1
   

My little politics blog

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:17 am
Which article? The one above?

That's Barack Obama's own site -- not a supporter.

It has cites within it. (Blue font, click on it and it takes you to the sources.)

I just clicked on it and it worked fine.

Were you talking about something else?

By the way I'm not claiming anything in particular (in terms of "word could be believed,") I just saw that site and plonked it here so I could find it back if I wanted to. See my first post on this thread. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I've read so far seems on the up-and-up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:50 am
Hillary's "Meet the Press" transcript from January 13th, 2008 -- keeps coming up and I have to keep hunting it down, so a plonk:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:09 pm
So why didn't you say it was a Obama politicel ad instead of intimating it was Fact check.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:15 pm
I didn't intimate anything. I copied and pasted an url. On a thread specifically opened to be a repository of various sites I find that I want to save in some way to come back to.

Geez.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:35 pm
Another one to add to your reading list, Soz.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2008/jan/21/understanding_leadership_and_organizing_for_change


Psst... tpmcafe.com is a website not a place that advertises coffee. :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:41 pm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:43 pm
One more:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/21/obama-the-electable.aspx
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:45 pm
rabel22 wrote:
So why didn't you say it was a Obama politicel ad instead of intimating it was Fact check.


I've noticed a few sites trying to hitch a ride on the good reputation that factcheck.org has developed. It's p!ssed me off more than once to discover that I'd been led to a specific site's fact check, not actually factcheck.org.

Live and learn.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:56 pm
http://pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama

(Referred to in the last article I posted, about Obama's favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. Interesting that only 3% don't know who he is, now, and only 6% are unsure. 59% favorable, 32% unfavorable in last poll, taken 1/10-13/08.) (Hillary's ratings, by contrast, are 50% favorable, 46% unfavorable, 4% unsure.)
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 04:23 pm
I found this interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101864.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:11 pm
Thanks, Swimpy. I found that interesting too. Eugene Robinson wasn't on my radar until recently, I keep finding interesting columns by him, though.

Some others (closing windows)

Bennie Thompson's endorsement, Tom Daschle's comments re: Bill Clinton, more:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/obama-continues-duel-with-b-clinton/

This probably isn't anything but is the sort of thing I can imagine wanting to find back (Edwards and Hillary meet privately):
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/22/clinton-edwards-hold-private-post-debate-meeting/

More on what Obama is saying today about the Clintons:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_clintons_will_say_anythi.html

Interview with James Clyburn, with some good insights and quotes:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4163442&page=1

Interesting long article about the whole Reagan flap, with transcripts and other good stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21web-seelye.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:26 pm
One more:

This is a page on the Barack Obama site that has facts to debunk various email smears going around. Got the link in an interesting email from John Kerry.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter/
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:39 pm
ONE more and I'm done for the day...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=273904
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 06:20 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120105705756408791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Very long article, but very insightful regarding the contrasting organizing tactics being used in SC by both campaigns.

Excerpt:

In early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, campaigns use rallies and personal appearances to get votes. Now, the nominating races have moved to bigger states, including much of the South. Candidates here rely on endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. It is a tradition that has evolved since the 1960s to garner support among poor blacks who look to their preachers for both spiritual and political guidance. And it is the way Mrs. Clinton, like countless Democratic politicians before her, is running her campaign in South Carolina.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, is trying something many observers say has never been done here: He is circumventing entrenched local leadership and building a political machine from scratch. His staff consists largely of community organizers -- many from out of state or with no political experience -- who are assembling an army of volunteers. It is a strategy often used by labor organizations and in neighborhood and town politics.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 08:08 am
Looks good, Butrflynet, thanks.

Re: the most recent debate, factcheck.org (yes, actually factcheck.org) has weighed in:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 02:29 pm
The Chicago Tribune has a good report regarding Obama/Rezko here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-rezko-clinton-080122,0,5430503.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

(You have to register)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 02:58 pm
Thanks, Swimpy!

Quote:
Former President Clinton, who has been campaigning in South Carolina this week, sought Wednesday to lower expectations for his wife in the primary while raising them for Obama. He told crowd of about 100 people Charleston he was proud of the Democratic Party for having a woman and a black candidate and he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who are expected to makeup at least half the primary turnout.

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. Clinton said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8UBPJ880

Grrr....

That (bolded) is why Hillary was way ahead of Obama in SC until a month or so ago, of course...

It's the long-expected "so the black candidate wins South Carolina because he's black, big whoop" strategy.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:10 pm
Yup,
That's looks like the plan. Dick Morris makes it sound considerably more heinous:
***********
January 23, 2008
How Clinton Will Win the Nomination by Losing S.C.
By Dick Morris

Quote:
Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly lose the South Carolina primary as African-Americans line up to vote for Barack Obama. And that defeat will power her drive to the nomination.

The Clintons are encouraging the national media to disregard the whites who vote in South Carolina's Democratic primary and focus on the black turnout, which is expected to be quite large. They have transformed South Carolina into Washington, D.C. -- an all-black primary that tells us how the African-American vote is going to go.

By saying he will go door to door in black neighborhoods in South Carolina matching his civil rights record against Obama's, Bill Clinton emphasizes the pivotal role the black vote will play in the contest. And by openly matching his record on race with that of the black candidate, he invites more and more scrutiny focused on the race issue.

Of course, Clinton is going to lose that battle. Blacks in Nevada overwhelmingly backed Obama and will obviously do so again in South Carolina, no matter how loudly former President Clinton protests. So why is he making such a fuss over a contest he knows he's going to lose?

Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It's one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don't read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race -- and Obama ultimately loses.

Because they have such plans for South Carolina, the Clintons were desperate to win in Nevada. They dared not lose two primaries in a row leading up to Florida. But now they can lose South Carolina with impunity, having won in Nevada.

But don't look for them to walk away from South Carolina. Their love needs to appear to have been unrequited by the black community for their rejection to seem so unfair that it triggers a white backlash. In this kind of ricochet politics, you have to lose openly and publicly in order to win the next round. And since the next round consists of all the important and big states, polarizing the contest into whites versus blacks will work just fine for Hillary.

Of course, this begs the question of how she will be able to attract blacks after beating Obama. Here the South Carolina strategy also serves its purpose. If she loses blacks and wins whites by attacking Obama, it will look dirty and underhanded to blacks. She'll develop a real problem in the minority community. But if she is seen as being rejected by minority voters in favor of Obama after going hat in hand to them and trying to out-civil rights Obama, blacks will even likely feel guilty about rejecting Hillary and will be more than willing to support her in the general election.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris's and Eileen McGann's columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomin.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:13 pm
Btw, I particularly enjoyed the factcheck.org demonstrating Hillary's obvious BS. I especially liked where they exposed Obama's fib about not liking a single payer system. I can see why he'd want to distance himself from that; but I like him more for liking it in the first place. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:22 pm
Soz, that's their effort to diminish the Oprah effect. They've been sending emails with links to all the "Oprah Is A Traitor" stories quoting one three-month old post on Oprah's message board in the press today. Someone is even sending an email around saying that there were so many complaints about Oprah's endorsement of Obama that Hearst Co. stepped in and that's why she made no appearance in Nevada for Obama.

First we had stories about Obama being the Great White Hope, then stories about Obama and White Guilt, then stories about Obama Not Black Enough, and now it has turned into Obama's Black Female Traitors.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 01:59:34