-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/thursday-open-thread-let-it-all-hang-out-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The Grand Slam
Is he a Democrat?
Pat Buchanan was sick and speechless.
Mitchell is also saying that Edwards did not call them the night before as she originally reported.
White vote . . . enter John Edwards *SLAM*
Women vote . . . enter NARAL *SLAM*
I think that's why that didn't care of Sen. Clinton continued to run. Her strategy was so transparent that it probably took Obama about 30 minutes to figure out how to counter all her moves.
I also don't believe Edwards actually voted for Obama. He is a liar who stayed out because he really wanted Hillary to win but since Obama has he jumped on board. Even on his media tour over the last week before the WV primaries he was basically praising Clinton and would only acknowledge Barack in insulting ways like Hillary is a fighter with a lot of experience who gets back up every time she gets knocked down would make a great president...she knows policy and how to get things done...and Barack he just came out of "NOWHERE, literally" and now he has taken it all. I listened to his WORDS show after show and wondered how these idiots could spin that as he is all for Obama. I was thinking over and over again, are you actually listening to his words or are you just STUPID.
Edwards is the worst kind of politician who to this day has less respect than Hillary from his colleagues on the Hill precisely because he is a liar who will do and say anything and could not be trusted; to this day after all Hillary has done and this speaks volumes about the kind of person Edwards is but then millions in NC figured him out long ago and he would never have been re-elected to the senate anyway nor would his endorsement had meant anything before their primary. He was doing a get out the vote media tour for Hillary before WV and when she didn't get the 80% she needed to change the game, he jumped aboard under the cover that ALL those who ignore what he actually says and does to spin him in the best possible (and unrealistic) light. He got HIMSELF a positive news cycle but if it helps Obama, then again thanks anyway. I don't give credit to the lowest of low-life pols whose so called endorsement is only one of himself and the opponent that says nothing more than I am supporting him because he won and I need in the spotlight again.
I think AAs are not cynical enough which is exactly why, as a people, don't have shit and won't ever get shit. The inability to be critical thinkers and strategic doers is exactly why the DNC and its pols can take those votes for granted and haven't ended this even though we all knew the math since the first of March.
I suggest we actually watch and listen to what is said and done and stop believing the blog and TV hype but when you do actually starting critically thinking be forewarned that you might get accused of cynicism. Most people don't embrace free thinkers especially when facts threaten to get in the way of a good spin or the desired narrative.
Oh and Edwards most notorious opinion of Obama was when he told Halperin that Barack is a "pussy". Yeah, it was a ringing endorsement and I believe he voted for the pussy whom he can't find anything substantively good to say about. It was clear on Barack's face during the "endorsement" that he realized how it really wasn't one. I watched Obama on that stool and felt sorry for him but he has the benefit of most Americans not being smart enough to actually listen or get what happened, so they will accept the spin, which works to Barack's benefit. Yeah, I'd say most who ever drunk and continue to drink any of Edwards' piss-infused kool-aid have bigger problems than a healthy dose of cynicism could help.
Just like the Clintons.
He's the chair of the DLC and I don't like him or his politics at all. He's from a very corrupt political family at it shows.
He's doing his dead-level best to get she who shall not be named on the ticket.
It looks like Obama's own supporters are finally figuring out how shrewd he really is. (wink)
Know hope.
I hope your statement regarding regurgitating what the talking heads say was not an indictment of me.
The fact that I am sharing things is not evidence of the fact that I agree with them. Nor does it mean I am incapable of analyzing the information provided.
I said long ago that Edwards was weak and that I didn't think much of his endorsement, however, if you are the true free thinker you encourage us to be you would see whatever the reason, that the timing of that endorsement, coupled with the NARLA endorsement, was the slickest shit that occured thus far.
No harm, no foul.
I actually made several posts commenting on what the pundits were saying this morning.
I disagree. The NARLA endorsement is important, the Edwards endorsement wasn't an endorsement at all but people believe what they are told not what their lying ears hear. IMO the "slickest shit that occurred thus far" is the Kennedys and Shrivers' endorsement, followed by the Big Oprah opening the door for Obama to start.
I just spit out my coffee.
The Edwards' endorsement stopped the whole road trip Hillary was about to go on with the "white voter" won't vote for Obama.
the NARLA endorsement shut down that women band together with me the guys are teaming up on me.
I know Senator Obama understands it that way.
Obama apologized in a voicemail he left on Agar's cell phone at 3:16 p.m:
"Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.
"Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."
LISTEN TO THE VOICEMAIL IN VIDEO PLAYER RIGHT (Voicemail is followed by video clip of the "sweetie" exchange)
(WXYZ) - Reporters on the presidential campaign trail are buzzing about Barack Obama calling WXYZ's Peggy Agar "sweetie" during a tour Wednesday of a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights.
The comment came during a tour of the plant when the Democratic presidential candidate tried to brush off a question from Agar about help for autoworkers. "Senator, how are you going to help the American autoworkers," Agar asked Obama. "Hold on one second, sweetie," he replied, explaining he would answer in a later media availability.
In a posting on the New York Times Political Blog titled "Obama: Hold On, Sweetie," reporter Jim Rutenberg pointed out this wasn't the first time Obama used the word: "Back in Pennsylvania in early April, Senator Barack Obama took some heat for calling a female factory worker 'sweetie,' in Allentown."
Obama's comment to Agar has also been discussed by reporters for The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, and Newsday.
-He called the reporter "sweetie."
He apologized in a call to her voice mail.
End of story.
I don't have a problem with it, although I can see how others would.
Comments?
that link I put at the beginning of comments about the 'Grand Slam' - it was the blogger writing about what it means about the Florida/Michigan scenario that made me think more about the endorsement from Edwards.
I think you're right. That "pussy" thing kept playing in my head as I watched John's body language during the endorsement. I really wasn't listening to the speech, just kept looking over at the two of them and not liking the vibe.
Edwards' body was not "open" to Barack..and Edwards stood there and virtually ignored Obama while drinking up the applause as if it was really for him. It was a stark contrast to Bill Richardson's endorsement where Bill had a huge smile and seemed genuinely joyful.
I think John has decided he better jump on the bandwagon; because, Barack is now the most powerful person in the Dem party. I think John is a self-serving prick, and hope Barack knows, and gives John NOTHING.
I believe they will probably seat the MI/FL delegations, but the penalties will come in with regards to the Superdelegates probably only counting as .5 delegates. And no popular vote count. I think that's what will happen.
I read that story and it was all the better when he used it shut up that panel. Mica was calling Obama loser - she was referring to WV, but it sounded like she meant he was losing. They were frolicking and having fun at Obama's expense and Harold Ford was sitting there only speaking up on Hillary and Bill's behalf and Chuck Todd broke up that party with some cold hard facts.
Mudcat called Hillary dead chick walking - or something like that.
I don't know about that one. I call people sweetie all the time and I'm a woman.
the NARLA endorsement shut down that women band together with me the guys are teaming up on me."
I am fully aware of the media narrative regarding this stuff, Ms. Martin. Again, the Edwards "endorsement" wasn't an endorsement at all. You are arguing the media narrative where as I am speaking to what was actually said/done regardless of the spin/narrative.
I'm not arguing at all - I agree the endorsement wasn't really an endorsement.
I'm saying the announcement of the non-endorsement was effective - not to mention the delegates that it will provide.
Why?
It'll stop that nonsense about Hillpatine being his running mate.
Even Barack recognized it onstage while sitting listening and it showed in his expressions. Pay close attention towards the end when Edwards says "Only one man knows that change is necessary..Only one man knows that to get lasting change it has to start from the grass roots up..and that man is BO"---the camera pans to Barack and he limply smiles a whatever. BO realized too late that the endorsement wasn't an endorsement and his face told the story. I could have given Edwards a beat down in that one moment. LOL
Cheryl, NJ, on May 14th, 2008 at 7:32 pm Said:
Freudian slip?
On CNN Hillary, responding to a your supporters say they won’t vote for Obama question said something to the effect of:
….That would be a very grave mistake if they didn’t vote for Mc - uh Barack Obama.
Watch the anderson360 rerun if you don’t believe me.
Uh huh.
I hear you on the Edwards Veep talk. The Clinton veep talk turns my stomache.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14dowd-1.html?_r=1&oref;=slogin
Harold Ford mentioned something about Edwards needing to rebuild his base.
He definitely would not be my choice for veep, he was already on a losing ticket and he appears to be weak.
Obama has responded to Bush's comment already.
"This e-mail today tells me I have a lot less confidence in the secret Service than I did before it was exposed," said U.S. Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)
Ain't that a bitch. A spoiled dilettante like Dark Sith Ford talking about ANYONE being an elitist.
Ford was brought up in upper middle-class comfort.
Obama's mother was a single mother, and her parents were never really comfortable middle-class. Obama was always ' the scholarship kid', all the way.
Like I said..Dark Sith Ford is NO ally, let alone friend of Obama's.
Having the Edwards as VP talk, expands the pool to others. The MSM was getting obsessed with the Hillpatine as VP mess.
I didn't know that Bush was making those comments about Obama and Hitler while he was in Isreal speaking to Jews.
Rikyrah
MSNBC is interviewing Tonya Harding about her name being used this political season.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html
There was an interesting piece on OpenLeft about Obama's consolidation of power, and doing everything in-house. In his own campaign where he has control.
She's 20 million in debt; he has a money making machine.
The DNC is starved for money because Obama supporters refuse to ante up any funds until Obama is named the nominee.
And, I don't trust Beckel.
It would be insane for Obama to saddle himself with Hillpatine.
He should win or lose on his own terms. His way.
Which is why, I keep on telling folks, I welcome the Edwards as VP talk, because it takes away from the HIllpatine as VP, which is insanity.
I don't think Edwards wasn't endorsing Obama, but if we are as dumb as the media thinks we are, most of us won't get what bpm is saying at all.
Like it or not, perception is power.
::
Somebody put Jonathan Capehart out of his misery.
::
John McCain just gave a speech. He's vowed to have Democrats in his administration.
That, for me, is the biggest benefit of Edwards' endorsement.
The United Steelworkers endorsement will pay dividends in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the general election.
John Edwards is an opportunist, and I think Obama knows that, but he can benefit from that opportunist as far as delegates and public perception.
One thing I've noticed about Obama is he is a quick study and very observant. I'm quite sure he saw Edwards' assholery last night, knows that he's just a bandwagon jumper and is figuring out what to do with him. Funny thing about Obama, most people think he is a very weak guy, easily led by Rev. Wright, Michelle etc. but dude is always laying back in the cut, watching and then he pulls a slick move.
Last night's non-endorsement by John Edwards was a slick move in that it shut down Hillary just in time for the evening news and puts Obama in a better position as far as delegates (FL / MI).
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
Obama News, Views, Photos, Videos, Voter Registration, Volunteer Info, Official Obama 'Hater Watch' List and Much More !
Say It Loud....BARACK & I'M PROUD !!!!
Why will the Black vote be key?
Is it assumed that blacks will automatically support Obama?
Wasn't this the same opinoin voiced by Pat Buchanan. Didn't this blog just label him a racist?
I didn't realize Hillary could force herself on the ticket like that.
With that said, it seems clear that she'd have to literally FORCE her way on the ticket if that were to happen. She can't be cute about it, it'll be transparent if she tries.
But, let's say Obama doesn't offer her the spot. What if Obama chooses his veep a couple of weeks after the primareis conclude? If Obama chooses his veep in late June, then he'll have two whole months to campaign with him/her before the convention. People move on. At that point, Hillary would have to bumrush the process to get on the ticket. That's a hard sell to make.
I mean, she'd have to go and TAKE the veep spot away from someone else.
I'm not saying Hillary's not shameless enough to try it. But her motives will be clear for all to see. She might as well switch to Republican if she tries that because she won't have any bridges left to burn after a stunt like that.
Which is why I actally prefer the Edwards veep talk. . .
It's one step closer to making Hillary IRRELEVANT. That's what Obama needs right now.
As long as Hillary's relevant she's buying time. The more time she gets, the higher the chances for Clinton mischief. I don't want her hanging around when her surrogates keep saying "anything can happen," to Obama. It makes me think she's plotting something. . . or, in the very least, prepared to create a controversy at the 11th hour.
The Democratic Party can't move forward as long as she's seen as a viable candidate of any sort (president or veep).
Howard Wolfson said so himself. . . the only way Obama gets Hillary to concede is to BEAT her. My take: well, fine then. Just BEAT her.
Ignore all of the whining from the Clinton crowd. Call her bluff and beat her. Start wheeling out those super delegate endorsements. Work those backrooms. FORCE HER OUT. Put this thing to bed. The sooner the better.
Any discussion of Hillary as veep (positive or negative) still keeps her relevant. . . it keeps her spin relevant. . . her surrogates relevant. Enough already.
Hillary's got more power than Edwards. She's got the potential to destroy the Democratic Party if she puts her heart in it. Edwards doesn't have that power.
Obama could turn his back on Edwards the second he gets the nomination and there's not much Edwards could do about it.
Hillary, on the other hand, could declare all out war on the party. Unfortunately, she's got the numbers and support (blind loyalists) to try it.
That's why I think it's of the utmost importance that she be forced out of this race as soon as possible. Keep rolling out the endorsements and keep closing every door.
Craig 7:44, that endorsement is good news. Do you actually think that the union would not have endorsed Obama on June 5th or before the election? Do you think that they would not have put their money and boots into getting Obama elected instead of McCain in the fall anyway? I happen to think that all union endorsements were headed to the Democratic nominee anyway. I suspect they having supported Edwards informed Edwards in advance, which may also have contributed to him getting out in front of it. These courtesy calls are standard. That is how politics works and in your words: perception is power.
Craig, I like you am happy the Dem party is starting to get behind the nominee but it won't make me forget that the math is no different than it was two months ago but Obama has been damaged heavily during that time and most of it could have been lessened or prevented had all of the "endorsements" come when they would have come for any lesser qualified White person who had secured the nomination early. Edwards is not for Obama but he is for what Obama can do for Edwards; so I don't give him any credit for doing absolutely nothing for anyone but Edwards.
I have to stop debating this by agreeing to disagree on the greatness of Edwards and his opportunism. It is the forgetting that gives America two Bush terms and changing narratives from "in Iraq for WMD to being there to topple a tyrant and giving freedom to people" and it is the passes that gets blacks a perpetual seat on the bottom rung of the American ladder. Tavis was right about one thing, Blacks get nothing because they never hold anyone accountable; his error was that he was shilling for Hillary and not holding her accountable but he is right that you can beat blacks over the head, tell them to kiss your arse, and spit in their faces but if you wait a few months and give them a pat on the head, they will forget all and sing about the pat on the head. Works.Every.Time.
Obama is stumbling all over himself on issues of foreign policy and the war.
Obama's repeated assertions and policy promises regarding America's activities on the various fronts in the War on Terror appear to be the result of willful ignorance, an attempt at blatantly dishonest pandering to his anti-American base, or a dangerous combination of both.
Regardless, the ignorance, lack of experience, and poor judgment that Obama continually reminds us he will, if elected, be bringing with him as he assumes the position of Commander in Chief and sole establisher of American foreign policy is a concern that should grow on American's minds every day as November approaches.
I feel the same way about Ed.
So racism isn't an issue that should be addressed?
I won't even bother to go there on the rest of your post.
The supers are simply waiting for June 3rd. Obama has at least 30-40 more in the bag. It is no coincidence that you see 3-4 trickle in per day.
After June 3rd, the party will rally around Obama and shut Clinton down. Obama will name his VP sometime around late July.
Al Gore is already down
We are on the same team but I prefer that my team know what is going on so that they can pop off their objections to the DNC and networks each time the issue is raised instead of getting distracted by Edwards while someone else can secure the VP nomination unprotested because well no one is telling them it is important anymore. We just disagree on whether if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound. I think it does and I think Hillary could secure the VP spot even if the media doesn't mention her name again and furthermore, I think it would be easier for her.
Let's agree to disagree because I accept that you want Edwards VP talk and think a Hillary media shutout prevents a Hillary VP option. Maybe you are correct but I still disagree with the premise. I don't want Hillary or Edwards as VP but I have been a registered independent since 1996, so I moved further towards truth a long time ago.
::
I agree. Which is why Chuck Hagel (NE), Wesley Clark (AR), Bill Richardson (NM), and Kathleen Sebelius (KS) are all on Obama's mind.
I respect your critical thinking. But I believe you are taking your argument one step too far.
The MSM is peddling the notion that she has earned the VP slot, regardless of her politics, which go against the core of Barack's message. Sure a dissent here or there points this out, but those dissents have no traction on cable news.
Perception is power.
Any media storyline that detracts from the notion that Hillary deserves the VP position and Barack needs her coalition to win the general needs to be silenced immediately.
Period.
What she may or may do at the convention is beside the point right now. Right now, perception is all that matters and if all these endorsements (and I disagree: Edwards endorsed Obama) for Obama, including the one by the pro-choice group, creates the perception that the party can unite WITHOUT a nightmare ticket, then let that perception be.
Cynicism is but a lens through which one perceives reality. It is not reality itself.
For now, I reject cynicism.
Know hope.
I do believe you have a point in that it helped that Edwards comments regarding Hillary would help dispel the "boys bullying the only girl" claims of Hillary and her supporters. It may be helpful in wooing some of her supporters who swear they will not vote for Obama but are yet to provide any VALID reasons.
I'm trying to get some (fresh) perspective here. One thing for sure is that Obama knows exactly what is going down. He is not stupid by a long shot.
Independent is the place to be. I'm with you on that. I've been a registered Independent since I turned 18 (left-leaning Independent).
Dems = the party of no ideas (at least not ones they're willing to fight for). . .
vs.
Repubs = the party of BAD ideas.
But I appreciate the inner turmoil within the Democratic Party between the DLC's and the Progressive wing. The Dems could be something special if they had the courage to ever grew a backbone.
But I agree with you on this: those super dels are not Obama's friends. The media is NOT Obama's friend.
And the party has given far more support to lesser men in the past than what they've shown to Obama.
My message to Obama: Don't believe the hype!
I hope Obama realizes this and doesn't let his guard down. Thankfully, he's stayed ahead of the curve thus far.
Tamrond Hall is interviewing Tonya Harding.
Tonya has HUGE hands.
I too, am with you on the "Independent"!
I must switch after all this goes down!
I haven't heard very many people other than republicans like Pat and Joe claiming that Hillary has earned the VP slot or that she deserves it and if anyone who is susceptible to the drum beat of rabid republicans are not smart enough to get any of the points that I have made anyway, so I'm not surprised by constant debate against facts.
VP nominations, like presidential nominations, are secured before the convention LIKE NOW. Maybe you should stop focusing on August and realize that real world politics are going on NOW and a bunch of talking idiots on TV or in the blogosphere won't prevent delegate VP math if a candidate secures it the way you seem to think. They can however affect whether or not there is awareness. Apparently, the public prefers to wallow in their ignorance. In the words of the rajun cajun: "it's the [delegates] stupid"; I don't think Contessa brewer or Pat not mentioning Hillary again will prevent her from become VP if she has the DELEGATES. You can argue against it as much as you want but it will seem as illogical to me as assuming unions only endorse Obama because of Edwards. It requires public outrage to sway delegates not Pat and Joe pushing Hillary. LOL
againstracepolitics 9:30, it is one of the quickest ways for me to discern whether someone is truly politically astute. Independent is the way to leverage power and stop the Dems from taking Black votes for granted. So much demographic parsing goes on during elections but one single group above all others decides elections and it is independents, always.
Y'all can call it whatever you want. I'm sticking with what I saw.
Oh, and I never said Edwards was great. I said the timing of this endorsement was.
Big difference.
I also saw Obama's speech (which isn't being talked about) thereafter.
The reality: Obama was buoyed to a point of ferociousness yet seen in his campaign.
He knows what's up. And he took it and ran with it.
He's in this to win this and he'll do anything he can short of the politics of personal destruction to do so.
And you are making assumptions about what I assume. I don't assume anything, actually. I observe. I analyze. I write.
And sometimes I accurately predict.
You aren't the only critical thinker who can see the big picture who comments on this blog.
So, yes, let's just put our egos aside and agree to disagree.
But you claim that Edwards called Obama a pussy.
That's not what I read. Halperin said that Edwards called Obama a pussy.
If my perception is wrong, please point me to the words.
Super Delegates:
Obama +4
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Larry Cohen, the president of the Communication Workers of America and a super-delegate from D.C.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
Pledged Delegates:
Obama +7 from Edwards' Delegates.
Reportedly the breakdown is
(1) - NH
(6) - SC
Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton are the South Carolina Edwards Pledged Delegates confirmed by CNN as supporting Obama.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/david_brocks_toughtalking_thir.php
Inspiring? Principled? Stupid?
or
All of the above?
Craig, are you so bothered by my posts based on facts that you will just continue to argue anything and hope to get an uncle on perception. You are back to my first post in this thread hours ago. LOL and I thought we had moved to your implication that Obama only got the steel workers b/c of Edwards or that it affected the WA reps endorsement when he has been getting an average of 4 a day anyway. Then I thought we were agreeing to disagree.
I don't do egos and what you are reducing this to is that you just want to be right and you will spend all day trying to make me wrong. Sorry, homey don't play that. We disagree but if it makes you feel better, "you win". I hope this helps you move pass my audacity to disagree. I won't respond to you again on this because your post at 10:22 is down to a level of pettiness that I choose not to dignify or perpetuate.
I promise that I won't respond to you again on this thread, so you can call that a win and perhaps feel a satisfaction that will prevent you from falling back on this defense again: a renowned Time Magazine reporter reported "pussy" but was forced to apologize for reporting it because of people like BMP who jumped up Time's arse but Mark saying he said it on national TV isn't rooted in reality because John didn't say it to us directly; afterall there is no fear of libel, slander, or firing in the media world. OK.
there is a guy over at openleft who believes it is Obama's attempt at consolidation of power to:
a) control the message
b) isolate as much of the Clinton influence that's left in the Democratic Party
c) be able to completely contrast himself with John McCain even further for the G.E.
::
Um. Okay.
You may have the last word.
First thoughts: Now Obama's party?
Posted: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:07 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts, 2008
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Is it now Obama’s party? On Tuesday night, Clinton scored a 41-point win in West Virginia. Then, less than 24 hours later, more parts of the Democratic Party began coalescing around Obama. First came the endorsement from NARAL, which drew a furious response from Emily’s List and many of Clinton’s female congressional backers. Then Edwards -- in a move that took almost everyone by surprise -- endorsed Obama, which ended up burying the interviews Clinton had conducted with the network anchors the day after her West Virginia win. As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell said on TODAY, “Just when she was trying to get back on her feet, Hillary Clinton had the rug pulled out from under her.” What yesterday signaled, more than anything else, was that the Democratic Party is now becoming Barack Obama’s party, no matter what happened in West Virginia and might happen next week in Kentucky.
Let's hope so.
It's hard for some to believe...but, there is life after the Clintons.
Keep closing those doors!
Go Obama!
I put it on my blog, maybe you all will decide to post it too.
Ga. redneck selling Obama/Curious George t-shirt
Here's the link again:
here
It should lead you to the story at Talking Points Memo.
It seems to me like the MSM is trying to "Emmit Till" Obama with this.
Which is worse: Calling a woman "sweetie" or McCain calling his WIFE a "c--t"?
I read some women respond with "Damn, so Obama won't call me sweetie when we meet?"
I read that same comment. And I just smiled. However, he did call the reporter and apologized.
My mother didn't think Barack was controlling enough to be president. I told her he was a Leo. She said, "Oh. Okay."
Barack has set up fundraising with the DNC so whatever fundrasing agreements he makes with McCain, he will be able to keep his enormous fundraising machine pretty much intact.
I think that it's smart. He wants to control his campaign's message and he doesn't want to be having to defend his message against those of the 527's.
I agree with the blog, though. What's most impressive is how quickly the group complied with his wishes.
I feel you, Sepia but McCain is the chosen one. They can do everything in their power but I don't know how they will mask his senility (my suspicion re: confusing the Iraqi factions) or irrational anger during the live debates.
Are people still talking about that?
He called and apologized to the woman. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but not earth-shattering.
It's a non-story. . .right up there with "the snub" and "you're likable enough."
So is this the new excuse to vote against Obama? Or is it a tired attempt by Taylor Marsh-types to play the gender card as payback for the race-card they say Obama played against the Clintons?
Has N.O.W. called Obama a misogynist pig yet?
Oh and I agree with whomever that was...Does that mean he will never call me sweetie?!?!?!
What's the big idea here with that?!?! SHEESH!
Clinton vs. Obama, 1.0
A reader points out a tidbit in Time I hadn't known, concerning Obama's failed 2000 run against Bobby Rush:
It fell to Bill Clinton to deliver the coup de grace. The President broke his policy of staying neutral in primaries and endorsed Rush in a glowing radio spot. When it was over, Rush piled up 61% of the vote, compared with 30% for Obama. He lost the most heavily black wards by more than 4 to 1. The race was called before Obama could even make his way to a would-be victory party at the Ramada Inn in Hyde Park.
So, I guess Obama and Bill go back a ways....lol
@ Rikyrah,
I couldn't find any video of that Congresswoman press conference in protest of the NARAL endorsment. Anybody have a link?
If you want a laugh, mosey on down to the Hillary website and read the blogs. Here, Wolfson is embroiled in a misinformation campaign. In discussions of the popular vote, Barack is never given credit for the caucus votes. Do they really believe they can win this nomination via smoke and mirrors?
by Howard Wolfson, Communications Director
5/15/2008 11:07:40 AM
Leading the Popular Vote: According to ABC News, Hillary’s West Virginia victory put her over the top in the popular vote. She now leads Sen. Obama 16,691,283 to 16,647,926 when Florida and Michigan are included in the count.
Yes. Get the media to repeat a narrative and people will believe it after enough repetitions.
So this is probably especially painful for Bill after putting Rush over the top with the radio spot. Had Obama been in the House, he couldn't get traction for serious consideration for Prez.
Enter. . . the "popular vote" myth.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see this whole popular vote spin from the Clintons:
1. Nominee is chosen by delegates, not popular vote. That alone should make all of this a non-issue.
2. If the Party wanted to use popular vote, they'd just hold one giant primary in June and be done with it.
3. Popular vote totals are often skewed because they usually don't account for the caucus states.
4. That ABC popular vote number is soooooo misleading and disingenuous it makes me want to hurl. The only way Hillary even gets close (or slightly ahead) to Obama in the popular vote is if she counts MI and FL and gives Obama absolutely NOTHING from MI....and still discounts the caucus states.
5. State popular votes help determine state delegate counts. The DELEGATES vote on the nominee. That's why we don't have 35 million people show up in Denver to pick the nominee.
6. If the party validated the "popular vote" myth (which I don't think they ever have) then there'd be nothing to stop a candidate from parking his or her butt in the most densely populated states to run up the score. . . smaller states would virtually have no say. . . and the nominee would be chosen by NY and CA every year.
7. I heard that there are 5 or 6 caucus states that never even recorded/saved they're final tallies.
8. If the popular vote determined the nominee, then caucus states wouldn't be allowed. But that's not the way things work. Some states choose primaries, others choose caucuses. Some choose primaries and caucuses.
We have a metric. . . it's delegates . . . Clinton can't catch Obama in delegates unless she gets super delegates to reverse the will of the people and give it to her (for what reason, I really don't know).
Or....the super delegates could RATIFY the will of the people and put Obama over the magic number (I'm sticking with 2025). . . as it should be.
It's not impossible for Hillary to catch Obama in the popular vote if you count MI (zero votes for Obama), FL and Puerto Rico (which doesn't even vote in the general election). It's unlikely, but not impossible.
Which is why I'd like to see the Obama camp do a better job of stopping this spin dead in it's tracks. It's hard to argue process to an uninformed electorate if Hillary's screaming "one man, one vote."
Had she moved back "home" to Illinois to seek her Senate seat, Obama might not even be in the Senate.
Bill Clinton must've seen something in Obama to have helped knock him out during Obama's first attempt to enter the Illinois legislature. Something that would derail Clinton's bid for a third term by proxy in order to rehabilitate his impeachment legacy.
Karma's a bitch.
But what's even more fucked up is that a two-term President of the US could very publicly endorse a former Black Panther in a state primary and not be punished. That his wife could be running for president and not be vetted for her husband's support for a former member of the Black Panthers.
And yet Obama is being smeared by his association with William Ayers.
Hillary and the Congresswomen who support her are involved in a breach of trust. Hillary has suggested that McCain is a more viable choice for POTUS that Obama, knowing full well that McCain is notorious for his anti-abortion stance. She also lied in NH about Barack's pro choice stance. Hillary's supporters are considering voting for McCain as a consequence of all this. She has caused women to consider voting against their best interest. NARAL made the only choice they could under these circumstances.
::
Say it again.
I don't think this has really been about the pres. nomination since NC though but the VP. She "will do anything necessary" is included in her answer to serving as VP questions now. It's all about delegates and she is still getting them.
A few of the women there say last night they got email from John requesting donations. One woman was livid because she said she'd sent him numerous emails asking him to endorse Hillary, but her emails were never acknowledged.
*** Five big turning points: In today’s installment of our look at the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Obama-Clinton race, we take a look back at the very beginning of this contest.
While in some eyes, the race began in earnest on January 20, 2007 -- the day Clinton announced her exploratory committee online (“So let the conversation begin”) -- Obama had actually unveiled his exploratory announcement four days earlier. “For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation,” he said in a taped message on his Web site. “And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.”
While that moment might not have been a turning point, per se, since it happened at the very outset, it signaled that it would be Obama -- and not Clinton -- dictating the pace of the race. “It sort of forced their hand,” an Obama source tells First Read. “We did it on our own terms. It caught everyone by surprise.”
IMO the "slickest shit that occurred thus far" is the Kennedys and Shrivers' endorsement, followed by the Big Oprah opening the door for Obama to start.
I agree. I believe it was the most important endorsement, because it stopped in its tracks the Billary attempt to 'Ghettoize' Obama. Giving him the traction he needed to win all those White states on February 5th.
I am starting to think that maybe Clinton and Edwards are playing some version of that typical game among white people seeking to preserve something of the status quo: good cop/bad cop. I hope I'm wrong about this, but that's the sense I'm starting to get.
(And I don't know that they have overtly coordinated with each other on this -- possibly not -- it's just that it's a dynamic that is familiar and easy for white people to slide into in certain situations.)
I am glad that Edwards did what he did and glad of the timing. Though of course it was only useful like that because Clinton has used racism like she does, and the relative passivity of the Democratic Party all along in the face of it -- so it created a situation that then needed addressing and made Edwards look so useful and good.
My gut just doesn't like John Edwards and felt a sort of deception in his "ensorsement." Which isn't to say it's not useful -- clearly, politically, it is. But still, I feel he acts from self-serving motives and is not to be trusted no matter what he does. I particularly appreciate bpm/Truthseeker's discussion of his body language.
I would not like him as VP, for exactly the reasons bpm talks about. And I question the VP talk in case it is acceptable mainly because of a good cop/bad cop dynamic.
Though I also agree w/ anon @ 7:48 that One thing I've noticed about Obama is he is a quick study and very observant. I'm quite sure he saw Edwards' assholery last night, knows that he's just a bandwagon jumper and is figuring out what to do with him. Funny thing about Obama, most people think he is a very weak guy, easily led by Rev. Wright, Michelle etc. but dude is always laying back in the cut, watching and then he pulls a slick move.
And I appreciate that bpm pointed out that happening in the 6:11 am comment. I don't think Senator Obama misses much.
Ms. Martin, I was talking about the RANK of big moments not the chronological order. That is to say that IMO the Edwards endorsement isn't anywhere near the top of my list. On the importance of Oprah's help, Michelle O. and I agree completely on how she opened the door for him in Iowa and SC to get the attention he wasn't getting before. Now he can draw 30,000 people without Oprah's name on the marquee but without her giving him a boost well we can all disagree...but I agree with Michelle on how important Oprah was in getting this ball rolling full speed ahead.
Wayne Slater (DMN) just said that Bush went after Obama in Isreal (after he said he would stay out of the campaign) to appeal to the evangelicals.
They must be feeling a little threatened. You were right again.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/05/alert-a-new-mes.html