-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/02/obama-wins-wisconsin-hawaii-10-in-a-row/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
We know Billary won't quit for anything, but will they tear the party apart doing it?
Obama is not only winning, he's winning by a wide margin. It is nearly to the point where Hillary Clinton cannot finish with more popular votes or delegates than Barack Obama. When that point is reached, Hillary Clinton owes it to the party and the country to stand aside for Barack Obama, the candidate who got the most votes, and the most delegates, from the most states.
God, I wish I had a clip because I would sure enough start a campaign to get his bigoted ass suspended for that.
Until today.
Within the context of Democratic Primary electorate, people hate this stuff. They dislike the media for their failures before the Iraq War, afterwards by cow towing to weapons of mass destraction, and during the swift boating of John Kerry. People like Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have zero credibility with the Democratic electorate.
When the media starts to play up the petty, an interesting thing happens. People think that great debates over the inane doesn't help them get health insurance, doesn't help them stop a foreclosure, doesn't help them send their child to college, doesn't help them keep their job from being shipped overseas. And they rebel against the candidate who is pushing the phony story (or at least perceived to be pushing the phony story).
Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin because her campaign allowed Obama to become a "no" vote on the modern mass media. Barack Obama lost New Hampshire because his campaign allowed Hillary Clinton to become a "no" vote on the mass media. The Clinton campaign--especially Howard Wolfson, who spent hours with reporters and bloggers shilling that the whole affair was really an "important" item--was far more culpable of spreading the inane than the Obama camp--hence Obama won Wisconsin by 18 or 19 percent and Hillary only won New Hampshire by 3%.
The Clintons still haven't learned the lesson of New Hampshire: the petty politics of yesterday doesn't work in 2008. Don't try to beat the Clintons at this game. Just sit back and watch this unfold. I compared it to a Nascar wreck earlier today--an apt comparison: they're both cringe inducing.
I just have one small request of Mr. Obama. Please, make sure your surrogates know their talking points!
Chris Matthews absolutely humiliated a State Senator from Texas who backs Obama. Chris asked him to name one legislative accomplishment by Obama and the Senator couldn't do it.
This obviously plays into the Clintons narrative of Obama being an empty suit (although sites like this one have debunked that theory over and over again - and Obama's doing a solid job of giving the people more specifics in his stump speeches). But you gotta study up on your material if you know you're going to be on tv.
Also, it interesting to note that Chris never asked the same question of Hillary's surrogate - name or list Senator Clinton's legislative accomplishments. She was allowed to recite Clintons stump speech - promises, not accomplishments.
Keith Olberman did a good job of answering Matthews after the interview - asking Chris to list ANY major legislative accomplishments made by Congress in the last few years. Chris couldn't do it, which kind of proved Olberman's point - it's hard to make a credible argument of "experience" when your Congress has a 12% approval rating and is constantly deadlocked. Which also leads to Obama's message that Democrats need a working majority to get things done.
Ask any average joe to list their candidate's legislative accomplishments and you'll likely draw a blank stare.
But still, this has been a great night so far. But he's the front runner now. He's got to close the deal - tie up some of the loose ends. Don't give the Clintons an inch. Obama can END this thing on March 4 if he plays his cards right!
I've been reading this blog daily for the past two months, and I absolutely love the conversations that take place here! Keep up the excellent work.
After watching John McCain's speech tonight and the Hillary's Campaign message over the past few days, they will be hitting Obama on points such as substance, and probably try to drive home the experience point. Lately, Obama has been mixing policy into his speeches, which weakens the attack that he doesn't offer much substance. As for experience, I think he needs to begin focusing on it in the next two debates. We, as his supporters, should also sure up on our knowledge about his experience in the State and U.S. Senates. Here’s a good website that speaks to his experience as a politician: http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obam... Texas State Senator's response (or lack of response) to Chris Matthews's question didn't help Obama at all, and the Clintons will play on this in the coming days. Yes, I too noticed that Chris didn't extend the question to the Clinton surrogate. I also noticed that when the State Senator threw the question on the Clinton surrogate, she threw it back at him because she couldn’t name a single thing Hillary accomplished in her 8 years in Congress and 8 years in the White House. I loved how Keith Olbermann stopped the conversation from going very far buy asking Chris the same question.
Now the spinning begins.
Here's the newspaper description:
"criticisms launched by Clinton's introductory speaker, Machinists Union President Tom Buffenbarger. As Ken Vogel reported for Politico, Buffenbarger "compared Obama with 'Janus, the two-faced god' of Roman mythology. He called him 'silver tongued' and a 'thespian' and 'the man in love with the microphone.'"
"He's not just a trained thespian, he's a terrific shadow boxer. You know the type. Outside the ring, he pretends he can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee," he said. "But Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois state Senate. He took a walk more than 130 times. That's what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves, all the right combinations, all the right footwork, but he never steps into the ring. He walks away from the fight."
I'm sure that the fact that Muhammad Ali was also Black and was a member of the Nation of Islam was ... COMPLETELY coincidental. Not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/clinton-calls-to-congratu_n_87492.html
I hear ya. Not my map. I don't know how to do stuff like that, so I take what I find elsewhere on the Net, but I feel ya on the Michigan and Florida coloration for Billary.
You didn't mention that all-important cultish vote. ;-)
what years of public service are on clinton's record? i thought to remember that she has been a senator since 2000, and nothing more. or does being first lady now count as an official post?
obama was state senator for 7 years and is now 3 years as senator in washington.
which makes him win 10 to 7 as to years in public service.
now, am i wrong, or is she lying... again!?
I too was curious about what exactly HRC's "experience" was myself, so I looked on wikipedia (I know, I know) and she actually has a pretty impressive resume from law school through about 1985. She worked on the impeachment inquiry for Nixon as well as the Children's Defense Fund when she was in DC, then was a pretty impressive lawyer after moving to Arkansas. I don't think serving on corporate boards (TCBY, Walmart, Lafarge) counts as 'public service' by any definition, though!
She's been on a lot of task forces, but it's hard to know what that really involves. She leaves the whole think very vague in her rhetoric.
Obama's record of public service is much more clear-cut, and his work as a lawyer was definitely more focused on service the public.
Bottom line - I think the substance and focus of Obama's experience is more impressive than Clinton's, although if HRC had stayed on her post-law school track (and not married Bill), she might have been a more appealing candidate to progressive voters.
but seriously, my understanding of public service is that you have been elected into some office. not the voluntary work you do.
if you include pro bono work, lotsa folks have better track records than hillary. and they (fuck it: we) are not millionaires.
but you are right to point out that even in that field obama weighs more than clinton.
ps: i also checked on wiki. :-)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001
BILLARY is running against a transformational entity, in Barack Obama, something her dry policy speeches and lame approach cannot compete against. he is the shiny new car & she is an old broke down jalopy! she needs to get off the Autobahn and concede so Obama can start campaigning against McCain!