MyDD :: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination

Obama's Strategy for the Nomination

by PlainWords, Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:52:41 PM EST

I've been watching the Obama campaign and I think I've nailed down the 10-point strategy he is using to get the nomination.

1. Give one great speech in an ultra-liberal precinct in your state when you have nothing to risk and then vote the same as the Senator you oppose, who came from the state that was attacked on 9/11 and supported the resolution to force inspectors back into Iraq to find out the truth. Then when you do have something to risk, say that you pretty much agree with Bush on the war.

2. Vote Present whenever there could be some risk in standing on principle.

3. Take credit after the fact for other people's legislation, while explaining at the same time that you didn't have time to do anything because you were running for President.

4. Put all your efforts into caucuses where few people can vote and volunteers can steer the results your way.

5. Dismiss all the big primaries in critical states that you lose as unimportant and not representative.

6. Block democratic votes in important states that you lost by arguing that we should stick to the rules, even though those rules were made by people with an astonishing lack of foresight.

7. Block superdelegate votes that could go against you by arguing that we should throw away the rules because allowing superdelegates to vote their conscience would be undemocratic.

8. Call the other candidate an ambitious monster lying racist cheater who takes credit for things she didn't do, and belittle people who vote for her as Archie Bunkers, while making speeches saying you will unite America.

9. Buddy up with the Reverend Wright-God-Damn-America-and-all-white-pe ople-and-Italians-who-killed-black-Jesus and, just for good measure, call your grandmother a "typical white person." Then make another great speech about how this is necessary to unite America.

10. To avoid another loss in another critical big state, which would make you the loser in every one except the one you live in, demand that your opponent get out of the race now.

Tags: Obama strategy nomination (all tags)

Permalink :: 112 Comments :: Post a Comment

Dumb diary. (1.80 / 5)

I come here to read ignorant diaries attacking Senator Obama and go to Daily Kos to read ignorant diaries attacking Senator Clinton.

How about exploring the different policies each may implement?

by TomP on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:55:36 PM EST

So you have no answer... (2.00 / 7)

Call it dumb if you want, but it does describe what Obama has done. I guess you have no answer for that.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean like this? (2.00 / 1)

"Call the other candidate an ambitious monster lying racist cheater"

Cite? Or are you just making shit up?

Pave the Earth: One People, One Planet, One slab of asphalt

by fat lady singing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (2.00 / 6)

Well, this IS a satire, but there is a factual basis for everything in it. If you were following the news, you would be familiar with all of these. Monster: Samantha Power. Liar: many instances, the recent stuff over Bosnia is just one example. What she really said has been twisted and taken out of context to make her sound like a liar. Ambitious - yep. Many times the Obama campaign has said Clinton will do anything to win. Most recently, Richardson in connection with endorsing Obama. Racist - from day one, race-baiting has been a top tactic of the Obama campaign. Even the most innocent and legitimate statements, like HRC's comment on MLK and LBJ, have been labeled as racist. Cheater -- well she's running against him isn't she. THAT'S SO UNFAIR!

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (1.00 / 1)

So this really isn't satire in your mind, but you think you look idiotic for post this (which you do), so you say it is satire. Got it.

by mefck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its satire, but its also true.. (2.00 / 1)

If it wasn't true, it would be evil, but as it is, its PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...

A question for the Obaba-philes, would you want us to elect somebody PRESIDENT who was unsuited for the job because we had ignored important facts?

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its satire, but its also true.. (none / 0)

No, but what people consider "facts" is apparently very subjective.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its satire, but its also true.. (none / 0)

"would you want us to elect somebody PRESIDENT who was unsuited for the job because we had ignored important facts?"

You're not talking about Hillary's vote for invading Iraq here, are you?

Pave the Earth: One People, One Planet, One slab of asphalt

by fat lady singing on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (1.50 / 2)

Have you ever claimed you were being shot at when you weren't and explained the inconsistency by misremembering?

Do you think it's possible HRC exaggerated her experience to make herself seem more impressive?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (1.66 / 3)

I don't think she exaggerated.

I think she lied.

Pave the Earth: One People, One Planet, One slab of asphalt

by fat lady singing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (2.00 / 2)

The fuss over Bosnia is just another desperate Obama strategy to draw attention away from something that really is important -- the Wright controversy. But that won't go away. The Republicans are salivating over it as we speak.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the Wright issue is a Obama-contrived (none / 0)

diversionary tactic to divert America and the media away from asking Obama IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ON HIS STANCE ON ISSUES and PLATFORM.

In other words, they say they hate it, but they love it because every idiotic question that is asked abot Wright is ONE LESS QUESTION ASKED about HEALTHCARE and MILITARY SPENDING and LACK OF VISION ON THE ECONOMY...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (2.00 / 1)

You do realize that Clinton did not tell the truth about her Bosnia visit -- and has admitted it, right? And no one in the Clinton campaign called her a liar on it?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You do realize, (none / 0)

that every time the media shows the tape of Hillary on that runway among the troops with the sandbagged buildings and guns she looks more presidential. I wouldn't go there, if I were an Obama supporter. He probably doesn't know where Bosnia is or anything about it. Oh, well, you can talk about how he changed planes in London once....

by georgiast on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (none / 0)

How about when he

Attacked her veracity

Obama campaign accuses Hillary of `incredible distortions.' [USA Today, 1/22/08]

Obama campaign: `people have heard a lot of things that just aren't true from the mouth of the First Lady, from the mouth of the former President, from the mouth of the campaign.' [Politico, 1/21/08]

Obama accused Hillary of 'not being straight' with the American people on many issues. Sen. Obama: "Hillary's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance. But this is yet another issue where she is not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance." [AP, 11/25/07]

Obama called Hillary 'disingenuous.' Sen. Obama: "Her response was certainly inadequate...She can release these papers...I think she was being disingenuous." [Newsweek, 11/12/07]

Obama told reporters to ask Hillary 'the difference between disingenuous and dishonest.' Q: "What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?" Obama: "You'll have to ask her." [Newsweek, 11/3/07]

Attacked her credibility

Obama campaign Truth Squad member says Hillary and Bill Clinton are `all about deceit.' [Washington Post, 1/25/08]

Obama says 'Senator Clinton started off trying to make history, and now she's trying to rewrite it.' [Las Vegas Review Journal, 1/14/08]

Obama accused Hillary of not putting 'honesty first.' "The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first." [Politico.com, 11/20/07]

Obama said Hillary has not 'been truthful to voters about what she would do as president. NYT: "Has she been truthful to voters about what she would do as president?" Obama: "No." [New York Times, 10/27/07]

Obama said Hillary doesn't stand for anything. "Obama has criticized rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on both issues, and he said not taking strong stands ultimately doesn't work. 'People want parties to stand for something,' he said." [AP, 11/7/07]

Said that she would say or do anything to get elected

Obama campaigns says `Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election' [Plouffe Statement, 1/25/08]

Obama Radio Ad says 'Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.' [Obama South Carolina Radio Ad, 1/23/08]

Obama says he's up against a candidate who will `say anything or do anything to win an election.' [Economist, 1/25/08]

Obama said Hillary is more concerned 'about getting through an election than actually solving the health care problems.' "The Illinois senator said it is another instance of political maneuvering on Clinton's part. `So unless she can answer those questions this is yet another calculation that's more about getting through an election than actually solving the health care problems,' he said." [AP, 11/25/07]

Obama said Hillary's positions are all based on 'what's popular or politically convenient.' "Now, Senator Clinton is certainly not the only one in Washington to play this game. It's gone on for years, and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a game that usually gets politicians where they need to go. But I don't believe it gets America where we need to go. When it comes to issues like war and diplomacy, energy and health care, I don't believe we can bring about real change if all we do is change our positions based on what's popular or politically convenient." [Barack Obama, `A Change We Can Believe In,' 11/3/07

Just for starters.

***A

by adrienne4dean on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean like this? (none / 0)

Thanks for pulling these together.

The one I love is your last Obama quote:

Now, Senator Clinton is certainly not the only one in Washington to play this game. It's gone on for years, and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a game that usually gets politicians where they need to go.

I love it because it so perfectly describes Obama's strategy. He is a chameleon who changes his position for the audience and the circumstances, and tries entirely to avoid real substance. Where there's risk, you won't find Obama.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you have no answer... (none / 0)

If it was a serious critique, some Obama supporter would address the points on merit.

It reads like emotional venting to me.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you have no answer... (none / 0)

"If it was a serious critique, some Obama supporter would address the points on merit."

Uh, no they wouldn't.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Smart diary (none / 0)

If you want to find out about the policies of the two candidates, go to each Web site. If Hillary comes out with something new, you'll find the same idea on Obama's site a week of so later. If you want to find out what people think of those policies or the candidates, come here or to No Quarter, Anglachel, Taylor Marsh, TalkLeft, No More Apples, Donna Darko, Corrente, etc.

by Nobama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

The only thing from this diary that's missing is referring to Obama as Barak HUSSEIN Obama.

by mefck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:55:59 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

It's missing because it doesn't belong. It is not part of Obama's strategy. Get it? It's not part of HRC's either.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His strategy (2.00 / 1)

is working surprisingly well. But I think you deconstructed it accurately!!

by catfish1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His strategy (2.00 / 2)

it's a nomination strategy that will cost him the general election should he get the nomination. i don't think he HAS a general election strategy.

by campskunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His strategy (none / 0)

His general election strategy is exactly the same as his current strategy. He'll run against McCain the same way he's run against Hillary.

Hillary is the one who will have to suddenly change her song. Think she'll still be talking about how important experience is, when she's running against someone more experienced than her?

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do Clinton supporters feel insulted when (2.00 / 4)

someone like this purports to represent you? I mean really.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:57:20 PM EST

Re: Do Clinton supporters feel insulted when (2.00 / 0)

I certainly would.

by mefck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Clinton supporters feel insulted when (2.00 / 1)

As an Obama supporter, I feel insulted when Obama supporters make up nasty crap about Clinton, too.

Either candidate can be fairly critiqued without this divisive, exaggerated nonsense.

Pave the Earth: One People, One Planet, One slab of asphalt

by fat lady singing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do Clinton supporters feel insulted when (none / 0)

I don't "purport" to represent anybody but myself.

I mean really.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not me (none / 0)

by lombard on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

by thewholeofthemoon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:04:14 PM EST

I'm tempted to Rec this just for kicks. (none / 0)

To get it on the list. Naahhhh. I've just got a mean streak I think.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST

Troll Alert!! (none / 0)

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:06:53 PM EST

Call out to the troll rating army, Kossak! (none / 0)

Is that all you guys live to do - censor people who don't agree with you?

by lombard on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 1)

Get most delegates under the rules announced before the competition began.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (none / 0)

Yes. Right on target.

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 2)

...except don't count the Clinton delegates wherever you can get rid of them, and block re-votes even when the rules provide for them, and change the rules to keep superdelegates from hurting you.

Really, I don't know how you can defend Obama's inconsistent position of following the rules where it helps him and breaking them where that helps him. Do you ever even think about it?

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 2)

Please list one rule that he has changed. For my own edification.

by jdusek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (none / 0)

I think the diary here is really depressing, but, anyway, it seems as if the Obama people want to pressure the super delegates into voting the way the primary and caucus voters voted.

I think it's legal, moral and ethical for Obama supporters to support that position, but I think what they're doing there is really asking for a mid-course rules change to make the nomination process more democratic.

Which is fine. But, if that's what the Obama people want, why aren't they working harder to find a compromise that they could accept that would get the Florida and Michigan voters to count, somehow?

I think it's completely fair for Obama to ask that the existing results be discarded, but I also think he himself should push to get the Florida and Michigan Democrats counted, one way or another, because Democrats ought to stand up for the ideal of listening to the voice of the people.

I understand that the "make the Florida and Michigan votes count" is now associated with the HRC camp. I think that's really tragic.

I saw an Obama propose an alternative Fla/Mich allocation system, and maybe Obama has a make Fla/Mich count proposal somewhere on his Web site. But it looks from the diaries on Daily Kos as if his campaign is probably promoting the blow offFla/Mich strategy, even if he also has a count Fla/Mich strategy. He ought to be figuring out a graceful way to drop the blow off strategy and support an Obama-friendly count strategy.

Note: it would be very easy for Obama to promote a count strategy that was impractical and would never adopted. So, he could easily have his cake and eat it to here if made up his mind to.

by sclminc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 1)

What is the evidence that FL and MI voters who aren't HRC partisans care deeply about this issue?

Who do they blame for the problem? Their state governments? The DNC?

If you're not a HRC partisan, it seems that the state governments and the DNC are the source of the problem.

And HRC didn't have any problem with the sanctions applied to Florida and Michigan until much later in the process.

It's somewhat absurd to hold the elections and then debate how the results should be interpreted. It seems like the rules for interpreting the elections should be set before the voting.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 2)

I'm new to myDD.com and might have screwed this link up, but anyhow:

Here's a link to a press release about a poll of 600 Florida voters conducted by the Kitchens Group that found that 25% of the Democrats who said they voted in the Florida primary said they might not vote for a Democrat in November if the controversy isn't resolved.

I suspect that that's not the world's most reliable, unbiased poll, but I know that I personally am a Hillary/Obama swing voter kind of person, not a partisan, and I know the idea that my primary vote wouldn't count because of some idiotic politicians I had no real control over would make me really angry.

When I post comments along those lines on Daily Kos, which is not exactly Obamarama territory, I do get some 4's, especially from users with user names that indicate that they're from Florida.

I dipped into Talk Left, and I noticed comments by people who seem more sophisticated than I am who suggest that Obama probably will announce a "count the delegates" proposal, and the question is whether he should do it now and get some mojo or do it in June, when he already knows what the outcome of including the votes will be.

What bothers me about the "don't count the vote" comments and diaries is that a lot of people who were obsessing about hanging chads a few years ago don't even acknowledging that ignoring the votes of Florida might be a problem.

If count the vote opponents had some kind of damage control PR strategy -- e.g., we were going into Florida and getting Florida voters themselves to DEMAND that we not count their votes -- OK, but the actual strategy seems to be just to give Florida a cold shoulder and write off Florida in the general election.

I think it's self-destructive for us to write off Florida voters over Democratic primary schedule reform, especially when you consider that a lot of people who spend time in Florida are New York and New Jersey voters. If Obama blows off Florida in a really clumsy way, maybe that would lead to problems in New Jersey and New York as well.

by sclminc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (none / 0)

How mad are you at the DNC? Florida Republicans?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (none / 0)

My understanding is that Florida Republicans are really responsible for the primary scheduling problems.

I'm not in Florida, so I don't really know how much ordinary Democrats know about the argument that the Republicans caused the scheduling mess.

My suspicion is that swing voters are more likely to blame the Democrats and Obama than to blame the Republicans.

One reason: the arguments posted on Daily Kos against counting the Florida votes seem not to even acknowledge the possibility that this move might anger Florida Democrats, or that this might be a problem. It seems as if the Daily Kos diariests and commenters whose thoughts I've read on this topic might be intentionally or unintentionally Obama campaign talking points that fail to take this stuff into account very well.

And, certainly: I'm sure that a really sophisticated primary watcher (example: the other person who responded to my comment here; sorry, already forgot the user name :( ) can give some kind of argument about why ignoring the vote won't matter. But, in general, the response seems to be just to deny that this is a consideration at all.

Example: you're a sophisticated, well-informed Democrat. But you're not giving me polling data, either directly or indirectly from the Obama campaign, defending the Obama's campaign's position. You're just responding to my argument with a question.

And, certainly, absolutely, I'm poorly qualified to respond to that question. The only reason I'm not typing this in my underwear is that my heat is set down to 60 degrees. But I think it's obvious to any independent person that this is a huge, complicated issue that merits careful analysis. You could be right, and this might not have that big of an effect on the November general election vote, but there's no good reason for the Obama campaign or anyone else to assume that.

To repeat stuff I've said in other comments various places: I think that, logically, Obama is correct. But I think that, in the long run, Obama would rather see a Democrat in the White House in January 2009 -- even if the Democrat is HRC -- than to be logically correct. The question here isn't what's correct. The question is, what can we do (within the limits of the law) that will help the Democrats win in November?

by sclminc on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (none / 0)

Which is fine. But, if that's what the Obama people want, why aren't they working harder to find a compromise that they could accept that would get the Florida and Michigan voters to count, somehow?"

He is.

Here
Here
Here
Here

An excerpt from the first article:

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, is softening its position that the votes of 1.75-million Florida Democrats were irrelevant because the national party declared the election meaningless and the candidates did not campaign in Florida.

Key Obama surrogates, including Democratic National Committee member Allan Katz, are signaling that the campaign might support a plan to divvy up Florida's delegates based at least partly on the Jan. 29 results, which Clinton won by 17 percentage points.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe on Monday said a fair solution would be to divide the Florida delegates in half, but he called that "a place to start from" in negotiating.

"We're hoping that more urgent negotiations will take place. We certainly would like to be party to a settlement,'' Plouffe said. "When we wrap up this nomination, if (Florida and Michigan) are unsettled, we'll settle them. But I think it will be in everybody's interest to try and settle this over the next period of weeks so that there's some certainty about the delegations' participation in Denver."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Watch what Obama does, not what he says. (none / 0)

Watch what they do, not what they say. In fact, that's a great general rule for Obama and his campaign. Obama could have had a solution in Michigan. Everyone else was ready for a re-vote. The Michigan legislature was ready. Clinton's campaign agreed. They just needed the concurrence from the Obama campaign. They didn't get it. The last thing he wants is for all the votes to count.

And by the way, an "offer" to split the votes evenly is no offer at all. It's an insult.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 1)

Which rule did Obama break again?

by mefck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision for getting nomination (2.00 / 1)

Please re-read 6 and 7. The position of the Obama campaign on the rules is inconsistent. In other words, dishonest.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

I think this is meant to be amusing/cheeky/moral boosting for Clinton supporters. It's actually just more tragic drivel. Both candidates are good. One will be deemed better. Point to the positive. You need to encourage people to vote for Clinton.

by thewholeofthemoon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:10:19 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Obama has learned through experience and focus groups she can't compete with Obama by being positive, so she's gone negative. And she's subtly trying to peal away "White" voters while trying not to get caught doing something even the traditional media will flag as obvious George Wallace tactics.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

You need to label your snark. That post was snark, right?

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

It's a two-pronged approach. This person is fulfilling the role of the overzealous, letter-of-the-law rookie. I'm still waiting for the grizzled, seen-it-all, violence-doesn't-solve-anything veteran.

by the mollusk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Doesn't it get boring? Hating critical thinking so much?

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:10:28 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 9)

I see this as Obama's strategy:

1 Mobilize.
2 Reach out to young and disillusioned voters.
3 Use exceptional rhetorical skills to talk about new subjects to voters as if they were adults.
4 Penetrate into deeply red areas of the country and find those Democrats and liberals whose voices have counted for nil for at least a decade.
5 Keep it close in the large states where Hillary's name recognition and connection with blue-collar voters makes winning difficult.
6 When challenged, give a speech and hit it out of the park.
7 Tap into the vast wealth of dollars and frustration online.

by the mollusk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:12:35 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

Well I know that's how you see it, but that's not how it looks to everybody else.

1. I'll give you mobilize.

2 & 3. Yes, I'll agree that he's done this, but only by appealing to their emotions. I don't think he believes they have any brains. That's why he has campaign videos that have no point other than the music. Frankly, they creep me out.

4. If he is the nominee, he will not win one single red state. Most of the states he won have non-representative primaries where republicans can cross over to pick the weaker opponent. And even if you disregard that, his wins only represent the small minority of Democrats in those states. The caucus strategy may have gotten him delegates, but it won't translate into wins in November.

5. He has NOT kept it close in most of the large states. That is a fantasy. He would probably lose several of the must-win big states. That right there adds up to a loss in the general election.

6. When challenged, give a speech that is at odds with your actions. In other words, be a phony, but be good at it.

7. Get massive contributions from anti-progressive special interests, like well over a million dollars from the sub-prime lenders who tanked the economy.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Every presidential candidate appeals to people's emotions to some extent (at least the ones that are successful). I really don't know what you're talking about with the music thing. But frankly his speeches are good enough that you could role out a dozen or so 30-60 second ads just playing clips of his speeches. This could be done very cheaply as well. Plus, don't underestimate the long-term benefits of engaging younger voters. People make up their minds about political parties at relatively young ages and a lot of these people remain loyal to their party. If the music does it, well, then, play the damn music. It may be true that he won't win in these red states, but building the party there has several tangible benefits. First, it builds the party there, which I think is good. Second, it makes the Democratic label less toxic in red areas of purple states. Let's get a few more rural areas of Wisconsin, Virginia, Iowa, and North Carolina to vote blue. Who knows, maybe they'll go Democratic in a few years. Plus, there seems to be this overriding conflation of the primary results in MA, NY, and CA with what would happen in the general election. These states are simply not available to a Republican candidate for President. So having Hillary win big in CA does not necessarily mean beans for the general.

by the mollusk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some good points and I agree with some of them, but I still think you're off the mark.

First, as to the music thing, I'm talking about a specific ad that I saw. I wish I had a link to it. It's black-and-white - a powerful and smart emotional technique, by the way. It has a popular singer - and she's good, very good - and the track has people literally singing his name "Oh Bah Mah, Oh Bah Mah, Oh Bah Mah," over and over - just the name - in a very religious way, like a chant. It IS a chant. And it's moving. But there is almost no content. That is manipulative. It's scary.

I happen to be a very very good speaker. I actually think Obama is way over-rated. His words are good but his delivery is nothing special. Just take the parts he took from Deval Patrick and go to YouTube and compare Patrick's delivery with Obama's and you'll see what I mean. But that's not important. What is important is what is behind the words. The first time I spoke to a large gathering I was not prepared for the response. I spoke extemporaneously and none of the people who heard me knew me at all. But immediately I had a crowd of people around me and they were actually asking me what they should do next. These were people who didn't even know me, but were ready to do whatever I told them. I realized then how such a skill could be misused. And of course that has happened. That is why speeches are not a reason to elect someone to lead the most powerful nation in the world.

It is extremely important to look at the record of the speaker -- his votes, his actions as a politician, his performance in the debates as opposed to the controlled environment of speeches, how he behaves under pressure -- and Obama's record does not stand up. Add to that the fact that he has used some very nasty tactics to win, such as the constant race-baiting, which is particularly disturbing when it comes from someone who claims to be the candidate who can bring us together. But people want to believe in him so badly that they are closing their eyes to the nasty tactics and the inconsistencies. Voting is something you should do with your eyes open.

Do you remember what Bush said? "I am a uniter not a divider." But he is the most divisive President in modern times, perhaps even ever. Words are not enough.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

The ad you saw was not put out by the Obama campaign.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Wish I could find it right now but I can't. I spent a few minutes looking but that's all. You may be right about who did it. However, while I was looking, starting at his own Web site, I found plenty of stuff that's very manipulative in using an almost completely emotional appeal. I have no respect for that kind of approach. It's not like they don't know they're doing it. It's calculated and cynical.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Two points:
1. This is very insulting to Obama supporters and it does seem odd they would be simply moved by emotion since they are more likely to be more highly educated.

2. I have followed this campaign closely and there are no campaign videos put out by the campaign that "have no point other than the music." Could you establish their existence by posting a link?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

1. Highly educated and intelligent are two different things. He does have the people who like to call themselves "progressives," I'll give you that. But he's also got a lot of very naive followers, a huge number, and plenty of uneducated ones as well. Or do you think he's making all those content-lite videos for no reason? Go to his Web site and you can see plenty of them.

2. Someone else said the video I saw was not a paid-for-by video. That may be. The video was kind of a Yes-I-Can-II. But what it was saying and doing, and how well it's worked, speaks to what the campaign has done.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

On 2: both are involved. Obama appeals strongly to a lot of people who are issues voters too. I'm an issues voter. I really don't care that much about the emotional appeal, and I don't care for the music-video commercials either. Doesn't matter; they're not aimed at me. Obama does a lot of Town Halls; town halls are inherently all about the issues and substance and nothing much at all about emotional appeals and music.

On 3 -- bundling that with 2 is really a stretch. Obama does talk to voters like they're adults. He does it in town halls; he did it in the race speech, he did it in yesterday's economic speech, he does it in most everything. He very pointedly assumes that the voters are in fact adults and can understand things beyond 30-second soundbites. He could speak in 30-second soundbites -- he clearly has the chops to do it -- but he doesn't.

On 4. Colorado, NV, and NM are commonly perceived to be red states. Obama will win all three, and fairly comfortably. Texas is a red state; Obama will probably come within 2 or 3 here. Iowa is a weak red state; Obama will carry it fairly easily. Virginia is a weak red state; Obama will likely carry it or run within 2.

That's part of the point here. It's not just that Obama will carry several red states (and he will; Colorado's a virtual certainty, NV is extremely likely, and NM's pretty likely too; IA's a near-certainty). It's that he runs well in a whole bunch of other (TX and VA among them) and forces McCain to spend a lot of time and money playing defense. In particular, TX will cost McCain a fortune to defend and tie him in knots; it's an expensive state to run in and Obama's got some strong advantages running here.

5. He's kept it close in all of them. We're talking about the primary vote, where most voters are picking between two candidates they think are both pretty darn good. And, remember, the latest polling shows Obama runs significantly more strongly in California than does Clinton (it's safe blue with Obama; much more weakly blue with Clinton, and she'll need to play a lot of defense there).

6. Point me to the speech. Every speech I've seen runs exactly along with his actions. The race speech in particular is a marvelous example of a speech that dovetails perfectly with his actions and presents a perfectly consistent whole.

7. Obama receives a far lower percentage (32%) of his total funding from high-dollar contributors than does Clinton (51%). He also receives fewer dollars from employees of the sub-prime mortgage lenders than does Clinton (about 10% less, according to the most recent breakdowns of funding).

Obama has far far far more small-dollar contributors (40% of his funding), and a much higher percentage of his funding comes from small-dollar donors than does Clinton's (24%). All of those small-dollar donors have to report corporate affiliation. It's entirely likely that those "contributions from anti-progressive special interests" are in fact contributions from rank-and-file workers who detest the upper management and direction of their companies. 1,000 Countrywide employees who hate the bad side of their employer would make for a $200,000ish contribution "from Countrywide", but wouldn't in any way say that Countrywide is buying off Obama.

In fact, the fact that more of Obama's funding comes from small-dollar donors than from high-dollar donors makes it much harder for anyone to buy him off. He's actually got a solid basis to make the claim that he can do without the big money people and run on small-dollar donors.

No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!

by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

2. They may not be aimed at you, but they are aimed at a huge number of people, and, unfortunately, they work as expected.

3. When I've seen him he's been long on rhetoric and short on content. Don't expect me to be keeping a log. Why should I? I just compare him to Hillary. She always has more content. What's more, she's not lying, as he did on NAFTA in Ohio and is everywhere about the war. He will say whatever he needs to say at the moment. He doesn't do so well when he has to face real disagreement, as has happened in some of the debates. But even there, his questions from the partisans at places like MSNBC have been mostly softballs.

If he ends up the nominee against McCain he might have to start answering real questions. Basically it will turn out that everyone will have the same position on the war, because -- as his own advisers have admitted when they thought no one was watching -- we really can't get out. Sure a few divisions here and a few there, but we're stuck for at least several more years. So what's he going to say against McCain? It'll be fun to watch. But HRC can say just what she has been saying all along. Her voting and speech making will all match up.

4. I think you are fantasizing. Obama will be extremely lucky if he could even keep his loss in the GE close. He may lose by a landslide.

5. Keeping it close????? Florida? Ohio? These are critical states. He will probably lose them.

6. The race speech is a great example of what a phony he is. He went to a hate-preaching church for twenty years and never spoke out against the hate, but now he is lecturing the rest of us on race? It's an insult.

7. Oh please. He's already been bought off. His head strategist used to work with Exelon. Remember? Obama watered down the bill that was supposed to regulate them. Then there's Rezko who helped him buy his house. And of course he has Bradley on his team. He's the biggest bundler of all time. None of this would be so troubling if Obama were not selling himself as the change candidate.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

Obama has consistently used the very old insult personally your opponent trying to make her unacceptable to all your supporters, say that your voters will riot if you don't get your way, refuse to count all the votes in a flagrant attempt to disqualify 2.3 million voters, calling her first divisive, then your campaign implies she is a racist, then questions her motives, her character and accuse anyone who votes for her as some kind of racist too, defend a pastor who says the most unacceptable things as if its free speech to trash your opponent personally while standing in the pulpit, then say how awful she is by her merely saying that she would not have had Wright as her pastor (neither would I BTW). Yes Obama has not employed new politics, he employees a very old kind of campaign, complete with a prejudiced attack by gender insults, personal smears and character destruction.

This is the savior of the democratic party? Half of the democrats are not buying that. The reason Obama wants her to quit is because he will not be winning in Pennsylvania. Why is it that the "front runner" is not winning these states and if this shows his weakness, then that is the real reason, he doesn't want the democratic big shots to see that, but we already know. It is not Clinton's fault that this party is divided any more than it is Obama's fault. Right now, half support Clinton, half support Obama, but only one side is using these scurrilous tactics and then cynically calling themselves a new kind of politician.

democrat voter

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

4. Put all your efforts into caucuses where few people can vote and volunteers can steer the results your way.

This alone makes me crazy, I heard first hand accounts of the Nevada Caucuses and it was most certainly not Obama supporters "steering" the results Obama's way.

Most of this like all the smears from either side have a kernel of truth at the heart of it but it sure doesn't stand all on it's own.

by Ellinorianne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Well I've heard first-hand accounts of the Texas caucuses, and that's a better example, because Texas is a state that has both a primary and a caucus. HRC won the primary, where everybody gets a fair chance to vote. Well, mostly fair, because votes in districts that had small turnout last time, which happened often to be HRC precincts with lots of Hispanic voters, counted for less than the precincts Obama won. But HRC still won the primary. And yet magically, Obama won the caucuses.

Hmmmm....

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Magically? You're kidding right?

It could just be that different people vote and different kinds of people caucus. It's like saying, well, it rained so therefore Clinton should have won.

by Ellinorianne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

No I'm not kidding. Not about voting. Clinton DID win the primary election, which is by far more comparable to a general election. But somehow, in caucuses, where the voting is highly restricted, Obama won. It's pretty clear which one would do better in the general election.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

And I'm sure the NAFTA lies had nothing to do with it. Oh and that "leaked" photo etc.

I believe Clinton deserves to stay in the race but I've not been very impressed with her tactics.

by Ellinorianne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Probably leaked by Obama. Why would HRC leak a photo like that in Mississippi? It's crazy. But it sure helped Obama. Just like the push polls in Iowa that appeared designed to hurt both Edwards and Obama, but somehow went to Clinton supporters. Now gosh, why would she do that? It had the utterly unsurprising effect of helping Obama.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

How is voting restricted in a caucus?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Ditto, I'd love an answer to that question.

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

If you need the answer, it's probably because you have no problem with showing up at 7 o'clock after work and hanging around for two hours.

Lots of working people who have children and can't afford nannies, or who work two jobs, or are working at K-Mart at night, can't vote in caucuses.

Caucuses are anti-democratic.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

It's possible to change ones vote in the caucuses. There's no mechanism to require one to vote for the same candidate in the primary and caucus. I know personally of people who either 1) voted for one candidate in the primary but changed their mind for the caucus or 2) intentionally split their vote between the two because they liked both candidates.

Also, Clinton pretty clearly got more than her margin of victory in Texas from Limbaugh voters who do not want her to be President. Obama's Republican crossover voters don't poll the same way as Clinton's do, at all; they generally want him to be President. It's likely that that segment of voters weren't interested in the caucuses.

One can also make the counterargument that early voting is easy, while caucus voting is hard; therefore, the primary voters were more likely to be low-informed voters who voted on name recognition and not any "real" preference for either candidate.

There isn't and will never be any proof that the primary vote more accurately reflected the will of the state than did the caucus vote. It's impossible to make such a claim and back it up with more than "just words".

No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!

by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Well you've done a pretty good job of making all the assumptions you need to avoid actually having to prove anything. If we're going to go on assumptions, then I'll assume the process that let's the most people vote is the fairest and most representative one. We call it "democracy." Perhaps you've heard of it.

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Present (none / 0)

yes, 3% of his votes in Illinois were "present", that's so overwhelming.

Not.

Facts don't matter to either side do they?

by Ellinorianne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM EST

Re: Present (none / 0)

Everyone knows that "facts" are biased against Clinton. Why are "facts" so sexist?

by XoFalconXo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Present (2.00 / 1)

Why are you so sexist? Nobody but you brought up the issue of sex.

Is that all you got?

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Present (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, the RISKY 3%, just like his Present vote on the attempt to censure MoveOn. HRC voted against. But then, that took guts.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Present (2.00 / 1)

I think voting against Kyl-Lieberman would have been gutsier.

Obama missing that vote certainly wasn't a matter of "present". I think it was a waste of time for everyone involved for such things to wind up on the floor of the Senate in the first place.

by Ellinorianne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Present (none / 0)

None of the candidates has done everything right, or everything wrong.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AUMF (none / 0)

22 Senators voted against. That took real guts. Only ONE senator who was up for re-election in 2002 voted against it.

Trivia time - who was that senator?????

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AUMF (none / 0)

Oops, 23. 21 Dems, Chafee(R), Jeffords(I).

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AUMF (none / 0)

double oops. There were four, not one. Reed, Levin, Wellstone, and Durbin.

by grover738 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

This sort of back and forth is not helpful. Neither candidate is perfect--but BOTH are better than the Republican alternative. We need to remember this. Regardless of how this plays out we will need HRC's base and the expanded blocs of voters to whom BO has appeal. I'd suggest we focus our efforts on more consructive engagement of one another.

by TRH3 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

I appreciate your attempt to be civil. And I agree that neither candidate is perfect.

But I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances. I cannot reward the kind of campaign he has run.

I do believe HRC will support him. But I will not vote for him. And it will be the first time in 40 years of voting that I will pass on the Democratic candidate.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Nice thinking. That way, you can reward yourself with McCain. Soooooo smart!

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

At this point. McCain is looking a lot better than Obama.

At least we don't have to stand Obama's Wright on day one.

by JoeySky18 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

Despite the fact that HRC and Obama are nearly lockstep in terms of policy, you'd still be willing to vote for McCain, or abstain from the GE, regardless how disasterous a McCain presidency would be for the nation, the supreme court, etc.?

That's kinda scary, Joe.

I'm for Obama all the way, but will happily pull the level for HRC to stop McCain. No two ways about it.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Sometimes you have to do a hard thing. It's not as if McCain is Hitler.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

Then go vote for McCain. No, really, go.

For every person who likes to do this little spiteful act of, "Well, I'm gonna go vote for McCain, so nyah!" all I have to say is don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee. I don't care how we select one, that person gets my vote. I'm a Democrat. I want Democrats to win. This site was created to help Democrats win.

If you think people are going to chase after you and beg you to vote for a Democrat, you're mistaken. Someone thinks either Hillary or Obama is greater than the party itself? Fine! See ya! We'll win without you.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (none / 0)

I love the way fanatics think the other party is completely evil. Maybe if you would stop and think for, oh, maybe a minute, you would figure out that the parties, both of them, might be better if they could not count on us.

In case you don't know, the two-party system is not in the Constitution, although they'd like you to think it is. It probably would have been pretty surprising to the founders of this country. It's nothing like the elections they saw in their lifetimes.

I personally think McCain is a better man than Obama. Why would I choose the lesser man, especially out of loyalty to a party that doesn't give a sh** about whether every vote gets counted, even though it screamed about it when the shoe was on the other foot?

by PlainWords on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Plainword's Strategy for a Crap Diary (1.50 / 2)

1.) Lie

2.) Distort

3.) Repeat 1 and 2.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:38:06 PM EST

What a deep thinker you are... (2.00 / 2)

Ha ha...

I'm glad you were able to come up with such a thoughtful and perspicacious response.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a deep thinker you are... (none / 0)

Those readers with a modicum of rational acumen and even a mere smattering of critical thinking skills will most assuredly find my derisory comment more perspicacious than the entirety of your specious and utterly calumniating diary.

What color is the sky in troll world?

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a deep thinker you are... (none / 0)

Ohhhhhhh.... We got out the dictionary, didn't we? I'm so scared....

But you can't answer what I said.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a deep thinker you are... (none / 0)

Can't answer what you said? I could answer a question rather easily, had you asked one. If by "answer what you said", you mean refute your diary entirely, I did so with my first post.

The strongest bits of your pathetic diary are half-truths at best, and that's an overly generous estimation.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Rule #1 Anything Obama say or do shouldn't be criticized.

Rule #2 If anything Obama say or do should be criticized, see rule no.1

by JoeySky18 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST

Re: Obama's Strategy for the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

With regard to:

1.If a few more people, in whatever districts they happen to live, had made a few more pleas to avoid war, perhaps we'd not be in one. Or, better yet, if about 30 more Senators had done so, we almost certainly wouldn't be. It's amusing that we want to downplay someone speaking out from a minority position.

2. Despite Clinton's claims that he's bad on choice, Obama's "present" votes were part of a strategy hammered out with Planned Parenthood, which gives him a perfect score on choice. In addition, why do we act like the rules and traditions of a state legislature are the same as those of the US Congress? We've seen it a thousand times: a member of Congress votes for a bill, mostly positive, which happens to contain some negative amendment, and then years down the road is crucified for voting for whatever was in that amendment. So, rather than voting for a bill of mixed good and bad, Obama voted "present," which acknowledges that there's something in the bill worth voting for, but that he won't give it a blanket "yes" vote. Think of it in terms of the telecom immunity that Bush wants to attach to FISA. Most Dems are for FISA, but against the immunity.

3. Every single Presidential candidate that was currently a member of Congress has missed a lot of their Congressional time. It happens.

4. ALL his efforts? How ridiculous. Alabama. Connecticut. Delaware. DC. Georgia. Illinois. Louisiana. Maryland. Mississippi. Missouri. South Carolina. Utah. Virginia. Wisconsin.

All primaries won by Obama.

5. I think you're confusing the two candidates. The dismissal of states has been like Advil that the Clinton campaign takes to assuage their morning-after-a-loss hangover.

6. Those rules WERE made with a lack of foresight. Some of those same people work with for the Clinton campaign, now.

7. Barack Obama doesn't have the power to control how superdelegates vote, so the idea that he is "blocking" them is false. Both campaigns are appealing to the SDs in their own ways. Obama is appealing to them to respect the will of the people, in addition to discussing his qualifications. Clinton is framing her qualifications, as well, and is trying to convince them that only she can win against McCain. &