Obama '08?

"And... we're back", as Gmail so comfortingly says. Here's the second part:


Of course, as of Soz's last post, you can scratch "racial tension" from that list of words.

OK. I'm going to need your name and address.

It sucks when that happens. I hate it. I always vow to just write any longer post in Notepad next time, and then of course don't.


Thank you very much. That was interesting.

While I wasn't that impressed with the first part of Sheppard's post that you quoted, I do pretty much agree with this:



That's very close to what I was saying a while ago, complete with the Angry Black Man phrasing, caps and all. (Hey, has she been reading?)

So, it's a balancing act. I liked the comments in the L.A. Times.

In a way I think its the same highwire that all black men must traverse who covet status past a particular altitude in the US. For most its simply a matter of going along to get along. When the stakes are as high as they are with Obama (and Colin Powell before him) however, their bomb-hurling political pronouncements (or marked lack of them) can mark them as anything from wildly irresponsible race-baiter to emasculated sellout.

Yeah, It's pretty sad when the English language is different based on race. We still have a long ways to go in this country.

I pretty much understand decisions by Obama et al,

but, he's not my guy, this year. I will vote for him against any repub, except maybe ron paul and even then, given the old hematology thing, a blast is identified with the company it keeps.

I remember I had a beef with Ron Paul, on some point. I'm not nimh or soz or thomas, with the brains. I don't remember where I argued on reading ron paul. I'm also not as scampering to validate my responses, am nearly always sans backup data. I don't really care about backup data except for good leads - so I'm always glad to see them. Obviously good data wills out, or should. Heh.

Obama has jumped from local to regional to international..
in seeming minutes.


Some of my brilliant associates were in their late twenties and thirties. Really, geez louise, that anyone can have purview re the whole world, and not just from a cellophane pack, at, say, 36,or 46 - well, I take it in my own mind that anyone who thinks he or she can is working from ego and lack of info.

Not that Obama is that young, but he is young, to me, on the world.

(This doesn't mean I like anyone else either....)





Frankly, re the world, there's no one in charge. Fools rule.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/19/post_80.html


Dan Balz's Take
Democrats Gearing Up For Delegate Fight

Obama working the crowd in New Hampshire on Labor Day. (Getty).


Barack Obama sent out an e-mail to supporters on Tuesday announcing plans for a big rally in New York's Washington Square Park on Sept. 27. The invitation was evidence of a campaign planning for a potentially extended battle against Hillary Clinton.

The idea of a protracted contest runs contrary to widespread assumptions about how the 2008 Democratic race may play out. But some analysts, who have studied the new calendar, the rules for allocating convention delegates and the financial resources of the leading candidates, believe that a lengthy contest extending into the megaprimary day of Feb. 5 and beyond may be just as likely.

Talk of an early end to the nomination assumes that what happened in 2004 may happen in 2008. Four years ago, John Kerry surged to an unexpected victory in Iowa, capitalized on that performance to win in New Hampshire a week later and then rolled easily to the nomination on the basis of pure momentum.

Many Democratic strategists -- including those around Clinton -- believe the same could happen this year if she wins Iowa and New Hampshire. The idea that back-to-back victories could effectively give her the nomination is based on the belief that Iowa is her single biggest hurdle. Therefore, if she can defeat both Obama and John Edwards there, the other states will fall into place because of her status as the party's national front-runner.

The same might happen if Obama defeats Clinton in those first two states, according to this thinking. If he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would have toppled the Clinton machine on consecutive weeks and would have the kind of momentum Kerry gained in 2004.

Edwards is well situated in Iowa. Some strategists there believe that, if the caucuses were held today, he would win them. His chances of a momentum-driven victory are more limited, however, because he long has struggled with the New Hampshire electorate and could be tripped up there even after winning Iowa. He will also have more limited resources than Clinton or Obama.

The candidates' schedules, which are top-heavy with visits to Iowa and New Hampshire and destined to become more so next month, suggest all see those contests as potentially decisive. But the Obama and Clinton campaigns long have been preparing to contest the nomination on a much larger playing field.

Rick Sloan, the communications director of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, did some calculations earlier this year and concluded that the Democrats could be headed for a train wreck of a nominating contest that might not end until the convention in Denver next August.

Sloan noted that the rules and calendar have been constructed in recent elections to produce an early winner and along with that, time for the party to unify and raise money for the general election.

"What happens, however, if those carefully crafted rules and painfully calibrated calendars fail to work as intended?" he wrote. "What if a system accident occurs -- a glitch that causes a catastrophic event? What happens if, for example, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire act as a killing field?"

Some Obama advisers believe Iowa may not produce a decisive winner, given the competitive three-way race underway there. The same muddled result could occur in New Hampshire. In this scenario, the first four contests fail to decide the nomination.

The Feb. 5 primaries and caucuses then become a battle both for victories and for delegates, with delegates allocated proportionally.

Sloan ran some rough projections today to illustrate what might happen on Feb. 5. Assume a three-way race with the top candidate winning 45 percent of the total vote, the second-place finisher winning 33 percent and the third capturing 22 percent. The pledged delegate count would be roughly 884 for the top candidate, 648 for the second candidate and 432 for the third. In a two-person race, with a 54-46 percent split in the overall vote, the delegate count for that day would be 1,060 for the top candidate and 903 for the other.

This is where the Obama invitation for a blowout rally in New York comes into focus. Clinton should win the New York primary on Feb. 5. But in the majority of the state's congressional districts, by winning about 31 percent of the vote, Obama could walk away with two of the five delegates awarded in each. Rather than conceding the state to Clinton and largely staying out, Obama plans to begin building an organization designed to maximize his delegate count there. Clinton, of course, will do the same in Illinois, which also votes on Feb. 5.

Here money becomes especially significant. Only candidates with campaign treasuries of $80 million to $100 million may be able to afford to compete widely in so many states -- a disadvantage for Edwards in particular.

By some estimates, the wealthiest candidates may spend as much as $40 million competing in the four early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. That assumes between $15 million and $20 million in Iowa, another $10 million-plus in New Hampshire and perhaps $10 million combined for South Carolina and Nevada.

Edwards has said he will have enough money to compete in the first four states and hopes to put away the nomination in the opening weeks. Only Clinton and Obama are likely to have significant amounts of money left after those contests for the roughly 20 states slated to hold contests on Feb. 5 and whatever may follow.

Both campaigns are beginning to staff up in those other states and are carefully crafting state-by-state strategies proactively in the event that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina fail to effectively produce a nominee. A quick decision remains a clear possibility, but as one Obama strategist put it, "This is going to be more of a delegate fight than we've seen in a long time."

--Dan Balz

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt

Fixed-income seniors can expect a tax cut
By Sen. Barack Obama | Friday, September 21, 2007


In this country, we have always believed that a lifetime of hard work and honest living should be rewarded with a secure and dignified retirement. But today, too many seniors are being denied that security because they cannot afford the rising costs of everything from their gas to their medicine. The last thing they need is a tax code that works against them as well. That is why earlier this week, I proposed tax relief for seniors.

My plan will eliminate income taxes for about 7 million seniors making less than $50,000 a year. Twenty-two million more won't even have to file a return, which also means they won't have to hire an expensive accountant.

This tax cut is needed especially because since 1993 seniors have been bearing an unfair tax burden. That year, a national tax hike raised the amount that millions of seniors had to pay on their Social Security benefits, which meant that their actual benefits were reduced. My tax cut will give these seniors a break without threatening Social Security.

But the truth is, if we're serious about making retirement security a reality, mitigating the effects of this tax hike is not enough. We have to ensure that Social Security is a safety net that today's seniors and future generations of Americans can count on.

As the cornerstone of America's social compact, Social Security has lifted millions of seniors and their families out of poverty. Without Social Security, nearly fifty percent of seniors would live below the poverty line. Here in Iowa, nearly 20 percent of the population - and more than 95 percent of seniors - receive Social Security. The full measure of Social Security's value for its recipients - as well as for those who look after and love them - is incalculable.

But we all know the system is not perfect. Some have argued that the problems are severe and that Social Security is fundamentally broken. This is an exaggeration. The underlying system is sound and the actual problem, a projected cash shortfall over the next 75 years, is relatively small and can be readily solved.

A return to fiscal responsibility, so we are not borrowing billions from the Social Security trust fund, would help strengthen the program for the long term. If any additional steps are necessary, we should carefully weigh our options. And as president, there are some basic principles I would honor:

First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security, as I and others did when President Bush proposed private accounts a few years ago. Privatization is wrong. It tears at the fabric of Social Security ?- the idea of mutual responsibility ?- by subjecting a secure retirement to the whims of the market.

Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

But the fact is, we will not be able to solve this problem and protect Social Security for good until we stop treating it like a political wedge issue and instead unite Republicans and Democrats behind a sensible solution. In 1983, there were problems with Social Security, and President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neil worked together to forge an effective bipartisan compromise. That sense of civility and shared purpose is notably absent in Washington today.

We need a President who can challenge conventional thinking in Washington, fight for the people's interests, and bring Americans together to meet the challenges of our time. That is exactly the sort of leadership I intend to offer.

NY Times

He's in it to win it.

Nobody cares about the election/selection of USA
Every one knows that a sort of adjusment between
Musharaf and benasir butto.
The fact is this
USA had never motivated the importance of the word democracy.

Thought you all might be interested in this. Also on the horizon is a huge rally in New York City on the 27th.

NYC Rally with Barack Obama
September 27, 2007
Washington Square Park
Gates open at 5:00 pm





Enthusiasm and Organization: A Path to the Nomination
By David Plouffe - Sep 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm EDT



It has been about a month since our last memo updating you on the progress of the campaign. In that time, the campaign has entered the critical post-Labor Day phase where the pace will pick up and the public will become more engaged in the campaign.


Framing the Race

Barack kicked off this new phase of the campaign with an important speech at a Labor Day rally where he framed the critical choice that voters face in this election. This speech had two key elements: First, he took the issue of experience head on, making the point that he "may not have the experience that Washington likes, but he has the experience that America needs" to bring change. Second, Barack talked about how it is not going to be enough to change parties; we have to change our politics. Our problems and our failures on big issues like health care, energy, and education pre-date the Bush Administration and real change requires a President who is capable of truly transforming our politics.



As someone who has spent 20 years in public service, standing up to the special interests and bringing people together to enact change, Barack is the only candidate with the right kind of experience in this race. Barack and the campaign will take this case to voters in the four early states and the February 5th states in the coming weeks and months.



Earlier this week, the campaign launched two new powerful ads in Iowa that further this case. You can see the ads by clicking here: "Believe" and "Mother".


A Clear Path to the Nomination

It is important to take a moment every once in a while to reflect on all the progress we have made together in this campaign.



When we got into this race as a largely unknown candidate new to the national political stage, we never expected that nine months later at this stage of the race, we would be in a tight three way race in Iowa; leading in the money race; have the largest grassroots organization in modern political history; and have an organizational advantage in the early states and February 5 over a quasi-incumbent from the most powerful political machine in modern political history.



While the press remains focused on the simplistic and erroneous view of national polls as predictors, the Obama campaign has several structural advantages:


Barack is the candidate with the message and biography that is most in synch with the electorate -- according to a Gallup poll in September Democratic voters prefer change to experience by a margin of 73 percent to 26 percent;
The largest organizations with the most experienced staff and enthusiastic volunteers in the 4 early states;
An unexpected financial advantage that allows the campaign to compete in multiple contests at the same time;
The most donors by far in the race, who as the election draws nearer will get even more active on our behalf, giving us financial sustainability;
A significant organizational advantage in February 5th states.

Well-Positioned in Iowa

Iowa is fundamentally a close three-way race with Obama, Clinton and Edwards all within the same range in most public polling. In the last month, public polls have shown each of the three candidates leading. But the truth is, caucuses are very difficult to poll, particularly in a year where turnout will likely explode with many new attendees. So instead of focusing on the polls, we are much more focused on the growth of our hard count (number of committed supporters) statewide and we remain ahead of schedule in that regard. And there are other positive trends that have emerged that are worth noting.

Because we will likely enter the caucus with thousands of potential first-time caucus attendees committed to Obama, organization is paramount. Last weekend's Harkin Steak Fry -- Senator Tom Harkin's annual event, where six of the Presidential candidates attended -- showcased the strength of the Obama Iowa operation in the first head-to-head battle of organization. It is estimated that 5-6,000 people attended who were committed to candidates. Of that number, approximately 3,000 Obama Iowa supporters attended. It was described by many press accounts as akin to an Obama rally. That shows not just our organizational strength, but a real commitment from our county and precinct leaders, as well as our committed supporters. Our dominating presence at the Steak Fry is an example of the enthusiasm gap that we enjoy over our fellow candidates. Our supporters will drive for hours and walk for miles to help elect Barack to the White House. "Organization plus Enthusiasm" is a time-tested formula for success in the caucuses and that is the path we are on.

Below is a picture of the Obama supporters entering the Steak Fry:



Obama's Entrance to The Harkin Steak Fry

As Ben Smith of the Politico put it: "Iowa field operatives make a big deal of "visibility' -- making sure their campaigns have high profiles at high-profile events. On that note, you could mistake Tom Harkin's steak fry for an Obama rally. It was in fact preceded by an Obama rally, and the train of Obama supporters behind a marching band stretched for at least a hundred yards. His campaign said he'd given out 2,000 T-shirts, a number that seemed plausible." LINK

On a related point, polls consistently under-represent in Iowa, and elsewhere, the strength of Barack's support among younger voters for at least three reasons. In more than one survey, Barack's support among Iowa young voters exceeded the support of all the other candidates combined. First, young voters are dramatically less likely to have caucused or voted regularly in primaries in the past, so pollsters heavily under-represent them. Second, young voters are more mobile and are much less likely to be at home in the early evening and thus less likely to be interviewed in any survey. Third, young voters are much less likely to have a landline phone and much more likely to rely exclusively upon cell phones, which are automatically excluded from phone surveys. So all of these state and national surveys have and will continue to under-represent Barack's core support -- in effect, his hidden vote in each of these pivotal early states. Of course, there are organizational challenges associated with maximizing this support, but we are heavily focused on that task.


Prepared to Capture Momentum in New Hampshire

It is also clear that the importance of Iowa has only grown over the course of this year. The Democratic story coming out of Iowa is likely to be a much bigger story than the GOP contest, ensuring maximum velocity for a strong showing. Clinton will pay a severe price for not winning Iowa - national front runners always do. The average New Hampshire bounce on the Democratic side has historically been just under 20 points. Our internal data and most of the public polls show Obama with a solid foundation, despite having done no TV advertising or even direct mail. Those activities will begin in the near future. The demographics of the state would suggest that we will be able to build on our foundation as we begin to devote significant resources there, turning New Hampshire into a tight race over the coming months and almost ensuring that a positive Iowa result will result in a New Hampshire primary win.


Organization and Enthusiasm in Nevada and South Carolina

Nevada is less formed than the other early states, but since it is a caucus, our focus has been on building precinct organizations. We already have 2,000 volunteers in the Nevada, which is far and away the deepest volunteer organization in the state.

There was one recent poll in South Carolina that showed Clinton with a sizable lead, but we believe that was an outlier. It had her with a healthy lead in the African-American vote, which is not what we believe to be the case. In fact, a public poll of just African-American voters was released last week that showed Obama with an eight point lead, which would result in a much closer contest in the entire primary electorate.

We believe South Carolina is now a very competitive two-way race, with Edwards, who won this contest in 2004, in a very distant third. Momentum will likely be king in South Carolina, but we are building an unprecedented grassroots organization to maximize our vote and to help provide the margin in a close contest.

We have begun to deploy staff and build organizations in some of the February 5th states. We currently have staff in California, Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota and will have staff in over a dozen other states by the end of October. While momentum will likely be the dominant factor in deciding votes on February 5th, we plan to marry that momentum with the strongest organization and most financial resources in these February 5th states to emerge from that day with the most delegates and states won.

Obama-related posts:

The military vote: GI's give most to Obama (and Ron Paul)

Clinton Favored by Older, Low-Income Voters in Early Primaries

This is a pretty good analysis in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/us/politics/24cnd-nagourney.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


September 24, 2007
Proudly Wearing the Front-Runner Label
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Anyone wanting to understand why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is being praised these days in many quarters ?- from rival campaigns to the White House ?- needed to look no further than their televisions on Sunday morning.Mrs. Clinton appeared on five different interview programs. That is the campaign equivalent of a home run.

Not only that, Mrs. Clinton, who as any network booker can attest is no easy get, appeared from her home and for the most part on her terms, primarily to talk about health care, as she sought to wring another day of what has been mostly positive coverage from the plan she announced last Monday. Mrs. Clinton's proposal came long after the ones put forward by former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama, and it was very much derivative of those two. No matter; by the end of the week, Mrs. Clinton's plan was, at least for the moment, defining the discussion ?- serving as a reminder that the Democratic presidential contest these days is to a considerable degree being defined by and around Mrs. Clinton.

Politicians and journalists inevitably try to simplify crowded political contests by identifying one candidate as a front-runner, long before a single American even votes. It is a designation that is often based on the most tenuous of evidence and one that often proves to be wrong, especially when it comes to Democrats.

Yet this time around, the Democrats would seem to have a leading candidate in the person of a certain former first lady.

"Of course she is the front-runner," Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, said of Mrs. Clinton. "By her lonesome."

Mr. Trippi has been in politics for a long time and knows what he is doing; he had been working in presidential campaigns for 20 years before he got his moment of consultant fame as the manager of Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004. In proclaiming Mrs. Clinton the run-away front-runner, it is a good bet that he is also trying to diminish Mr. Obama ?- putting Mr. Obama on the same level as Mr. Edwards. He is also raising expectations for Mrs. Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, where Mr. Edwards believes he can win.

That said, it's hard to find someone who thinks differently.

But what is this assessment of front-runner status based on? And how realistic is it?

Typically, a candidate is adjudged a front-runner because he ?- or she ?- is in the lead in polls, has collected the most endorsements, is ahead in fundraising, is the subject of the most media attention, draws the biggest crowds and, well, just comes across as a front-runner. To this end, Mrs. Clinton has been helped considerably by the perception in Democratic circles that she has outpaced her competitors at most of the candidate debates, and that in venue after venue, she comes across as focused, disciplined, in command ?- in short, front-runner-ish.

Yet Mrs. Clinton is a good example of why the front-runner designation is so ephemeral. Mr. Obama has outpaced her in fundraising and crowds, both in terms of their size and how stirred they are by his speeches. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have held their own in winning endorsements; though it's worth noting that Mr. Dean picked up a lot of big endorsements in 2004 ?- from Al Gore to Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa ?- and it didn't do him much good in the end.

Mrs. Clinton may have the lead in national polls and polls in New Hampshire. But Mr. Edwards leads in a number of Iowa polls and many Democrats there consider him the, um, front-runner in that state. And ?- this is key ?- polls in Iowa and New Hampshire taken in the fall don't tell you very much about what is going to happen in January.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the Democratic primary voters have fallen head-over-heels for Mrs. Clinton. Her hold on them is solid but certainly not unshakable. Any event that reminds Democratic voters of what remains of lingering concerns about her ?- starting with her electability, given the sentiment of many Americans toward the Clintons ?- could topple her from her front-runner perch.

In truth, the status of Mrs. Clinton as a front-runner is arguably as much a tribute to the quality of her campaign as to the candidate herself. Her campaign is filled with advisers and consultants who have done this before, including, obviously, her husband. The result of this was on display on Sunday after her campaign lined up its five-network marathon. It was the cap of a week of coverage of a health care speech that may have allowed her to seize an issue that, given what happened with her handling of it in 1994, could have been liability. (It also allowed her, in the crush of a single day, to check off all the network interview boxes. Don't look for Mrs. Clinton to be sitting down with Tim Russert or George Stephanopoulos again any time soon.)

Unlike her husband in 1992, Mrs. Clinton has the challenge of being in a field that includes some potentially formidable candidates, starting with Mr. Obama. The criticism he has endured this year is that he does not have the experience to be president; the more relevant criticism for this discussion is that he does have not have enough national campaign experience yet to run for president. He has made some beginner mistakes that Mrs. Clinton's more-expert campaign has seized on, which may account for why he seemed a bit adrift this summer.

But presidential campaigns are learning experiences. And Mr. Obama seems to have learned from these past nine months on the campaign trail. He turned in what was widely seen as an impressive debate performance in Iowa two weeks back, reminding many Democrats of why his entry into the race drew such attention. He has personally rewritten his stump speech to deal with the question of whether he has the experience to be president, and at least at one appearance ?- last week in Washington ?- it drew him long applause.

"The length of your resume says nothing about your character," Mr. Obama said. "So let me tell you about the experiences that I bring to bear in this campaign because I think that the experience that American is looking for right now is the experience of bringing the people together to solve problems, Republicans and Democrats."

As for Mr. Edwards, he is increasingly expected in the months ahead to wield what could prove to be a very effective argument for him, should Mrs. Clinton falter: that a white Southern man is far more electable in a general election than a woman or an African-American (though Mr. Edwards probably will not make the case quite that directly). The Democratic Party is as hungry to win back the White House as ever, and it is not hard to see how Mr. Edwards might benefit from a second look come early January, especially if Republicans rally around a strong candidate of their own.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers have clearly decided that being known as the front-runner ?- a designation they have encouraged from the start of the race ?- is a good thing. It is a way to corral supporters and contributors; it helps to erase the idea that she is unelectable. The one thing the designation is not necessarily helpful for, among those following the race from the sidelines, is predicting who the Democratic nominee is going to be when this process winds to an end next year.

Ms Clinton is not my favorite candidate, but if she shows her mettle in passing a universal health care, she may get my vote.

What do you mean, C.I.? She wouldn't be able to pass it until AFTER she gets your vote (as in, she'd pass universal health care as President, not as a candidate).

soz, I know that! I'm talking about the best potential for one. There's never a guarantee on anything, but I can hope, can't I?

Point is just that you wrote that she might get your vote "if she shows her mettle in passing universal health care" - but you're going to have to vote before any of them gets the chance to do any such thing.