Crossposted on Obama '08?:
Just got back from the Michelle Obama rally!
SO fun.
It was a similar crowd to when I saw Barack Obama last October. In fact, I recognized some of the same people. One of them was a staff member who I've seen several times in the NYT. She was in a video about how the SC campaign was doing a barbershop/ beauty shop tour very early on (probably a full year or so ago) and then also was just on the front page a couple of days ago, as one of several people in the audience at, again, a SC event. She saw me looking at her so I went up and said the above -- that I remember her from the October event and that I keep seeing her in the NYT. She smiled and then introduced herself -- "Hi, I'm [didn't catch]." I introduced myself in turn and then said "Keep up the great work!" and then moved on.
After I was already in the main room for the event I realized that I think she said "Hi, I'm Ashley." Wonder if she's THE Ashley?? ("I'm here because of Ashley." Which speech was that?) I looked for her afterwards but didn't see her again. Will try to figure it out later.
Anyway... I'd been trying to set up an interpreter but I didn't find out about this until very recently and there were a few levels to get an interpreter. I asked a volunteer whether the interpreter happened, he didn't know but said he'd go check. Then he said no, there wasn't, but that he could get me to the very front so I had a hope of lipreading. (The room [a very big one] was already very full at this point -- no chairs, just people standing.)
So he led me to some VIP area, with chairs, about 20 feet from the podium. Awesome.
The VIP area was a cool collection of people. There were a lot of very well-dressed black people (as I mentioned in my account of the October rally -- not just dressed up like for a business meeting or something, but opera-worthy ensembles), some local politicians I recognized, a Sudanese woman in full veil etc., and a bunch of other people.
I especially liked the self-proclaimed "bouncer" who was guarding the corner of the rope separating people from the podium area. She was about 4' 8" and grandmotherly, with a hand-made (she informed us) sweatshirt with an Ohio "O" and "Yes we can!" underneath it.
After I was settled in, an apologetic-looking staffer came up and asked for my name and number so that they could be sure to get an interpreter for next time Barack comes to town. This includes letting me know personally the details of his visit as soon as they find out. Excellent! (I accidentally kept the guy's pen and found him afterwards to give it back, he reiterated that they'll make absolutely sure everything's taken care of next time, so nice!)
Then right on time, Mayor Coleman and his wife came out to introduce Michelle. Looked like a nice speech but it was hard to understand.
Then Michelle! Definitely one of those people who look even better in person than in pictures though she was eminently recognizable. She started right out with a tentative "O H...?" (body language was a purposeful "uh, am I doing this right?" for comic effect) and got a rousing "I O!!" in response. She did a few more, picking up in volume each time, then laughed at herself and got down to business.
Great speech. I didn't catch all of it and sure hope that there will be a transcript somewhere. I also caught sections but because of how it works when I lipread for a long time haven't retained it. (I remember committing to memory the fact that "comeback" was a big applause line but I don't remember context.) At one point Mayor Coleman had to wipe tears from both eyes, and an older, very dignified black lady in front of me -- who Michelle made frequent eye contact with -- wiped her eyes a few minutes later. I don't have a firm grip on what that was about.
Michelle is so natural. She's really, really good at just starting to talk, connecting with the crowd, going this way and that but speaking clearly and in a way that got people fired up. No teleprompter, no notecards. I saw her play off the people around me a few times -- a head would start nodding and she'd look at that person and build on the point until the whole room was applauding.
She kept talking about how the bar has been raised -- it was about how much more complicated things are, how you can do everything right but still not be able to keep your head above water. Every time she came back to that point she made the exact same gesture with her left hand. She was generally very easy to understand, very expressive with both her hands and her face. Very Midwestern phrasings and accent as far as I could tell.
Another refrain was "Barack gets it."
Anyway, she obviously did a great job, both from what I saw and from the reactions of the crowd.
After the speech she did the hand-shaking rounds -- I got to shake her hand, and I said "You're better than Bill..." ;-) At first she was kind of uh-huh then got it and gave me a big crinkly-nosed grin. I turned to go but it wasn't so easy, lots of people trying to press towards her. A bunch were thrusting things at her to autograph and I realized that the New Yorker I'd brought to read if it was a long wait was eminently autographable -- the Obama-and-Hillary-as-Eustace-Tilley cover -- so I thrust that over too and got her autograph on it. Yay!
Very fun.
Quote:She kept talking about how the bar has been raised -- it was about how much more complicated things are, how you can do everything right but still not be able to keep your head above water. Every time she came back to that point she made the exact same gesture with her left hand. She was generally very easy to understand, very expressive with both her hands and her face. Very Midwestern phrasings and accent as far as I could tell.
(The photo is from the rally today.)
Want to grab this, on Obama's substance -- lots of links within.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obama-and-subst.html
This from Hilzoy in 2006:
Quote:...my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.
Read this paper today:
(Local Columbus paper.)
Pretty discouraging reading.
http://www.theotherpaper.com/top2-14/coverstory.htm
I find the Redfern stuff especially annoying, for obvious reasons presumably. (Gonna write to him.)
The last paragraph is annoying too, though -- Obama has actually done quite well in rural areas. And they're conflating several different demographics there.
Then there was an interview with Bill Bradley -- this one isn't online (or at least I couldn't find it):
Quote:"I divide politicians into two categories," he [Bradley] said. "One is a politician who knows a lot of small things and then a politician who knows one big thing."
Obama, he said, is in the second category.
Bradley was trying to help and does say more helpful things elsewhere, but the upshot is again the wonk vs. the inspirer, and wonk is safer. Even though Obama is a wonk, too!
Anyway, if I didn't know much about Obama before reading this issue I wouldn't be very impressed with him after reading it. As a snapshot of what the chances are of a win in Ohio, not very encouraging. But we'll see.
Groupies eh? What can anybody say?
At least it's authentic.
Loved your recounting of the Michelle Obama event. I'll post a link to a transcript for you if I find one.
Good luck on the job app at Obamahio HQ! It probably won't count for much, but, I'd be willing to write a letter or be a reference for you if it will help.
Sullivan's on vacation, hilzoy's a guest blogger on the Daily Dish, yay! (The more I read of her, the more I like her.)
Quote:Competence
From the Washington Post (emphasis added, and stolen from publius):
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after [b]learning[/b] of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting [b]this month[/b], according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides [b]discovered[/b] is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."
When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules "creating a new obstacle for her" that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a "new obstacle?" Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell -- here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed. While I was having fun thinking of possible analogies -- would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as "creating a new obstacle" for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing? or the fact that five is a prime number as "creating a new obstacle" to my proving that it is a multiple of two? --my co-blogger publius was actually writing the post I might have written, only funnier:
Good lord, let's see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After - after - implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they "discovered" that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
While they were busy "discovering" the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)
Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/competence.html
(Emphasis in original.) (Many links in original.)
Found the Michelle speech in Columbus on YouTube -- just 4 minutes of it but gives you a flavor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jscnylbyE9c
(I'm not in the video, though I recognize some of the people.)
Michelle was on Larry King afew nights ago. I just caught a few minutes of the rerun last night. Here it is on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU
Lots of discussion of this article by Roger Simon, "Clinton targets pledged delegates":
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2EC0F60E-3048-5C12-00410E5BC5CFBB24
Beginning:
Quote:Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.
This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.
What? Isn't that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?
Wrong.
I was stunned by this story, but apparently the Clinton camp has now
adamantly denied it.
Thanks! Yeah, just saw Wolfson's statement on the Swamp. Definitely interested in where this will go.
