed to enter a fresh reading of the voter's inclinations.

Among the mistakes of the Dean campaign that Obama's is determined not to repeat is an unrealistic count of supporters. The Obama camp's policy is to try to check in with each supporter once every three weeks.

And that's not the only way the campaign is testing its operation. It is planning to host precinct-level house parties for supporters across the state, all on the same evening, a month before the caucuses -- essentially a dry run for the big night.

Posted by Mark Silva on October 16, 2007 7:00 AM |



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)11/8/2007 10:03:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
A Q&A with Barack Obama

msnbc.msn.com

On Hillary: 'I can bring this country together in a way that she can't'

By Linda Douglass
National Journal
updated 3:08 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 8, 2007

National Journal's Linda Douglass sat down with Sen. Barack Obama. This is a transcript of their conversation.

Q: So, welcome to Senator Barack Obama. Welcome to "National Journal On Air." Let me start right away by asking you about the contrasts that you are drawing between yourself and Hillary Clinton. Her campaign people, the people who support her, say by calling her somebody whose word can't be trusted, by suggesting that she's disingenuous, that that's really a character attack -- that that's the very thing that you said you weren't going to do in this campaign.

Obama: Well, I strongly disagree. Look we are offering our plans for the future on health care, on education, on energy, and the American people have a right to judge how clear and how consistent have the candidates been in their positions. Because if they're not clear and consistent, then it's pretty hard to gage how much they're going to fight on these issues. You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her. And that's the kind of leadership I think that the Democratic Party has to offer in the years to come.

Q: But do you think that voters should be concerned about whether she's telling the truth?

Obama: I think that the voters should be concerned that she is running the textbook, classic Washington campaign, which is to avoid giving clear answers and getting pinned down, for fear that somehow you're going to be tagged, either in the primary or the general election. I think that's an old way of doing business. I think that's the kind of politics that has lead to gridlock and an ineffective Washington. That's the kind of politics I want to change.

Q: Former President Clinton was comparing some of the criticism of her to the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry, to the ads that were run against the disabled Senator Max Cleland. How did you react to that?

Obama: You know, it was hard to take such a claim seriously. I mean, he was specifically referring to a situation in the debate where Senator Clinton offered an answer on immigration, a perfectly legitimate question. Senator Dodd in very civil tones said, "I respectfully disagree." Senator Clinton then appeared to contradict her own answer, and the notion that somehow that is the equivalent of Swift-Boating, I think is either an indication of some very thin skin or just an attempt to play politics.

Q: You know, some people say the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win. Do you think that's true?

Obama: Oh, you know, I think that they have been around this track a number of times before. I think they are tough competitors. I respect that. Look, we're running for the presidency of the United States of America, and there's going to be some rough-and-tumble involved in this primary. But I have not seen anything said during the course of this campaign, including statements that have been directed against me, that I think are in any way out of bounds or not appropriate questions for voters to be asking.

Q: You know, John Edwards is starting to draw very strong, clear contrasts between himself and you. Are you going to start drawing clearer, sharper contrasts between yourself and him?

Obama: Well, you know, I'm not sure that I've seen those contrasts drawn. I know that today in the New York Times he suggested that somehow he would be tougher with the corporate lobbyists that he's decried, and as I pointed out pretty clearly when I read that statement, he had six years to work on those issues in the United States Senate and did nothing about them. I've got a track record of having done something about them, and passed substantial legislation that curbs their influence. So, I don't just talk the talk, I've walked the walk -- something that John, I don't think, can claim. And I'm happy to have that debate with him.

Q: He's said that he's going to get all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of his first year in office and is challenging the rest of you to say what you're going to do. Would you do that? Would you get all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of the first year?

Obama: You know, John on this one I actually think has been either misinformed or isn't being entirely straight. I am committed to getting all of our combat troops out by 16 months. So he can say first year. I've said 16 months based on what the generals and commanders tell me can be done. And we are going to have still, I believe, the need to have some forces that are available to go after terrorist bases should they emerge in Iraq. Now if he doesn't think that's an important function, then I'm happy to have that debate. But be perfectly clear, I will bring this war to an end as quickly as can be done with the safety of the troops in mind, and my belief is that we can get that done in 16 months.

Q: What do you think is going to have to happen to change the dynamic in this race?

Obama: It's changed.

Q: How so?

Obama: Well, I think that over the last two weeks what you've seen is that there are some very clear differences between the candidates emerging. I think that voters here in the early states like Iowa are paying very close attention. We're in a dead heat, and we expect to do very well here. And I promise you after we've emerged from Iowa with some considerable success that that will further accelerate a changed view on the part of the national press about where this race is going.

Q: And finally, you said some very interesting things to the crowd here in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, tonight. In answer to the question why you rather than Hillary, what is that argument?

Obama: I believe I can bring this country together in a way that she can't. I think that half the country has a set view of her, and if we can't get that half of the country engaged and involved in solving problems, they're not going to be solved.

I have a track record of changing how business is done in Washington and pushing against special interests -- something that she's shown no interest in doing. And I believe that I've got a track record of being clear and consistent with the American people about how I would approach problems that she has avoided. And that sort of truth-telling, I think, is going to be important for the next president of the United States.

I also believe that I can be a more effective agent of change in the diplomatic sphere in repairing the damage that's been done by George Bush, partly because I haven't fallen in to some of the conventional thinking that Senator Clinton did, which led her to authorize the war in Iraq and to at least give George Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to his approach on Iran.

Q: But you also mentioned you might change the image of the United States in the world in the talk that you gave tonight.

Obama: Well, and I believe that's true. I think that the day I'm inaugurated, the world will look at America differently. America will look at itself differently. And that's more than just symbolic, that is political capital that can be used to make America safer, and to restore its standing in the world.

Q: Thank you, Senator Obama.

Obama: You're welcome.

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/13/2008 9:55:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Clinton's Experience Debate

time.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/14/2008 3:29:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Helping to Elect Other Democrats Has Never Been a Clinton Strong Suit

huffingtonpost.com

By Robert Creamer*

Posted March 13, 2008 | 06:20 PM (EST)

In the end, the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is about whether Democrats want to go back to the nineties, or forward into the future.

For Democrats interested in building a strong, progressive party throughout America, it's useful to remember what the 1990's were like.

When Bill Clinton entered office in 1992, Democrats held a one-hundred-vote majority in the House of Representatives, 267 to 167. After his first two years, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time since 1954, and did not regain a majority until 2006 -- long after he'd left office.

In 1992, Democrats also had control of the Senate, but lost control in 1994 and did not regain it throughout the Clinton term.

When the Clintons entered the White House, Democrats controlled both legislative bodies in 29 states. The parties had split control in 14 states, and Republicans controlled both chambers in only six states. Democratic control gradually eroded throughout the 1990's. By 1998, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 21 states. Republicans had gained control of both houses in 17 states, and 11 had one chamber controlled by each party.

Just as telling, at the beginning of Clinton's term only 40% of state legislative seats were held by Republicans. By the time he left office over 50% were held by Republicans. The GOP picked up a whopping 472 legislative seats across the country in 1994 alone.

Let's recall that while the Democratic Party across the country atrophied, Clinton himself won re-election in 1996 by an Electoral College vote of 379 to 159. In the popular vote, he beat Bob Dole by almost nine percentage points.

What accounted for the precipitous decline in the fortunes of other Democratic office holders during the Clinton years?

Four factors are particularly relevant as Democrats evaluate whether they should send the Clintons back to the White House.

1) The failure of Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare initiative was a disaster for down-ballot Democrats. Of course the Clintons should be commended for having tried to create a universal health care system. But the way they went about it doomed it from the start. Their proposal was a Rube Goldberg contraption meant to allow the insurance industry to "buy-in" to the deal. But the insurance types didn't really want government-sponsored universal health care in the first place. So after they had gotten all they could in the way of concessions, they savaged the proposal with their famous "Harry and Louise" nationwide media campaign. To win on an issue as big as universal health care, the President needed to mobilize average Americans to demand that their Member of Congress deliver on health care reform or face the prospect of not being sent back to Washington. There was no nationwide mobilization, and the Clinton universal healthcare proposal collapsed.

2) After the failure of universal health care and the Democratic loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, the Clintons decided on a new strategy of triangulation. Instead of creating one, unified Democratic team, the Clintons positioned themselves as a third force in dealing with Capitol Hill. They calculated that this was their best bet to get something (although generally small things) out of a Republican Congress. But that hurt other Democrats in three big ways:

• First, it set many Congressional Democrats politically adrift.

• Second, it led to the tacit acceptance that the dominant conservative value frame defined the political center. Instead of taking on the Republicans with respect to big issues, and drawing sharp distinctions between progressive and conservative values, conservative values simply went unchallenged. Conservative assumptions about the economy and the role of government were allowed to become the de facto benchmarks against which political positions were measured. The result was that Democrats spent years in a defensive crouch. When you're on the defensive, you're losing.

• Third, triangulation required that the Administration restrict itself to making small, tinkering proposals to Congress (the State Children's Health Care Plan was the only notable exception). The only big ideas for fundamentally changing the country came from the conservatives.

3) The Lewinsky scandal cost down-ballot Democrats big time, particularly in swing rural areas. It sapped the party's political energy and put the Administration on the defensive for a good portion of its second term. Once again, when you're on the defensive, you're losing.

4) Finally, there was indeed a massive right-wing conspiracy to attack and vilify the Clintons. The Conservative Movement and its various organs did an effective job at raising the negatives of both Bill and Hillary. In fact, in many ways Hillary got the worst of it. Bill's personable, "I may be a rascal, but I'm likable" persona defused some of the right's withering assault. Hillary's cooler personality did not. As a result, down-ballot Democrats were forced to run with the heavy burden of big Clinton negatives.

There are a lot of Members of Congress from swing districts and other super delegates who don't want to go "back to the future." They saw what happened to down-ballot Democrats with the Clintons in the White House once. They don't want to try it again.

One such Member of Congress told me the other night that whether it was fair or not, Hillary Clinton was like "acid rain" in his district. He said he'd have a hard time getting his own mother to support her -- that Hillary would weigh on his chances for re-election like an albatross around the neck.

If we want to build strong, progressive, Democratic majorities in Congress and in state legislatures -- if we want to pass legislation that fundamentally improves people's lives -- then we need to heed the words of another swing district Democrat. He told me that while Bill and Hillary Clinton may have been the bridge to the 21st Century, Barack Obama is the 21st Century. He says we can't risk going back to the 1990's, we have to go forward, to the future.

*Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/14/2008 10:08:13 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
The latest Clinton Keystone spin

dickpolman.blogspot.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/14/2008 8:38:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
The Irrelevance of Obama's Minister

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

By M.J. Rosenberg - March 14, 2008, 8:44AM

Here's a surprise. Just as the superdelegates are breaking for Obama, we suddenly are seeing videos of his minister, Jeremiah Wright, saying all kinds of ugly things.

So the same people who are telling us that Obama is a Muslim and controlled by Islamic law are saying that he's a serious Protestant, controlled by his minister. Come on kids, decide on a story line.

Funny we have never heard about any previous candidate's minister. Billy Graham was spiritual adviser to Ike, Nixon, Johnson, the Bushes and Clinton but nobody pointed out that he was an anti-semite (although his anti-semitism is well documented in the Nixon tapes). And rightly so.

But with Obama, for some reason, it's different.

What a crock.

I've been a member of a conservative Jewish congregation for 25 years. I love the rabbi but not his sermons on Israel and the Palestinians. He is a total Israel hawk. To put it mildly, I am not. I am all about the two-state solution (the so-called Clinton plan).

Even worse, the congregation has become the favorite of Washington's neocons including the worst warmonger of all: Douglas Feith. The idea of communing with God together with a thug like Feith is sickening to me. Then there is Charles Krauthammer who, in 2001, disrupted Yom Kippur services by bellowing at the rabbi for expressing, in the most general terms, the desire for Middle East peace. The worst moment I've ever had at my congregation was when a visiting rabbi from Europe (he comes every year for the High Holy Days) devoted an entire sermon to the value of hate. "To everything there is a season. This is a season for hate." He was talking about the Palestinians. I almost puked.

And yet I am a member of this congregation and will remain one. Why? As I said, I like the rabbi (the regular one, not the annual visitor) despite disagreeing strongly with many of his views. More important, this is the congregation that my kids grew up in. This is where their Bar Mitzvahs took place. The people there (not the war criminals though) are kind of like family. It's home. Probably how Obama feels about his church.

The bottom line is that I am not discredited as a strong supporter of a Palestinian state and the end of the occupation because my rabbi has a different view. Pro-peace Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs do not refuse to work with me because I go to the "neocon" synagogue. My writings on Israel/Palestine are not disregarded because my rabbi is a Likud guy.

Of course, not. My rabbi's views are his views. He is my spiritual adviser not my political adviser.

In 2000, when Joe Lieberman ran, do you recall articles about the political views of his rabbi? I don't know who his rabbi is (that tells you something) but Orthodox rabbis are invariably very conservative on the same issues on which Democrats are very liberal. They also tend to feel strongly that Jews and non-Jews should not marry each other or even date each other. Some Orthodox rabbis will tell you that dietary laws prevent Jews and non-Jews from even having a meal together except in a kosher locale.

So what. That's religion. Lieberman's politics (not his moderately liberal politics then or his conservative politics now) has nothing to do with his rabbi. Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-feminist, all the things Orthodox rabbis tend not to be. There is a good chance Joe's rabbi is against the Iraq war (75% of Jews are) but Joe sure isn't. But, as I said, Joe's rabbi, whoever he is, was never an issue. Obama's is. Why is that?

The last time a candidate's religion was an issue was Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960. Kennedy's priest, Joseph Cardinal Cushing, was a pretty old school Catholic with all the old school Catholic political views.
Did that discredit Kennedy as a candidate?

Sadly, it did with alot of people. Bigots across the land cited his church as a reason not to vote for him, cited Cushing and the Pope as scary political influences on a JFK Presidency, howled about what Kennedy's faith indicated about the kind of leader he would be.

But that was 48 years ago and, today, we call the people who used Kennedy's religion against him ignorant bigots. Now we call them political strategists.



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/15/2008 7:34:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Democrats swing for Pennsylvania suburbs
______________________________________________________________

By Thomas Fitzgerald

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

To find Sen. Barack Obama's strategic road map for the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, just pick up a copy of Rand McNally and trace the Blue Route from the southern fringes of Philadelphia and up the Northeast Extension to Allentown.

The highways roughly form the western border of an eight-county region filled with the kinds of voters who have made Pennsylvania a swing state in general elections and who have formed the demographic backbone of Obama's 29 primary and caucus victories.

Large numbers of African Americans, college students, and the upscale, educated voters some pollsters call "Starbucks Democrats" live in the city, its suburbs, and the Lehigh Valley.

Even so, the state has heavy concentrations of blocs that have supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in previous contests: senior citizens, white working-class Democrats, and Catholics. As a result, she is considered the prohibitive favorite statewide.

But Pennsylvania pollsters G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young wrote an analysis of the race Friday arguing that Obama could take the state or at least come close enough to diminish a Clinton win by cranking up voter turnout in the Philadelphia region.

"Currently he leads in Philly and will likely win the city decisively, making the suburbs a major battleground," they wrote. "The Democratic voters there largely mirror the upscale, affluent voters Obama has been attracting nationally: They are the most liberal in the state, strongly oppose the Iraq war, and have a low regard for President Bush."

But analysts point out that the region is not a lock for Obama, who faces some potentially significant hurdles.

First, Gov. Rendell and Mayor Nutter, along with other members of the Democratic establishment, are backing Clinton. "I don't concede an inch," said Nutter, who is bucking Obama's overwhelming popularity among his fellow African Americans. Though Obama is expected to carry the city, this support could keep down his margin of victory.

There also is a strong residual affection for the Clintons in both the city and the suburbs. President Bill Clinton delivered federal aid for Philadelphia, visited the region often, and was on the ballot twice, becoming the first Democratic nominee to carry the suburban counties since Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 landslide.

Finally, both Philadelphia and the suburbs have pockets of voters that have been in the Clinton camp in other states.

"The white working-class people in the river wards and the Lower Northeast are the people who have been voting for Clinton," said Democratic media strategist Neil Oxman, who is not working for either candidate. "Delaware County has a lot of blue-collar voters along MacDade Boulevard and the Baltimore Pike," Oxman said, and in Montgomery, "Lower Merion isn't Pottstown."

In some ways, analysts say, Obama needs to duplicate Rendell's formula from the 2002 gubernatorial primary when he faced Bob Casey Jr., now the state's junior U.S. senator.

Rendell won only 10 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, but he captured the nomination because his home region gave him a 275,000-vote margin to overcome Casey's strength elsewhere. Rendell's campaign registered Republicans (dubbed Rendellicans) and independents in the suburbs, whipping up enthusiasm for the candidate who was a nightly subject on the TV news for years.

The eight counties of the Philadelphia media market, defined as those within reach of the city's broadcast TV stations, generated a record 45.2 percent of the total Democratic vote. Turnout in the Pittsburgh market, where Casey was strong, was lower than usual. Political strategists often use the Nielsen media markets, designated to guide the sale of advertising, as reference points.

Obama's field operation in the state is racing against a March 24 registration deadline to persuade independents and Republicans to switch their affiliation to Democratic so they can participate in the closed primary; the campaign also is seeking to register eligible voters not yet enrolled. They aim to increase the pool of potential support.

"One way we can attempt to overcome Sen. Clinton's institutional advantages is to bring new voters to the table," said Sean Smith, the Obama campaign spokesman for Pennsylvania. Southeastern Pennsylvania is a major focus, Smith said, because "it's where the most votes are."

Clinton's campaign registers voters as part of its outreach but has no similar program aimed at independents and Republicans. She has performed better in primaries limited to registered Democrats.

Pennsylvania Democrats have added more than 65,000 voters between last November and March 4, while the GOP gained 3,212, according to the Department of State. In February alone, the number of party-change applications was 250 percent higher than it was in February 2007.

It is not clear whom these new Democrats might support, or whether the surge is due to an organized effort or the generally high interest in the campaign.

"The Obama campaign has made it clear they expect to dominate the Philadelphia region, but we're going to make them earn every vote they get and fight for our share," said Clinton spokesman Mark Nevins. "We don't concede any part of the state."

For at least the last 20 years, the traditionally Republican Philadelphia suburbs have tended to support Democrats in statewide elections, and the gap in party registration has narrowed. Those developments have helped make Pennsylvania a swing state in general elections.

Now, the region is poised to play a similar role in the Democratic nomination process - a battleground on which Clinton and Obama struggle for demographic slices of the electorate.

"It should be an Obama stronghold. The question is: Can he get those people who are his natural constituents excited and motivated?" said Berwood Yost, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.

philly.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/16/2008 3:30:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Barack Obama on Registering to Vote in PA

youtube.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/20/2008 2:37:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
He Shoots, He Scores! Obama on Sports Radio WIP

dailykos.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/28/2008 9:30:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Pennsylvania's Bob Casey Will Endorse Obama, Tour With Campaign

By Kim Chipman

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey will endorse presidential candidate Barack Obama today and join his tour of that primary battleground state, a campaign spokesman said.

Casey, a Democrat, will announce his support for Illinois Senator Obama at a rally in Pittsburgh and join him for a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said in an e-mail.

The endorsement gives Obama an important ally in his effort to win over Pennsylvania voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary. Clinton, who is now favored to win, has the support of high-level state officials including Governor Ed Rendell, Representative John Murtha and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

Casey, a so-called superdelegate, had vowed to remain neutral ahead of the primary, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. His endorsement could help Obama with so-called ``Casey Democrats,'' white, blue collar voters who identify with the senator and his late father, a former governor, and are liberal on economic issues but oppose abortion and support gun rights, the newspaper said.

Some of the state's other superdelegates -- elected officials who get an automatic vote on the party presidential nomination regardless of the primary's outcome -- are remaining on the sidelines as they determine whether Obama might prove a stronger draw in November.

While New York Senator Clinton is leading in Pennsylvania polls, some undecided superdelegates say they are concerned that her nomination would motivate greater numbers of Republicans to turn out in November to vote against her.

Casey's endorsement brings to 12 the number of U.S. senators backing Obama, compared with 13 for Clinton.

Clinton plans to spend today campaigning in Indiana, which holds its primary on May 6 along with North Carolina. She's on the second day of a tour focused on economic issues

To contact the reporter on this story: Kim Chipman in Washington at kchipman@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 28, 2008 08:19 EDT



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)3/30/2008 11:36:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Obama introduces himself to blue-collar Pennsylvania

blog.pennlive.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/4/2008 2:32:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
The Key for Obama in PA

blogs.tnr.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/5/2008 2:46:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362352
 
Hillary's Cash Crunch?

blogs.tnr.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/10/2008 11:56:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
No endorsement, but Powell praises Obama's handling of Rev. Wright controversy

blogs.usatoday.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/19/2008 10:58:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362352
 
Shoddy! Tawdry! A Televised Train Wreck!
______________________________________________________________

By FRANK RICH
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
April 20, 2008

“The crowd is turning on me,” said Charles Gibson, the ABC anchor, when the audience jeered him in the final moments of Wednesday night’s face-off between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I can’t remember a debate in which the only memorable moment was the audience’s heckling of a moderator. Then again, I can’t remember a debate that became such an instant national gag, earning reviews more appropriate to a slasher movie like “Prom Night” than a civic event held in Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center:

“Shoddy, despicable!” — The Washington Post

“A tawdry affair!” — The Boston Globe

“A televised train wreck!” — The Philadelphia Daily News

And those were the polite ones. Let’s not even go to the blogosphere.

Of course, Obama fans were angry because of the barrage of McCarthyesque guilt-by-association charges against their candidate, portraying him as a fellow traveler of bomb-throwing, America-hating, flag-denigrating terrorists. The debate’s co-moderator, George Stephanopoulos, second to no journalist in his firsthand knowledge of the Clinton White House, could have easily rectified the imbalance. All he had to do was draw on his expertise to ask similar questions about Bill Clinton’s check-bearing business and foundation associates circling a potential new Clinton administration. He did not.

But viewers of all political persuasions were affronted by the moderators’ failure to ask about the mortgage crisis, health care, the environment, torture, education, China policy, the pending G.I. bill to aid veterans, or the war we’re losing in Afghanistan. Those minutes were devoted not just to recycling the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bosnian sniper fire and another lame question about a possible “dream ticket” but to the unseemly number of intrusive commercials and network promos that prompted the jeering at the end. The trashiest ads often bumped directly into an ABC announcer’s periodic recitations of quotations from the Constitution. Such defacing of American values is to be expected, I guess, from a network whose debate moderators refuse to wear flag pins.

Ludicrous as the whole spectacle was, ABC would not have been so widely pilloried had it not tapped into a larger national discontent with news media fatuousness. The debate didn’t happen in a vacuum; it was the culmination of the orgy of press hysteria over Mr. Obama’s remarks about “bitter” small-town voters. For nearly a week, you couldn’t change channels without hearing how Mr. Obama had destroyed his campaign with this single slip at a San Francisco fund-raiser. By Wednesday night, the public was overdosing.

Mr. Obama did sound condescending, an unappealing trait that was even more naked in his “You’re likable enough, Hillary” gibe many debates ago. But the overreaction to this latest gaffe backfired on the media more than it damaged him. For all the racket about “Bittergate” — and breathless intimations of imminent poll swings and superdelegate stampedes — the earth did not move. The polls hardly budged, and superdelegates continued to migrate mainly in Mr. Obama’s direction.

Thus did another overhyped 2008 story line go embarrassingly bust, like such predecessors as the death of the John McCain campaign and the organizational and financial invincibility of the Clinton political machine against a rookie senator from Illinois. Not the least of the reasons that the Beltway has gotten so much wrong this year is that it believes that 2008 is still 1988. It sees the country in its own image — static — instead of as a dynamic society whose culture and demographics are changing by the day.

In this one-size-fits-all analysis, Mr. Obama must be the new Dukakis, sure to be rejected by white guys easily manipulated by Lee Atwater-style campaigns exploiting race and class. But some voters who lived through 1988 have changed, and quite a few others are dead. In 2008, they are supplanted in part by an energized African-American electorate and the young voters of all economic strata who fueled the Obama movement that many pundits didn’t take seriously before Iowa. And that some still don’t. Cokie Roberts of ABC predicted in February that young voters probably won’t show up in November because “they never have before” and “they’ll be tired.”

However out of touch Mr. Obama is with “ordinary Americans,” many Americans, ordinary and not, have concluded that the talking heads blathering about blue-collar men, religion, guns and those incomprehensible “YouTube young people” are even more condescending and out of touch. When a Washington doyenne like Mary Matalin, freighted with jewelry, starts railing about elitists on “Meet the Press,” as she did last Sunday, it’s pure farce. It’s typical of the syndrome that the man who plays a raging populist on CNN, Lou Dobbs, dismissed Mr. Obama last week by saying “we don’t need another Ivy League-educated knucklehead.” Mr. Dobbs must know whereof he speaks, since he’s Harvard ’67.

The most revealing moment in Wednesday’s debate was a striking example of this media-populace disconnect. In Mr. Gibson’s only passionate query of the night, he tried to strong-arm both Democrats into forgoing any increases in the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax! That’s just the priority Americans are focusing on as they lose their houses and jobs, and as gas prices reach $4 a gallon (a subject that merited only a brief mention, in a lightning round of final questions). And this in a debate that took place on the same day we learned that the top 50 hedge fund managers made a total of $29 billion in 2007, some of them by betting against the mortgage market.

At least Mr. Gibson is consistent. In the ABC debate in January, he upbraided Mrs. Clinton by suggesting that a typical New Hampshire “family of two professors” with a joint income “in the $200,000 category” would be unjustly penalized by her plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. He seemed oblivious not merely to typical academic salaries but to the fact that his hypothetical household would be among America’s wealthiest (only 3.4 percent earn more).

Next to such knuckleheaded obtuseness, Mr. Obama’s pratfall may strike many voters as a misdemeanor. He was probably rescued as well by the typical Clinton campaign overkill that followed his mistake. Not content merely to piously feign shock about Mr. Obama’s San Francisco soliloquy (and the operative political buzzword here is San Francisco, which stands for you-know-what), Mrs. Clinton couldn’t resist presenting herself as an unambiguously macho, beer-swilling hunting enthusiast. This is as condescending as it gets, topping even Mitt Romney’s last-ditch effort to repackage himself to laid-off union workers as the love child of Joe Hill and Norma Rae.

The video of Mrs. Clinton knocking back drinks in an Indiana bar drowned out the scratchy audio of Mr. Obama’s wispy words in San Francisco. Her campaign didn’t seem to recognize that among the many consequences of the Bush backlash is a revulsion against such play acting. Americans belatedly learned the hard way that the brush-clearing cowboy of the Crawford “ranch” (it’s a country house, not a working ranch) was in reality an entitled Andover-Yale-Harvard oil brat whose arrogance has left us where we are now. Voters don’t want a rerun from a Wellesley-Yale alumna who served on the board of Wal-Mart.

Privileged though they are, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do want to shape policy to help the less well-heeled. Mr. McCain, who had a far more elite upbringing than either of them and whose wife’s estimated fortune exceeds the Clintons’, is not just condescending to working Americans but trying to hoodwink them. Next week, in a replay of the 2000 Bush campaign’s “compassionate conservative” photo ops among black schoolchildren, he will show he’s a “different kind of Republican” by visiting what he calls the “forgotten” America of Alabama’s “black belt” and the old steel town of Youngstown, Ohio. What he wants voters to forget is the inequity of his new economic plan.

That plan’s incoherent smorgasbord of items includes a cut from 35 percent to 25 percent in the corporate tax rate. For noncorporate taxpayers, Mr. McCain offers such thin gruel as a battle against federal pork (the notorious Alaskan “bridge to nowhere,” earmarked for $223 million in federal highway money, costs less than a day of the war in Iraq) and a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax (a saving of some $2.75 per 15-gallon tank). Now there’s a reason for voters to be bitter — assuming bloviators start publicizing and parsing Mr. McCain’s words as relentlessly as they do the Democrats’.

That may be a big assumption. At an Associated Press luncheon for newspaper editors in Washington last week, Mr. McCain was given a standing ovation. (The other candidate who appeared, Mr. Obama, was not.) Cindy McCain, whose tax returns remain under wraps, has not received remotely the same scrutiny as Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, except for her plagiarized recipes. The most damning proof of the press’s tilt toward Mr. McCain, though, is the lack of clamor for his complete health records, especially in the wake of his baffling serial factual confusions about Iraq, his No. 1 issue.

But that remains on hold while we resolve whether Mr. Obama lost Wednesday’s debate with his defensive stumbling, or whether Mrs. Clinton lost it with her ceaseless parroting of right-wing attacks. The unequivocally good news is that ABC’s debacle had the largest audience of any debate in this campaign. That’s a lot of viewers who are now mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/21/2008 10:42:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362352
 
BREAKING: Obama +3

dailykos.com

Public Policy Polling, the most accurate pollster this election cycle, has released their final Pennsylvania poll: they are projecting (drum roll):

Obama 49

Clinton 46



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/22/2008 8:47:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362352
 
First substantial PA exit poll: Barack rocking!!

dailykos.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/23/2008 9:29:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362352
 
PA chose Clinton, knowing she'd lose the nomination

dailykos.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/24/2008 1:59:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
siliconinvestor.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/25/2008 3:09:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
OBAMA: THE GOP’S ASSAULT

firstread.msnbc.msn.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/25/2008 3:50:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Kos found that Obama improved in central PA where it's heavily Republican..

dailykos.com



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)4/25/2008 10:37:49 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Divinely Wright

sfgate.com

Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun his mini-tour, climaxing Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, to promote himself and, apparently, to personally destroy the candidacy of his one-time parishioner.

Clips of a PBS television interview with Bill Moyers to be aired tonight have begun their endless cycling through various cable outlets. In them Wright dismisses Obama as a mere politician, and his Philadelphia speech on America's racial divide as a mere political hackery.

"He's a politician, I'm a pastor," Wright said. "We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician....He had to respond to the soundbites. He responded as a politician." Thanks, Rev.

Oh, but there's more: "He had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God." Like the divine retribution of 9/11 on the people of New York, perhaps, along with Wright's other sundry and famous eruditions.

Timing his self-aggrandizing tour just in time for the next ostensibly decisive primary in Indiana May 6, the Divine Wright clearly ought to be touring a dark cave somewhere in southern Patagonia at least until Nov. 5 if he is any friend of Obama's, which clearly he is not.

Obama responded to the latest outburst saying, "He is free to express his opinions on these issues. I've expressed mine very clearly," and explaining again that he found Wright's earlier comments "objectionable."

Posted By: Carolyn Lochhead (Email) | April 25 2008 at 12:52 PM



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)5/31/2008 10:29:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362352
 
Democrats Settle Obama, Clinton Dispute on Delegates (Update1)

By Brian Faler and Edwin Chen

May 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic Party reached a compromise over how to count disputed delegates in Florida and Michigan, in a bid to resolve a months-long quarrel that has helped prolong the presidential-nomination race.

A party committee voted to seat delegations from the two states at the August nominating convention, though with only a half-vote for each delegate. The deal, reached after a sometimes raucous daylong meeting, gives Hillary Clinton a net gain of 24 delegates, a margin that's unlikely to stall Barack Obama's momentum toward getting the nomination.

While Clinton's backers say they were satisfied with the Florida accord, they raised the prospect of a floor fight at the convention over the way the Michigan dispute was resolved, saying Obama had been awarded too many delegates.

Harold Ickes, a Clinton adviser, said he ``strongly'' objects to the Michigan plan, saying it would cost her four delegates. He said Clinton reserved the right to appeal the decision to another committee, a warning that was met with both cheers and catcalls from activists at the meeting.

``Hijacking four delegates, notwithstanding the flawed aspect of this, is not a good way to start down the path of party unity,'' Ickes told the panel in Washington.

Punished for Violation

The Michigan resolution was closer to the Obama campaign's demand that the delegates be evenly split between the two candidates. Clinton won both of the disputed primaries.

The party's rules and bylaws committee voted 27-0 to seat Florida's delegation and give Clinton 52.5 delegates; Obama would get 33.5. The panel voted 19-8 to similarly seat the Michigan delegation, giving Clinton 34.5 delegate votes and Obama 29.5. Superdelegates -- the lawmakers and party officials who get an automatic vote at the convention and who are likely to decide the nomination -- will also get only half votes.

Both states were punished for violating party rules and moving up the dates of their primaries.

Obama, 46, applauded today's solution.

He said Clinton, 60, would gain a ``substantial'' number of delegates and that ``many members of the Florida and Michigan delegations feel satisfied that the decision was fair.'' He won't try to dissuade the Clinton campaign from contesting the party's decision, he told reporters in Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he's campaigning. ``I trust they will do the right thing'' and ``will be motivated by an interest in bringing the party together.''

Rally Party

Democrats are counting on the compromise -- which came after several hours of private deliberations among panel members -- to help the party rally around a single candidate and avoid alienating voters in the two crucial states.

Either way, the accord solidifies Obama's lead in the delegate race. With the addition of the Michigan and Florida contingents, 2,118 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. Before today, Obama had 1,984.5 delegates and Clinton 1,784.5, according to a tally of pledged delegates and campaign lists of superdelegate endorsements.

Today's decision gives the Illinois senator an additional 33.5 votes in Florida and 29.5 in Michigan, giving him a total of 2047.5. Clinton, a New York senator, picked up 52.5 delegates in Florida and 34.5 in Michigan, bringing her total to 1,871.5.

Half-votes for each of the states' pledged superdelegates add at least 7.5 votes to Clinton's total and three to Obama's, bringing Obama within 67.5 delegates of securing the nomination. Only 86 pledged delegates remain to be awarded, with 55 at stake in tomorrow's Puerto Rico primary and another 31 total in the June 3 Montana and South Dakota primaries.

Favored in Puerto Rico

Clinton is favored to win Puerto Rico and Obama is favored in South Dakota and Montana. Given the Democrats' system of allocating delegates proportionately, Obama may be within 30 delegates of securing the nomination after the three primaries, with the possibility that some of the more than 180 remaining uncommitted superdelegates may back him in the next week.

The Democratic National Committee stripped all the delegates from Florida and Michigan last year for violating a schedule set out by the party, and Obama, Clinton and the other Democratic candidates agreed to abide by the penalty. None of the contenders campaigned in Michigan and Florida, and Obama, along with several other candidates, withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot.

Michigan Vote

Clinton won Michigan's contest with 55 percent of the vote; 40 percent cast ballots for ``uncommitted.'' Former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard, representing the Clinton campaign, urged the panel earlier today to allocate the state's delegates in accordance with those results. That would have given Clinton 73 delegates and Obama, 55.

As the nomination contest dragged on between Obama and Clinton, that decision took on more importance. Clinton, trailing Obama in delegates, had pushed to have all the pledged delegates from the states restored, a position at odds with party rules and opposed by Obama's campaign.

Clinton won Michigan's contest with 55 percent of the vote; 40 percent cast ballots for ``uncommitted.''

Some Clinton supporters say the committee's decision won't alter the dynamic of the race. ``Some sanction is required,'' Donald Fowler, a member of the rules committee and a Clinton backer from South Carolina, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television before the vote. ``It's hard to see at this point how there could be any wholesale shift one way or the other.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net; and Edwin Chen in Washington at echen32@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 31, 2008 21:32 EDT



To: cirrus who wrote (113526)6/22/2008 1:34:16 PM
From: Asymmetric  Respond to of 362352
 
Anybody heard from Cirrus lately?

- A.