*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[djcolts]

Homer, prepare your match... Hillary's team has indeed started contacting Obama's pledged delegates.

link

Wolfson is dishonest: They are going after pledged delegates

by LoLoLaLa

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PST

I’m in Vegas and last night myself and a dozen or so other Obama supporters were at the Culinary Union calling our Obama delegates. I probably made about 100 calls and about 95 said Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been calling them "all day" or at least once already.

The fact that they're calling them isn't a big deal, NV's Democratic party put out a list of delegates that doesn't include who the individual is a delegate for. However, we crossed their list, with our list of supporters and we're calling OUR delegates.

What gets me heated is, everyone who said Hillary's campaign called them also said they were encouraged to switch their support from Obama to Hillary . One man even said the person who called him "wouldn't let it go" and when he angrily told them he wasn't going to drop his support for Obama, they just hung up the phone on him.

The Clinton campaign has called me three times already since 2pm yesterday.

Any other Obama supporters in the Las Vegas area, please come to the Culinary Union or SEIU and phone bank with us from 5-9pm. Friday register early for the Clark County Democratic Convention in between the times of 4 and 9pm at Bally's Hotel. You can register the day of the convention at Bally's between 8 and 10am. The convention starts at 10am. There is no registration fee.

If you want to volunteer, show up at bally's 3pm on Friday.

If I'm Obama's campaign, I'd find a way to (subtly) kick this over to the national press. This could be the final nail in the Hillary's Presidential bid.

 

[adonis]

The longer the battle between Obama and Clinton goes on with McCain and conservatives attacking from the sidelines, the worse this will be for the democrats.

If Obama pulls out delegate wins in TX and OH, Clinton needs to step down, for the good of the party. This is what Romney did, knowing that a protracted fight would weaken the Republicans chances. Clinton should do the same, for the good of the party, and not handcuff Obama to fight a battle on two fronts.

If he comes out of the next series of primaries with the most delegates, she needs to step down. Obama needs the freedom to respond to McCain and others as the undisputed democratic nominee, with the full support of the democratic party behind him.

 

[scoobygang]

The longer the battle between Obama and Clinton goes on with McCain and conservatives attacking from the sidelines, the worse this will be for the democrats.If Obama pulls out delegate wins in TX and OH, Clinton needs to step down, for the good of the party. This is what Romney did, knowing that a protracted fight would weaken the Republicans chances. Clinton should do the same, for the good of the party, and not handcuff Obama to fight a battle on two fronts.If he comes out of the next series of primaries with the most delegates, she needs to step down. Obama needs the freedom to respond to McCain and others as the undisputed democratic nominee, with the full support of the democratic party behind him.

This is the type of conventional wisdom that often ends up simply being wrong. For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.I'm supporting Obama, but I'm getting really sick of hearing Obama supporters (not the candidate himself) make these types of veiled threats about superdelegates. Superdelegates were part of the process he signed up for. There's absolutely no way to look at the process in good faith and believe that the superdelegates are required to do anything other than voter their conscience. Obama's supporters should continue to celebrate their candidate and get away from the teeth knashing and veiled threats about burning #### down if the superdelegates break for Hil. It just looks petulant.

 

[Pooch]

Seems to me that Hilary's entire campaign strategy has been a proper microcosm of how she would run the country as president.

Divisive, incompetent, and lacking in foresight.

Compare that to Obama's strategy.

 

[Alias]

71 pages? Cliff notes?

 

[aardball44]

71 pages? Cliff notes?

Obama good -- Hillary bad.

 

[djcolts]

Seems to me that Hilary's entire campaign strategy has been a proper microcosm of how she would run the country as president. Divisive, incompetent, and lacking in foresight. Compare that to Obama's strategy.

From First Read at MSNBC:

*** Speaking of eyebrow-raising campaign stops...: Clinton today -- once again -- stumps in South Texas (in Laredo). It’s her fourth day in Texas in about a week, and every stop so far has been to a Latino-heavy part of the state (El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, and today Laredo). But not until tonight’s debate in Austin will she have visited any other part of the state in the build-up to March 4. Although her husband has campaigned in other parts of the state, she has yet to hit Houston, Dallas, or Fort Worth -- even though those places have more delegates at stake than South Texas does.

So, she's campaigning only in South Texas, where the delegate counts will be small than other comparable areas of the state relative to the population (because of the weird delegate rules)? This is either incompetent strategy, or her internal polls says that she's in BIG trouble in Texas. Or both.

 

[Sup_Yo]

Hillary just called my house. She wants my Ohio vote. She's not going to get it!

 

[adonis]

The longer the battle between Obama and Clinton goes on with McCain and conservatives attacking from the sidelines, the worse this will be for the democrats.If Obama pulls out delegate wins in TX and OH, Clinton needs to step down, for the good of the party. This is what Romney did, knowing that a protracted fight would weaken the Republicans chances. Clinton should do the same, for the good of the party, and not handcuff Obama to fight a battle on two fronts.If he comes out of the next series of primaries with the most delegates, she needs to step down. Obama needs the freedom to respond to McCain and others as the undisputed democratic nominee, with the full support of the democratic party behind him.

This is the type of conventional wisdom that often ends up simply being wrong. For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.I'm supporting Obama, but I'm getting really sick of hearing Obama supporters (not the candidate himself) make these types of veiled threats about superdelegates. Superdelegates were part of the process he signed up for. There's absolutely no way to look at the process in good faith and believe that the superdelegates are required to do anything other than voter their conscience. Obama's supporters should continue to celebrate their candidate and get away from the teeth knashing and veiled threats about burning #### down if the superdelegates break for Hil. It just looks petulant.

The burning #### down stuff is a joke, lighten up francis.And my comments weren't in reference to super delegates or anything else. The voters have spoken, and are speaking, and it is clear to all who are paying attention that they favor Obama. He's the most competitive candidate, he's winning the most states, the most delegates, and the most votes overall. All I'm saying is that if this trend continues, Hillary should drop out for the sake of the party. Romney did it, and he didn't have to. He could've fought until the end, but he realized, rightly so, that stepping aside and letting there be an undisputed leader would allow the base and party to coalesce around one person, and they could continue raising money and formulating strategy for the general election, making their party stronger.Hillary should do the same thing for the sake of the party. She's certainly allowed and within her rights to drag this out to the bitter end, to try to convert every single delegate over to her side, but in the process, she will leave the democratic party in less of a condition to fight the general election than if she were to step aside sooner.This isn't about being petulant, or about complaining about superdelegates, it's about what's best for the party, and respecting the wishes of the voters. Is she within her rights to campaign until the end, certainly, but what is best for the party? That would be her leaving the race, if Obama's success continues.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Hillary just called my house. She wants my Ohio vote. She's not going to get it!

Knowing Hillary's campaign, I'm guessing you live in Texas.

 

[aardball44]

Hillary just called my house. She wants my Ohio vote. She's not going to get it!

Knowing Hillary's campaign, I'm guessing you live in Texas.

 

[Clayton Gray]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

 

[djcolts]

Seems to me that Hilary's entire campaign strategy has been a proper microcosm of how she would run the country as president. Divisive, incompetent, and lacking in foresight. Compare that to Obama's strategy.

From First Read at MSNBC:

*** Speaking of eyebrow-raising campaign stops...: Clinton today -- once again -- stumps in South Texas (in Laredo). It’s her fourth day in Texas in about a week, and every stop so far has been to a Latino-heavy part of the state (El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, and today Laredo). But not until tonight’s debate in Austin will she have visited any other part of the state in the build-up to March 4. Although her husband has campaigned in other parts of the state, she has yet to hit Houston, Dallas, or Fort Worth -- even though those places have more delegates at stake than South Texas does.

So, she's campaigning only in South Texas, where the delegate counts will be small than other comparable areas of the state relative to the population (because of the weird delegate rules)? This is either incompetent strategy, or her internal polls says that she's in BIG trouble in Texas. Or both.

More from First Read:

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that there were plenty of empty seats at Clinton's South Texas rally yesterday. "Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen piece mariachi band, Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting, 'Who's excited?' But it was no use. In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. 'We were expecting a little more,' he said."

 

[Clayton Gray]

More from First Read:

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that there were plenty of empty seats at Clinton's South Texas rally yesterday. "Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen piece mariachi band, Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting, 'Who's excited?' But it was no use. In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. 'We were expecting a little more,' he said."

I can't imagine a situation where I could repeatedly shout "Who's excited?" and not feel lame.

 

[cosjobs]

Wow. Chris Matthews just stuck it to some Congressman from Texas who is a big Obama supporter.

Who was it?

Texas state senator Kirk Watson.

Here's his statement following the debacle. Funny. Self-effacing.

Nice job by Kirk. Seems like a decent sort.

He is a very good guy.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I guess now we have the answer to why McCain's wife has been at his side at all times. Pre-emptive.

 

[adonis]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

Plus, while Obama is having to spend tons of money running ads, funding campaigns against hillary, who he has been soundly defeating for a while now in almost all categories, McCain and his people on the other side are stockpiling money and attempting to brand and label Obama before he even has the nomination.They're effectively declaring open season on Obama while he's still concerned with running a race against Hillary. I'm not saying it's over YET, but if she doesn't do extremely well in Ohio and Texas, she should drop out instead of prolonging a battle she's very likely to lose.

 

[Sammy3469]

I guess now we have the answer to why McCain's wife has been at his side at all times. Pre-emptive.

I think they're trying to confuse people since they she looks so similar to the lobbyist.

 

[Abraham]

Austin didn't have the kind of "buzz" it has today on election night 2000.

 

[Jeremy]

I was watching one of the news channels this morning and they had one of Hillary's staff on, and she was listing all the things Hillary would do. "She will fight for this and fight tirelessly for that".

That, IMO, is why she's losing. The "change" that Obama is trumpeting is more than just issues. It's in the way we think. Getting rid of this mentality that we're always needing to pick a fight. We're tired of the divisiveness. Heck, they even went partisan on the Roger Clemens hearings! Let's stop playing this like we're opposing teams in a football game and find some common ground.

Take healthcare, for example. The Republican Party boasts millions of Christians within their ranks. I fellowship with them every Sunday. They are legitimately, good, caring people. They give to their communities with both time and money. You can't tell me they're indifferent to the 40-some million people (many of which are children) who have no healthcare or have to use the emergency room as their only source of healthcare. So stop with the pissing matches and sit down as humans and try to figure it out.

Sigh. I suppose it's probably naive to think one man can change the culture in Washington. At least with Obama, and I'm hoping McCain as well, we have some people who seem willing to try.

 

[flufhed]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

I agree, to the extent.Where I get a little nervous is knowing Hillary, her past acts, and the acts in this campaign. When the heat goes up, and her poll numbers go down, she gets more and more negative. What will happen when her back is really against the wall, and basically has no legitimate way to win the nomination? this is what I fear - a Hillary Clinton campaign backed into a corner, with, in it's mind, no choice but to try and destroy Obama to salvage her campaign. Hope it does not come to this. I would like for this campaign to keep going, for all the voters to get a chance to be a part of the process, etc., and for the campaign remains above the board, positive, and really flesh out Obama. But, because I doubt Clinton's ability to do this, I want her to drop out as soon as possible.

 

[flufhed]

Seems to me that Hilary's entire campaign strategy has been a proper microcosm of how she would run the country as president. Divisive, incompetent, and lacking in foresight. Compare that to Obama's strategy.

From First Read at MSNBC:

*** Speaking of eyebrow-raising campaign stops...: Clinton today -- once again -- stumps in South Texas (in Laredo). It’s her fourth day in Texas in about a week, and every stop so far has been to a Latino-heavy part of the state (El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, and today Laredo). But not until tonight’s debate in Austin will she have visited any other part of the state in the build-up to March 4. Although her husband has campaigned in other parts of the state, she has yet to hit Houston, Dallas, or Fort Worth -- even though those places have more delegates at stake than South Texas does.

So, she's campaigning only in South Texas, where the delegate counts will be small than other comparable areas of the state relative to the population (because of the weird delegate rules)? This is either incompetent strategy, or her internal polls says that she's in BIG trouble in Texas. Or both.

More from First Read:

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that there were plenty of empty seats at Clinton's South Texas rally yesterday. "Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen piece mariachi band, Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting, 'Who's excited?' But it was no use. In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. 'We were expecting a little more,' he said."

It's official now - I feel bad for Hillary.

 

[snitwitch]

Seems to me that Hilary's entire campaign strategy has been a proper microcosm of how she would run the country as president. Divisive, incompetent, and lacking in foresight. Compare that to Obama's strategy.

From First Read at MSNBC:

*** Speaking of eyebrow-raising campaign stops...: Clinton today -- once again -- stumps in South Texas (in Laredo). It’s her fourth day in Texas in about a week, and every stop so far has been to a Latino-heavy part of the state (El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, and today Laredo). But not until tonight’s debate in Austin will she have visited any other part of the state in the build-up to March 4. Although her husband has campaigned in other parts of the state, she has yet to hit Houston, Dallas, or Fort Worth -- even though those places have more delegates at stake than South Texas does.

So, she's campaigning only in South Texas, where the delegate counts will be small than other comparable areas of the state relative to the population (because of the weird delegate rules)? This is either incompetent strategy, or her internal polls says that she's in BIG trouble in Texas. Or both.

More from First Read:

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that there were plenty of empty seats at Clinton's South Texas rally yesterday. "Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen piece mariachi band, Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting, 'Who's excited?' But it was no use. In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. 'We were expecting a little more,' he said."

It's official now - I feel bad for Hillary.

I think she's counting on this sentiment to get her back in the race.

 

[flufhed]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

Plus, while Obama is having to spend tons of money running ads, funding campaigns against hillary, who he has been soundly defeating for a while now in almost all categories, McCain and his people on the other side are stockpiling money and attempting to brand and label Obama before he even has the nomination.They're effectively declaring open season on Obama while he's still concerned with running a race against Hillary. I'm not saying it's over YET, but if she doesn't do extremely well in Ohio and Texas, she should drop out instead of prolonging a battle she's very likely to lose.

You are missing one VERY IMPORTANT aspect.Obama has pledged to accept public financing in the general. If the nomination process goes on all the way to August, he will be allowed to vastly outspend McCain introducing himself to the public, while at the same time being able to keep his pledge and go with public financing in the general.As long as Hillary doesn't get nasty, or gets marginalized by repeated failure, a long nomination process is a huge plus here.I really think he needs to keep that public financing pledge. Obama can attempt to spin and explain all he wants, but it will potentially destroy his brand as a different kind of politician.

 

[adonis]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

Plus, while Obama is having to spend tons of money running ads, funding campaigns against hillary, who he has been soundly defeating for a while now in almost all categories, McCain and his people on the other side are stockpiling money and attempting to brand and label Obama before he even has the nomination.They're effectively declaring open season on Obama while he's still concerned with running a race against Hillary. I'm not saying it's over YET, but if she doesn't do extremely well in Ohio and Texas, she should drop out instead of prolonging a battle she's very likely to lose.

You are missing one VERY IMPORTANT aspect.Obama has pledged to accept public financing in the general. If the nomination process goes on all the way to August, he will be allowed to vastly outspend McCain introducing himself to the public, while at the same time being able to keep his pledge and go with public financing in the general.As long as Hillary doesn't get nasty, or gets marginalized by repeated failure, a long nomination process is a huge plus here.I really think he needs to keep that public financing pledge. Obama can attempt to spin and explain all he wants, but it will potentially destroy his brand as a different kind of politician.

According to his campaign, he didn't pledge to use public financing, only that he would aggressively pursue some agreement with the republican nominee if he was chosen. As far as I know at least, and that's what I've heard his campaign say.

 

[bigbottom]

This is not a new ad (I believe it ran in New Hampshire), but I saw it on TV here in Texas this morning. It's an Obama ad focusing on education. I found the ad interesting because, in part, it called on people to accept some personal responsibility on the issue of educating their children.

Ad

 

[flufhed]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

Plus, while Obama is having to spend tons of money running ads, funding campaigns against hillary, who he has been soundly defeating for a while now in almost all categories, McCain and his people on the other side are stockpiling money and attempting to brand and label Obama before he even has the nomination.They're effectively declaring open season on Obama while he's still concerned with running a race against Hillary. I'm not saying it's over YET, but if she doesn't do extremely well in Ohio and Texas, she should drop out instead of prolonging a battle she's very likely to lose.

You are missing one VERY IMPORTANT aspect.Obama has pledged to accept public financing in the general. If the nomination process goes on all the way to August, he will be allowed to vastly outspend McCain introducing himself to the public, while at the same time being able to keep his pledge and go with public financing in the general.As long as Hillary doesn't get nasty, or gets marginalized by repeated failure, a long nomination process is a huge plus here.I really think he needs to keep that public financing pledge. Obama can attempt to spin and explain all he wants, but it will potentially destroy his brand as a different kind of politician.

According to his campaign, he didn't pledge to use public financing, only that he would aggressively pursue some agreement with the republican nominee if he was chosen. As far as I know at least, and that's what I've heard his campaign say.

Yep, a statement McCain has already labelled as "Washington double speak," and which the major news folks are not buying. He will not be able to get out of public financing in the general without taking a sizeable hit to his image.

 

[flufhed]

This is not a new ad (I believe it ran in New Hampshire), but I saw it on TV here in Texas this morning. It's an Obama ad focusing on education. I found the ad interesting because, in part, it called on people to accept some personal responsibility on the issue of educating their children.

Ad

Repeatedly he has shown a willingness to say things to certain groups that are not just what they want to hear. Of course, he panders, too, like any politician, but I think he has shown a fair amount of courage, time and time again, on things like this.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Dr. Evil himself regarding Obama:Obama's New VulnerabilityBy KARL ROVEFebruary 21, 2008; Page A17In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

He was always evil.Now he's a moron nutjob.

He's neither evil nor a moron nutjob. I have a feeling he will end up being one of my favorite political analysts. I certainly don't agree with eveything he says but that's a great read.

 

[adonis]

For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.

Plus, voters in more states have a chance to get fired up and feel like their vote matters.

Plus, while Obama is having to spend tons of money running ads, funding campaigns against hillary, who he has been soundly defeating for a while now in almost all categories, McCain and his people on the other side are stockpiling money and attempting to brand and label Obama before he even has the nomination.They're effectively declaring open season on Obama while he's still concerned with running a race against Hillary. I'm not saying it's over YET, but if she doesn't do extremely well in Ohio and Texas, she should drop out instead of prolonging a battle she's very likely to lose.

You are missing one VERY IMPORTANT aspect.Obama has pledged to accept public financing in the general. If the nomination process goes on all the way to August, he will be allowed to vastly outspend McCain introducing himself to the public, while at the same time being able to keep his pledge and go with public financing in the general.As long as Hillary doesn't get nasty, or gets marginalized by repeated failure, a long nomination process is a huge plus here.I really think he needs to keep that public financing pledge. Obama can attempt to spin and explain all he wants, but it will potentially destroy his brand as a different kind of politician.

According to his campaign, he didn't pledge to use public financing, only that he would aggressively pursue some agreement with the republican nominee if he was chosen. As far as I know at least, and that's what I've heard his campaign say.

Yep, a statement McCain has already labelled as "Washington double speak," and which the major news folks are not buying. He will not be able to get out of public financing in the general without taking a sizeable hit to his image.

, we'll see.It's very much to Obama's advantage to not be under the spending restrictions that accepting the public financing would put on him. He's capable of raising God knows how much money, and to limit his ability to run a campaign by committing to the public financing would reduce his advantage...this is a big reason why McCain is hitting him hard with it right now.

 

[Pooch]

Yep, a statement McCain has already labelled as "Washington double speak," and which the major news folks are not buying. He will not be able to get out of public financing in the general without taking a sizeable hit to his image.

Yep. I hope he sticks to his pledge. I know he made it long ago before he realized how big his money machine was going to be but I think it'll be properly used against him otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to be optimistic here, and express my hopes for the future:

1. First off, as much as it would benefit my guy McCain for a long nasty fight between Clinton and Obama that stretches into the summer, I'd much prefer Obama knock her off in the next couple of weeks. I'm so weary of the Clintons; I'm also disturbed about the Latino/African-American rift and what this may bode for the future of this country, so it's better to end this contest soon. This election should be about ideas, not about superdelegates and which primaries should be recognized and lawsuits, etc. Despite the fact that I won't vote for him, I like Obama and want him to do well; he and his supporters deserve it. Hillary Clinton has also been a decent Senator; it would be permanently harm her reputation for her to go out kicking and screaming, so I hope she reconsiders this.

2. As I wrote in the McCain thread, I'm counting on that he's telling the truth this morning and that the NY Times allegations are all false. If they're not, and it turns out McCain has been lying, I will end all support for him. But until that happens I will take him at his word. I hope if there's nothing there, we can move away from this story.

3. I hope both candidates recognize that the public is SICK TO DEATH of these types of stories: who lied, who had an affair, who isn't proud enough of America, who copied from what speech- THERE'S TOO MUCH GOING ON THAT'S IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH THESE TRIVIALITIES!! I want McCain and Obama to have engaging debates where they discuss, in detail, their exact differences on the economy, health care, entitlements, climate change, Iraq, Iran, the War on Terror, China, Russia, trade, etc. (I hope they don't spend a lot of time debatin social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. We all know where they stand on most of these, and if you're basing your vote on these issues rather than the above ones I have mentioned, I reccomend you reconsider your priorities at these times.)

4. No dirty tricks. No Karl Rove/ James Carville gotchas. Also, not a lot of discussion about age vs, experience- we all know all that, already. Keep it to the issues on both sides.

If all this happens, then I suspect most people will be satisfied with whoever wins this election, and come away feeling very good about our system of government; I know I will. Do I predict it will go this way? My cynical head tells me not a chance in hell. But I can hope, can't I?

 

[Orange Crush]

Could Clinton be out of cash? She's spending a ton of money this month in advertising and media buys (though not as much as Obama). She's already lent her campaign millions of dollars. And here's an interesting post from hilzoy.

Earlier tonight, I went to the FEC's website to check out the January fundraising reports for Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Matt Stoller wonders whether the McCain campaign is broke, based on the fact that its liabilities exceed its assets. They do, but on the other hand, most of those liabilities are McCain's bank loan, whose due date seems to be in May, so he has time to drum up the money. (On the other hand, I had no idea it was possible to run up $720,164.57 on one's AmEx card. Not something I want to try at home.)

I was somewhat puzzled by Clinton's statement, though. On the one hand, her campaign clearly took in considerably less than it paid out. About nine million dollars less. And that can hardly be good news. Moreover, she has a mass of debt: $7,576,700.48 worth, to be precise (not including the loan she made to herself.) Moreover, while some of it is large sums (over $2million owed to Mark Penn, for instance), there are a lot of pretty small unpaid bills to places throughout Iowa and New Hampshire. (Honestly, why not pay the $500.12 they owe to Premier Pizza in Algonquin, Iowa? Or the $615.25 they owe Depot Deli of Shenandoah, Iowa? Your average pizzeria or deli is not made of money, after all.)

The puzzling part, though, was that despite all this debt, the Clinton campaign has tons of cash on hand. Nearly $38 million at the beginning of January; a little over $29 million at the end of the month. That seemed odd, especially in light of those news stories about their being broke after Iowa. As I was scratching my head about this, I came across a story in Politico that explained everything:

"According to the reports, Clinton raised about $20 million in January, including her loan. She spent nearly $29 million during the month.

She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors. (...)

Clinton’s strapped financial situation in late January meant she couldn’t invest in all of the Super Tuesday states, particularly the expensive ground operations required in caucus states.

Obama won every one of those caucus contests on Feb. 5, opening up a critical lead among pledged delegates."

Fundraising laws allow a maximum of $2300 donation per individual for the primaries, and then a maximum $2300 for the general election. If a candidate takes in general election funds before becoming the nominee, she must reserve that money for the general. And if she doesn't win the nomination, she must return that money to her donors. So Hillary is sitting on $20M that she can't spend and that she may very well have to return. (I wonder if she can spend the interest she's earning on that, though).

 

[Clayton Gray]

This is not a new ad (I believe it ran in New Hampshire), but I saw it on TV here in Texas this morning. It's an Obama ad focusing on education. I found the ad interesting because, in part, it called on people to accept some personal responsibility on the issue of educating their children.

Ad

Great spot.

 

[Righetti]

email from the obama camp

News broke yesterday that a few wealthy Clinton supporters are gearing up for a massive spending campaign to boost her chances in the big upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

The so-called "American Leadership Project" will take unlimited contributions from individuals and is organized the same way as the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

ABC News reports that this group is seeking 100 Clinton supporters to each give $100,000 to fund its $10 million effort to promote Senator Clinton and "contrast" her positions with Barack Obama's.

That's the opposite of how politics should work, and the opposite of how Barack Obama has run this campaign.

The same day this group's activity was revealed, we announced that nearly 1 million individual people have donated to this campaign.

Stand up against politics-as-usual. Help reach the goal of 1 million donors calling out for change by encouraging a first-time donor to own a piece of this campaign.

If you give as part of our matching program, you will double the gift of a new donor. You can even choose to exchange a note with them about why you are part of this movement.

Make your matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

Groups like this are forbidden from working primarily for the purpose of electing or defeating a candidate.

Yet here we have a committee that springs up on the eve of an election, promotes a specific candidate, and has no history or apparent purpose of lobbying specific issues outside the benefit to the candidate of these communications.

This raises a number of legal and ethical issues, but more than anything it reveals an attitude towards politics as a game that is played to win at all costs.

Americans are ready for change. We are tired of Swift Boat-style groups and smear campaigns.

Help reach the unprecedented goal of a million voices calling for a new kind of politics and a new kind of leadership.

Make a matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/promise

I'll keep you updated as the situation with this group evolves.

Thank you for your support,

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

 

[Orange Crush]

Make it ELEVEN in a row for Obama!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest

(CNN) — Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama – 65 percent, Hillary Clinton – 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

Democrats Abroad will send 22 delegates to the Democratic Convention, with half a vote each, carrying a total of 11 votes.

According to Democrats Abroad UK Chairman Bill Barnard, eight of the 22 will be superdelegates: two of those have said they will support Clinton, two have said they will support Obama, and four are undecided. Fourteen of the 22 will be pledged delegates.

Voting in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary began on Super Tuesday, February 5 and continued through February 12. Voting centers were set up in 33 countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong and new chapters in Istanbul, Ukraine, Russia and Indonesia — the highest number of voting centers in the primary's history.

This was the first cycle that Democrats Abroad enabled those who live in countries without voting centers to vote by mail, fax or Internet.

Democrats Abroad will not release its membership numbers, but the largest communities of U.S. expatriates live in Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

So it looks like a 9 to 5 split for Obama on pledged delegates, and a 2 to 2 tie for superdelegates with 4 undecided. Though please someone tell me how there could possibly be 8 superdelegates for Democrats Abroad?!?

 

[djcolts]

This guy's blog has been posted in this thread before, but he continues to give great analyis:

Chess, not Boxing

Basically comparing Mark Penn (Boxing) to David Axelrod (Chess).

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Make it ELEVEN in a row for Obama!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest

(CNN) — Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama – 65 percent, Hillary Clinton – 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

Democrats Abroad will send 22 delegates to the Democratic Convention, with half a vote each, carrying a total of 11 votes.

According to Democrats Abroad UK Chairman Bill Barnard, eight of the 22 will be superdelegates: two of those have said they will support Clinton, two have said they will support Obama, and four are undecided. Fourteen of the 22 will be pledged delegates.

Voting in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary began on Super Tuesday, February 5 and continued through February 12. Voting centers were set up in 33 countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong and new chapters in Istanbul, Ukraine, Russia and Indonesia — the highest number of voting centers in the primary's history.

This was the first cycle that Democrats Abroad enabled those who live in countries without voting centers to vote by mail, fax or Internet.

Democrats Abroad will not release its membership numbers, but the largest communities of U.S. expatriates live in Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

So it looks like a 9 to 5 split for Obama on pledged delegates, and a 2 to 2 tie for superdelegates with 4 undecided. Though please someone tell me how there could possibly be 8 superdelegates for Democrats Abroad?!?

Party Leaders and Elected Officials = PLEO = "superdelegate" = unpledged delegate.Pledged delegates "represent" (sort of) their districts. These superdelegates are not representing Democrats Abroad, they are superdelegates who happen to be abroad.

 

[djcolts]

Youngest Superdelegate Endorses ObamaBy Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm EST Also listed in: SFBO Blog Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content CHICAGO, IL – Today, Democratic National Committee Member Jason Rae endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his ability to bring new people, including record numbers of young voters, into the political process. Rae, a twenty-one year old college student from Wisconsin, is the youngest superdelegate in the country. Below is Rae's statement:The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two very talented individuals running for President this election. It is a difficult choice for anyone, but in the end, the choice for me has become clear. I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama. In Wisconsin on Tuesday, voters chose change by an overwhelming margin. Young people – most of whom never voted before – waited in lines for hours to cast their vote for Obama. As a young member of the Democratic National Committee I know that I represent America’s next generation of voters, and clearly my generation has chosen Senator Obama. According to CNN exit polls, Senator Obama carried 73% of Wisconsin voters aged 18-24 and 66% of those 25-29. When I see numbers like that, I know that there is no other person who can bring out new voters to the party like Senator Obama can. He has inspired a new generation of voters to get active and energized in the political process.

This is the same superdelegate Chelsea took out for breakfast a few weeks ago.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Youngest Superdelegate Endorses ObamaBy Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm EST Also listed in: SFBO Blog Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content CHICAGO, IL – Today, Democratic National Committee Member Jason Rae endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his ability to bring new people, including record numbers of young voters, into the political process. Rae, a twenty-one year old college student from Wisconsin, is the youngest superdelegate in the country. Below is Rae's statement:The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two very talented individuals running for President this election. It is a difficult choice for anyone, but in the end, the choice for me has become clear. I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama. In Wisconsin on Tuesday, voters chose change by an overwhelming margin. Young people – most of whom never voted before – waited in lines for hours to cast their vote for Obama. As a young member of the Democratic National Committee I know that I represent America’s next generation of voters, and clearly my generation has chosen Senator Obama. According to CNN exit polls, Senator Obama carried 73% of Wisconsin voters aged 18-24 and 66% of those 25-29. When I see numbers like that, I know that there is no other person who can bring out new voters to the party like Senator Obama can. He has inspired a new generation of voters to get active and energized in the political process.

This is the same superdelegate Chelsea took out for breakfast a few weeks ago.

Did she spit in his eggs or stiff him with the check?

 

[Joe Kidd]

My wife and I are planning to attend an Obama rally tomorrow. Doors open at 6PM; Program begins at 9:00-----RSVP: First come, first serve basis.

For those of you that have already been to one------What suggestions would you give as far as how early to arrive to assure we get in the door, can we bring bags, cameras, food, etc. ?

 

[flufhed]

Youngest Superdelegate Endorses ObamaBy Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm EST Also listed in: SFBO Blog Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content CHICAGO, IL – Today, Democratic National Committee Member Jason Rae endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his ability to bring new people, including record numbers of young voters, into the political process. Rae, a twenty-one year old college student from Wisconsin, is the youngest superdelegate in the country. Below is Rae's statement:The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two very talented individuals running for President this election. It is a difficult choice for anyone, but in the end, the choice for me has become clear. I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama. In Wisconsin on Tuesday, voters chose change by an overwhelming margin. Young people – most of whom never voted before – waited in lines for hours to cast their vote for Obama. As a young member of the Democratic National Committee I know that I represent America’s next generation of voters, and clearly my generation has chosen Senator Obama. According to CNN exit polls, Senator Obama carried 73% of Wisconsin voters aged 18-24 and 66% of those 25-29. When I see numbers like that, I know that there is no other person who can bring out new voters to the party like Senator Obama can. He has inspired a new generation of voters to get active and energized in the political process.

This is the same superdelegate Chelsea took out for breakfast a few weeks ago.

She should have put out.

 

[flufhed]

My wife and I are planning to attend an Obama rally tomorrow. Doors open at 6PM; Program begins at 9:00-----RSVP: First come, first serve basis. For those of you that have already been to one------What suggestions would you give as far as how early to arrive to assure we get in the door, can we bring bags, cameras, food, etc. ?

Bring smellin' salts for when your wife gets "the vespers."

 

[Joe Kidd]

My wife and I are planning to attend an Obama rally tomorrow. Doors open at 6PM; Program begins at 9:00-----RSVP: First come, first serve basis. For those of you that have already been to one------What suggestions would you give as far as how early to arrive to assure we get in the door, can we bring bags, cameras, food, etc. ?

Bring smellin' salts for when your wife gets "the vespers."

 

[Clayton Gray]

This guy's blog has been posted in this thread before, but he continues to give great analyis:

Chess, not Boxing

Basically comparing Mark Penn (Boxing) to David Axelrod (Chess).

Good blog.

Change vs. Experience

One of the most difficult places candidates can find themselves in is believing they are winning a political fight that they’re losing. For Hillary, the change vs. experience argument became that problem. The central message of the Clinton campaign was that, unlike Obama, she had the experience necessary for the presidency. As the narrative took hold, voters almost universally accepted Hillary as having greater experience than Obama. And because her national leads were so significant for so long, she and her campaign mistakenly believed that she was winning the debate.

In reality, Clinton’s failure on this front was catastrophic. She and her surrogates allowed the media (they often assisted) to portray the race in binary terms: change versus experience. In doing so, she ceded “change” to Barack Obama almost instantly, framing her argument in such a way as to reinforce his embodiment of change with every allusion to her experience. Hillary successfully defined herself as the experienced candidate, but allowed Obama to take ownership of the other side of that coin.

She won the losing side of a debate she framed herself.

Dead on there.

 

[Spiderman]

Tonight should be an interesting debate. Hillary is behind, her husband says they are done without winning TX and OH.

People like Obama, they don't seem to like Hillary very much. All of these non-issue topics (experience vs. change, race vs. gender, plagurized speeches, etc) seem to be the main topics amongst the Democrats.....

She needs to really make a strong showing tonight without being an evil #####, and that's going to be tough since there isn't a huge difference on policy.

 

[Marc Levin]

More from First Read:

The Washington Post's Milbank writes that there were plenty of empty seats at Clinton's South Texas rally yesterday. "Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen piece mariachi band, Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting, 'Who's excited?' But it was no use. In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. 'We were expecting a little more,' he said."

I can't imagine a situation where I could repeatedly shout "Who's excited?" and not feel lame.

Or limp?

 

[adonis]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

 

[Marc Levin]

Youngest Superdelegate Endorses ObamaBy Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm EST Also listed in: SFBO Blog Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content CHICAGO, IL – Today, Democratic National Committee Member Jason Rae endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his ability to bring new people, including record numbers of young voters, into the political process. Rae, a twenty-one year old college student from Wisconsin, is the youngest superdelegate in the country. Below is Rae's statement:The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two very talented individuals running for President this election. It is a difficult choice for anyone, but in the end, the choice for me has become clear. I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama. In Wisconsin on Tuesday, voters chose change by an overwhelming margin. Young people – most of whom never voted before – waited in lines for hours to cast their vote for Obama. As a young member of the Democratic National Committee I know that I represent America’s next generation of voters, and clearly my generation has chosen Senator Obama. According to CNN exit polls, Senator Obama carried 73% of Wisconsin voters aged 18-24 and 66% of those 25-29. When I see numbers like that, I know that there is no other person who can bring out new voters to the party like Senator Obama can. He has inspired a new generation of voters to get active and energized in the political process.

This is the same superdelegate Chelsea took out for breakfast a few weeks ago.

Did she spit in his eggs or stiff him with the check?

Worse - she used eggs instead of spit to make him stiff and then checked on . . .hmmm, I better not make this joke.

 

[Statorama]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

I wonder if McCain is regretting "campaign finance reform" nowFundraising is the area where he's going to get absolutely crushed, and will probably doom him (and people that believe in small government) in the general election.