-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-she-wonoh-well-onto-indiana-and-north-carolina/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
What - so we aren't the only people who know it?
New York Times Blames Hillary for "Mean, Vacuous, Desperate" Campaign
I wonder how many people who've already voted also feel this way.
Way I've been thinking about/feeling it all day is: say you have a being that survives in a certain way. Something comes along, gets inside it, that might (and I do mean might, it's a risk factor) threaten its survival, that is, as it (insanely) defines survival. It responds by internally fighting back. It mobilizes all sorts of defenses to try to prevent the threat from having an impact.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is part of that defense system. And these kinds of situations don't end with the defense operations just shrugging and stepping back with a smile. Their purpose is to do the job of defending the thing. It is metaphorically hard-wired into them, that is their role.
Of course, from a bigger-picture angle of vision, the thing that Clinton is defending is itself a form of sickness (some might even call it a kind of cancer) that deeply threatens the well-being and survival of a larger whole. That situation is obvious to me and not just from this presidential race.
Just bunker down and realize that the rest of this week belongs to Hillary. She'll get a lot of positive press; her surrogates will flood the airwaves; and the spin will be on high. Just picture "Morning Joe" on a loop for the next 4-5 days.
Expect to see Hillary get a boost. She might take a slight lead in the national polls and a small lead in Indiana.
The media will play along with any bit of spin the Clintons throw their way.
And then...
A new week hits and the media turns it's attention to IN and NC. They look for the best story lines and begin to focus on NC.
NC: a state where the black vote has quadrupled since 2004; a state that is tailor-made for Obama; a state with 11 HBCUs. With little effort, Obama supporters can shift the spotlight from the rural white voter in PA to the young black voter in NC.
Instead of focusing on Obama's problem with rural voters, people (hopefully) will begin to ask the obvious question...HOW IS HILLARY GOING TO WIN WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE?
Rather than focusing on the 60/40% advantage Hillary holds with blue collars, the media might focus on the 90/10% REJECTION just about every black voter has for the Clinton name. Hey Chuck Todd. . . play the electoral map with those numbers!
Fresh off a week of pro-Hillary press, pundits will begin to look for evidence of Hillary's new-found momentum. They'll look at the numbers, only to find that (gasp!) nothing has changed. Obama is still ahead by any and every objective measure of this race. And, if we're willing to be practical for a moment, Obama has already won the most important (the only relevant) measure for determining the nominee - PLEDGED DELEGATES.
May 6 passes by. Obama wins by double digits in NC (maybe 20% or more). Indiana stays close regardless of who wins.
And, astonishingly, after 2 weeks of Clinton hype and chest-thumping, the media will come to the same reality that they met just one week after March 4...
Hillary got the headlines, but Obama got the delegates. He will have expanded his lead by then. His probable win in NC will make up for the loss he took in the popular vote in PA.
And Hillary will be left trying to find a new spin to take something she hasn't earned.
We've been through this before.
Early May or early June. This race is over, it's just a matter of when someone forces Hillary to acknowledge it.
his most recent recollection of the jackson-obama comparision in sc sees it as private comments over a cup of coffee:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxsrGUTcEUc
but alas, just like with his wife, video-recorded history proves him wrong:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw
now why is this for the wiki and not more of the same?
because he claims the race card was played on him, and, wow, that must not be: his office is in harlem.
i say: wiki him, please!
I know you right, I guess I'll just have to say away from the television for a couple of weeks.
I needed that one!
Has no bearing on anything, just a GOP plug. :)
You know that when Obama wins NC, Hillary will try to pull the same crap they pulled in S.C., and the MSM will play along with her.
Why not let them make the horrendous attacks against Obama while she claims innocent??
The RNC is on the docket calling for the ad to be halted (um...yeah right). That's all for appearance sake. The RNC wants this ad as much as the group that's airing it. If Hillary gets the nom it's payday for McCain.
All I have to say is brace yourselves it's going to be a bumpy ride. Senator Obama has to weather the storm and push through.
Let the truth prevail
However they are working with a powder keg if they plan on "Willie Lynching" Senator Obama.
How can Obama counter these arguments and convince the remaining undecided superdelegates to move en masse to him? I know there has been talk of his going negative, but this could backfire, as it will undercut his denunciation of 'old politics'?
Maybe a big name endorsement of Obama by Edwards, Gore or Brazille could stop Hillary's momentum.
Another question:
Which group is more important to the party come November:
Blacks or white blue-collar voters?
I can see women for Hillary switching to Obama. Are blacks and blue-collar whites intractably polarized?
I think the final call by the superdelegates will come down to this issue. It will be made almost entirely on the basis of race.
With that said, here's another dumb Clinton statement:
"“If we had the same system as the Republicans I’d already be the nominee,” Clinton said. “And if the Republicans had our system they’d still be duking it out.”
If my math's right, Obama would've hit the 1,191 delegates to win the Republican nomination on/around Feb. 19....at which point Clinton would've only had 1,045 delegates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXxkctYRAZQ&eurl;=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/23/102326/686
Republicans are the scapegoat here.
The Dems are refusing to look at the identity politics at work here and the primary rules that were put in place by the party to insure minority representation.
"Positive discrimination" is at work here with "race-gender loyalty" clearly creating the existing divide.
Exactly. The media ran a smear campaign on Obama that Hillary Clinton just used for her benefit. So now its the same media that is calling Clinton negative when they were just as negative with the Obama smears. Please...Please...Please...this whole country is just laughable. The whole media aided the situation.
Even she includes FL, she will not have more votes. If she includes MI--where she was the only one on the ballot ala Cuban style election--she would be ahead by approx 120,000.
What Obama supporters do you think are going to stand by and let her count an election where she was the only one on the ballot?
When I see exit polls that show christians in PA voting for HRC overwhelmingly I want to cry. It's a damn shame and I'm really embarrassed to be part of the body of christ
Don't let the media fool you with their pipe dream that the race is "close". It hasn't been close since February 5.
-T'll be surprised if Edwards endorses Obama.
Edwards has had enough time to endorse Obama, if that was his intention.
I could be wrong, but I think Edwards will endorse Hillary.
I am firmly planted in the Obama camp and won't ever budge, but at what point do we put some of the blame on Obama himself?
We can talk about the lies, smear campaigns, and race baiting, and while all true, at one point do we objectively stand back and become a bit enraged that Obama had this incredible wave of momentum, and his own blunders here or there have stopped it a bit.
I understand that part of it is just the way the country is. White males in parts of PA are different than white males in some other areas of the country. I get that.
I'm just wondering at what point do we look at Obama. Whether it's Wright, the bitter comments, his Regans comments...even the fact that he was terrible at bowling despite that being a deliberate attempt by his campaign to tap into that "everyman" persona...at what point do we get a bit frustrated with the ways in which the Obama campaign has handled certain issues?
Clinton has done a good amount of damage to Obama...but a lot of that damage has also been self inflicted wounds (or, at the very least, his handling of issues once they have hit the fan. For example, I think the flagpin issue is beyond dumb, but regardless, I haven't heard a decent answer to the question by Obama).
I must say that "Extreme" ad is kind of tired. I thought it would be much worse than that.
As a repub, what do you think, d.?
Two from Minnesota,one from ND and one from Texas.
Go to The Page by Mark Halperin 4/23/08
The PagePolitics up to the Minuteby Mark Halperin | Wednesday, April 23, 2008Return to The PageFour Superdelegates Endorse ObamaTWO MINNESOTA SUPERDELEGATES SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA
Minnesota DFL Chair Brian Melendez and Associate Chair Donna Cassutt Back Obama
Chicago, IL – Today, the Chair and Associate Chair of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party endorsed Barack Obama. Chair Brian Melendez and Associate Chair Donna Cassutt —two Minnesota superdelegates — backed Obama, citing his overwhelming win in the Minnesota caucuses and ability to bring new voters into the process.
Chair Brian Melendez said, “Before Super Tuesday, I decided that, as a superdelegate, I would support whichever candidate won the presidential-preference ballot in Minnesota — and Senator Obama and his campaign for change won it decisively. I also decided that I would hold off on announcing this decision in the hope that voters in other states would decide the nomination and that the superdelegates would not affect the outcome.
“Now, however, it appears that the superdelegates’ votes may affect the outcome. I am therefore announcing that I will support Senator Barack Obama for president. I have heard loud and clear the voices of the more than 214,000 enthusiastic DFLers who attended their precinct caucuses. As their elected party chair, I respect their choice, and will be pleased to honor it by casting my vote for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention.
“DFLers shattered all turnout records at precinct caucuses this year, braving a cold winter night, long lines, and bustling crowds. We may have supported different candidates for president this year so far, but we are all energized and ready to keep Minnesota blue this November for the ninth presidential election in a row.”
Associate Chair Donna Cassutt said, “Hope, the passion for change, and the belief in the possibilities for our great nation: the over 214,000 Minnesotans who turned out to the DFL precinct caucuses this year showed that all of these are alive and well in Minnesota. Reflecting the enthusiastic and overwhelming support for Senator Barack Obama at our caucuses, I will gladly cast my vote as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention for Senator Obama.
“With the incredible grassroots energy and the number of folks new to the political process, I am confident that we will not only win Minnesota’s electoral votes in November, but also take back our beloved Paul Wellstone’s Senate seat and usher in a new era of common-sense, progressive politics.”
Senator Obama won the Minnesota Caucuses on February 5th with 66 percent of the vote.
NORTH DAKOTA SUPERDELEGATE ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA
Democratic Committeewoman Endorses Obama
Bismarck, ND – Today, the Obama campaign announced that North Dakota superdelegate and Democratic National Committee Member Renee Pfenning endorsed Barack Obama.
Below is Pfenning’s statement:
“I feel there have been many high-quality Democratic candidates in this race for president of the United States. Ultimately, my decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama was based on three big factors.
“Sen. Obama made an unprecedented investment in North Dakota prior to the Feb. 5 Presidential Preference Caucuses. His campaign placed full-time staffers on the ground here. Their efforts helped the Democratic-NPL Party achieve a record caucus turnout in which Sen. Obama received 61 percent of the vote.
“Even after the caucuses, I continue to receive many positive messages from North Dakota’s grassroots about Sen. Obama. There is a strong feeling throughout this state and country that he is bringing people together for the positive change our country desperately needs right now.”
Texas State Representative and Superdelegate Yvonne Davis Endorses Obama
AUSTIN – The Obama Campaign announced that State Representative and Democratic National Committee Superdelegate Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) endorsed Senator Obama’s grassroots campaign for change.
State Representative Davis today said, “As State Representative for District 111, I have the distinct honor to represent more than 145,000 individuals in the Texas House of Representatives. As an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee from Texas, and a ‘super-delegate,’ I know politics is serious business, but I believe that politics has to be about the people!
When I look at the sad state of affairs in our community and across the nation– I know we can do better. That is why today I am endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. Senator Obama sets himself apart because he is able to bring Americans together to finally overcome the great challenges we face.
Senator Obama offers leadership and vision for what this country can achieve when we put aside our differences and come together behind our common purpose. Only if we work together can we create the change we believe in.
It is up to each of us to accept our responsibility and join with Senator Obama as we reclaim America.”
I'm not scapegoating Republicans at all. It's clear to me that Mrs. Nixon is simply using traditional republican tactics to exploit the identity-politics division in the Democratic party and make it about gender as a positive and race as a negative.
It works best in the Race Chasm states that have between 6% and 17% Black populations.
Most poor white people don't want a Black president. Mrs. Nixon knows that and therefore she exploits it.
b serious is on point about the Black vote, but the MSM isn't interested in asking the question because it would give the Black vote too much credibility.
If Negroes vote for the Negro because he's a Negro, well, that doesn't mean anything except that those Negroes will always support their own kind. Poor white men will harden in their rejection of a Negro as president.
But if women vote for Mrs. Nixon because she's a woman, the poor white men don't care. They have nothing to lsoe from have a white woman as president. Especially when they're actually voting for Bill.
It's clear that Mrs. Nixon understands that Republicans fear a general election campaign against Obama. So she exploits that fear in order to damage Obama and give herself hope that she can get the nomination by any means necessary. The right loves her for it. They call her tough. She's doing their work for them and it's clear they want her to stay around as long as possible to continue to bleed Obama of money and energy so they have more of a level playing field in November.
It's all as clear as silver striking crystal.
Neither one has "closed" and since she is the "name brand" against the "new", "generic brand" who has the bigger problem?????
Big M,
BHO has made some "dumb mistakes" but "HRC" has made plenty deceitful "mistakes". I think gaffes are to be made b/c this is a loooong drawn out process. DOn't get me wrong I have been listening sometimes thinking WT????? but I try to impose myself in such a stressful situation and wonder how many stupid things I would do!!!
I've got my criticsms of Obama as well. But this loss was status quo. There weren't any surprises. I don't feel any sense of panic.
I'll start speaking out if I see trouble in an Obama stronghold like NC. Although, most of my criticsm comes with the idea that:
1. Obama should have been better prepared for Wright and Ayers stories. This stuff was old news to anyone who follows politics;
2. He's done a poor job at exploiting Hillary's weaknesses to gain political points (they haven't followed Hillary's controversies: "screw 'em"; her comments about MoveOn; Rendell praising Farakhan; Mark Penn and Columbian Free Trade, etc.); and
3. His surrogate game is weak. He reacts but rarely gets out in front of a story. Hillary should be reacting to him, not the other way around. He's the frontrunner, not her.
For example. . . the fact that Hillary gets to spout this "popular vote" nonsense sits squarely on Obama's shoulders. He knows that the popular vote has NOTHING to do with picking the nominee. He knows that there's really no such thing as a national "popular vote" when it comes to the primary season. But he rests on the idea that the Party will be FAIR in the end.
He's a better person than I. The Dems are too weak to stand up for themselves as it is. And the Clintons are counting on their belief that they can bully the party into submission. For that reason alone, I'd make sure to squash whatever spin Hillary had the moment I saw it.
Still, even with his mistakes, Obama is in excellent shape. This thing is his to loose. And it's gonna take a lot for him to lose it.
I said it before and I mean it again, Obama has choked everytime he comes close to the end of the line.
It's like watching a long claycourt tennis match.
Obama can't close this all out because he's nervous, and thus all of his blunders.
I have no problem pointing out his 50 cent in this dollar.
And yet he's still winning. That in and of itself ought to tell you something.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if he endorsed Clinton, either. I had higher expectations of him. I'm hoping he doesn't disappoint.
But think of this. Is an Edwards endorsement going to carry NC for Clinton?
I don't think so. Knowing that, would Edwards put his pride and rep on the line just to back a losing candidate?
Also, I've yet to see a trend towards Hillary amongst the super delegates. An Edwards endorsement would do nothing more than make things even crazier than they are now. Hillary would get a good new cycle out of it. It would help with her fundraising. But that's about it.
Finally, I still find it hard to think that Edwards could back Clinton after all he said during the primary. I don't care if he likes her health care plan better. He would look like a complete hypocrit and opportunist.
My question. . . Does Edwards WANT to endorse Hillary? Most of her endorsements have come via loyalty to the Clinton name. Is Edwards gonna kiss the ring as well? Especially when he knows that she's not going to be the nominee? Why jump on the Titanic?
That is what gets me. Now that he and his campaign made those slip-ups, he has given the Republicand and Clinton supporters "material" for their further distortions. Instead of being ahead of things, he, his campaign and too many of his supporters are reactionary. There is so much on McCain and Clinton they can be pushing. Lets wait and see.
I think I posted this here but its a prime example Of Republicans using everything to race-bait Obama and his supporters. An ad from the NC GOP about Obama and Wright. It's dumby but just a preview of the crap we will have to endure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXxkctYRAZQ&eurl;=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/23/102326/686&&
He would be a hypocrite and a coward if he endorses HRC!
More independent than Republican, but.....
Those type of ads-from a strategic standpoint-are best left to the 527s, which have been nonexistent of late (which is confusing). Any individual/large scale organization that does an ad like that one (1) doesn't do it well, as in this case, and (2) alienates themselves from the McCain campaign, as he can't (shouldn't?) publically associate himself with it. So he has to renounce it (not explain it away, because conservatives' standards are much higher than those of liberals), which then pisses off the individual/organization (recall the guy from-TN?-who tried to throw Obama under the bus at a McCain rally).
But if women vote for Mrs. Nixon because she's a woman, the poor white men don't care. They have nothing to lsoe from have a white woman as president. Especially when they're actually voting for Bill.
-----------------------------------
I think these men swing to McCain if Hillary is the nominee. 'Race/gender loyalty' yet again.
There is no denying that people vote for a candidate that they like, who they are comfortable with, who they think shares their values, that is like them. Race and gender are contributing factors among all voters and all 3 candidates.
The truth of the situation is that superdelegates are going to 'deliver' the nominee to the voters. The party is polarized and 3 main demographic constituencies risk alienation: blacks, women and blue-collar whites.
Identity politics is the defining ideology of the party. This is a Dem self-inflicted divide. Republicans split more along ideological lines: small government voters, social/values voters, low taxes voters, etc.
The superdelegates will be need to determine which group they can afford to lose. What group can be relied upon to stick with the party, even if their candidate loses.
@ anonymous
And basically we all know where they may feel that falls...on Black Americans and personally I think that many black voters (myself included) have aided (in the past) in being placed in the expendable category by supporting the DNC regardless of results because...what's the options? We should have been holding their feet to the fire by being willing to vote Independent and aid in creating our own rising stars.
It's not so black and white. Republican's racist, Dems our saviors...hardly. Both major parties are collectors of wealth and power with little to do with serving the people. One of the leading issues being class. Now they can ignore social injustices by using class as a wedge to divide blacks. Not to mention the same ole' same ole with gender politics with feminist's leading the charge and good ole' boy racism with blue collar whites.
We need to abolish the two-party system or nothing ever changes.
So which group is more likely to vote or form a 3rd party if their candidate should lose? I just don't see that happening.
MSM is pushing polling that says whites will defect to McCain in greater numbers than blacks.
Will blacks stick with the party even if Obama loses the nomination?
And for the love of JJP, can someone please tell me why Black folk aren't described as "working-class"?
DISCLAIMER: Didn't write it, not cosigning, just feel it MIGHT be relevant to the discussion.
In Election 2008, Don't Forget Angry White Man
Anon 10:45,
Hell no they won't stick with the party. I think a lot of blacks will just sit it out.
GOOD QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!
"Against Race Politics"
Well that's exactly my point...who will? Obviously the opinion of the "MSM" and the DNC is that blacks are the good ole faithful and therefore we are expendable so marginalize Obama and marginalize blacks as a whole. Make "us" the villians to win some votes...
Priceless.
Which, as I stated (before), can be partly blamed on us ("us", as in black dems in general) accepting the status quo for the past couple of decades and being that ole standby while being ignored and taken for granted.
I'm with Michelle, some Black American needs to wake up! We're being played like a fiddle if Black Obama supporters stick by this party after what is being revealed that's a damn shame and welcome to slavery light. To me, I'm happy this is the dynamic of the Dem primary, because it's revealing a lot and maybe we can make some true change in the fall.
Let the DNC gain (or lose) the Presidency without us aiding them. Then we can move on to finding leaders that can form a party that truly cares about the issues of all not just some.
2. He's done a poor job at exploiting Hillary's weaknesses to gain political points (they haven't followed Hillary's controversies: "screw 'em"; her comments about MoveOn; Rendell praising Farakhan; Mark Penn and Columbian Free Trade, etc.); and
3. His surrogate game is weak. He reacts but rarely gets out in front of a story. Hillary should be reacting to him, not the other way around. He's the frontrunner, not her."
B-Serious, I'm ITA with ya! For the life of me, I can't understand why the BHO camp waited until the DAY BEFORE the primary to send out flyers on trade? That's a hot button issue in PA and should've been pounded into the PA psyche the moment the WSJ published the article about Mark Penn. The same thing with Clinton's "Screw 'em!" comments and MoveOn.org.
I understand Obama not wanting to appear to be picking on the girl, but that doesn't mean he should allow her to get away with things that have facts and proof to back them up!
You said that!
I must admit I used to vote for the Dem nominee (whoever it was) as the primary never usually made it around my way so(ashamedly)I was never too interested b/c they were all one in the same. NOT THIS TIME- now I really see what is going on!
Against race Politics (can't seem to sign in)
omg I'm sorry, I've been calling you anonymous...I was too caught up in my ranting.*laughs*
I've been thinking the same thing for weeks.
Against Race Politics
We are a monolith to them. I was watching Chris Matthews break down white voters in Pennsylvania to
1. Beer Drinkers
2. Bowlers
3. Hunters
4. Some other wach category
They just lump us together...we really dont exist.
They always do that all forms of media, social science etc...do that.
I'm with you on this.
I think we should really start to lean on our media outlets, particularly people like Roland Martin. We need to let the media know that Democrats can't assume they'll get the black vote in November if Hillary is the nominee.
I'm not voting for her. Neither is anyone in my family. And I know we're not the only ones who feel this way.
For the past month we've heard story after story detailing Obama's trouble reaching the rural working class voter.
Well, Obama's problems with Reagan Democrats are NOTHING compared to the trouble Hillary's gonna have with the black vote if she steals this nomination.
90% is more than an endorsement of Obama. It is also a REJECTION of Clinton!
This gets at a core issue. Black people are people too. It sounds funny when you say it but let's face facts.
Black people are working class voters as well.
Black women are women too.
How can Hillary be the populist candidate when she loses big time in the inner city? I have to check the stats, but I think she loses the "poor" vote. I'm not talking about the "working class." I'm talking about the poor vote, where working class is a step up the economic ladder.
How can Hillary be the "women's" champion if she's losing 80-90% of the black female vote?
I'd really like to see the media pick up on some of these issues. Michell Bernard made a great point on MSNBC. When Obama wins NC by more than 20% the Clintons will be more than happy to dismiss it as a "black state."
Yet Obama struggles with blue collar whites and we're supposed to see this as a threat towards his electability?
Give me a break!
Let's see Hillary win PA without the black vote in Philadelphia. Look at any electoral map. PA is RED with blue spots. Those blue spots? Cities like Philadelphia where blacks can make as much as 50% of the Democratic vote.
Talk about electability issues. We need to get the media to start asking some of these tough questions.