Obama '08?

teenyboone wrote:

eoe wrote:

sad.

Unbeknownst to many, you and I are on the same page! :wink: :wink:
Get it? They're just "itching" for a fight, but the "JOKE" is on them! I'm hear to apologize for calling you names, but I didn't get the nuance, until I looked it up. If you saw the endorsement, our brother received from the Kennedy's, I think, I can deal with any of the "priviledged" white guy stuff, going on in this group. Again, I apologize, for any misunderstanding. PEACE, out!
PS Thanks Glitter! Can't answer private emails. Sorry

and now teenyboone is going to the us versus them speech, privileged white guy remarks... yes indeed... I feel the unity....

Obama picks up endorsement from the NY Post.

Cycloptichorn

That's true, nimh. However, most of the voters in Oklahoma are NOT in the small towns.

Current stats show Oklahoma's population at 3.5 million. Of that, 2.2 million is urban. The state's two major urban centers are located in the center of the state (Oklahoma City) and in the east (Tulsa.) Western Oklahoma has very low population density, so don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Other pertinent stats: 84% of the rural population is white, 11% Native American. Now you can better imagine the racism among rural voters.

Because it's predominantly a red state, Hillary-bashing was a very popular sport here during the '90s. People don't forget.

If Obama gets the nomination, just watch what this horrid rag gets up to.

My take on Obama's new strategy: It's one-on-one now
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 1/30/2008 07:16:00 PM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (28) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

I have a slightly different take on Obama's speech today than John. First, today, with Edwards dropping out, the campaign is on a completely different playing field. It's one-on-one between Obama and Clinton. For political geeks, it doesn't get much better than this current contest. We are watching two masters of the game engage.

Two things are interesting to me: First, Obama keeps injecting Bill Clinton into the discussion. He did that again today in Denver. Last week, after the South Carolina debate, the punditry were discussing how Hillary was playing for February 5th while Obama was trying to win South Carolina. But, Obama kept making a point of discussing both Clintons, not just Hillary. The media kept wondering if Bill got under Obama's skin. I wonder if it wasn't really the other way around. Obama drew Bill into the campaign -- and Bill acted like Bill does. Only problem is that Bill isn't the candidate. Makes one wonder if the Obama campaign had research showing that the more Bill is the issue, the less support there is for Hillary. She loses the patina of a historic candidacy when the campaign isn't about her. Obama did get the Clinton campaign off its message. Today, she even had to tell us "This is my campaign, it is about my candidacy." (Anyone else hear "I'm relevant"?) That's not something a campaign should be telling us six days before Super Tuesday.

More after the jump...

Second, Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about "Day One." That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful. That makes it hard for the Clinton team to start whining about what Obama is saying. He is re-defining one of Clinton's main talking points. He also talked about Clinton's votes on Iraq and Iran -- and some of the statements she's made during the campaign. But that's fair game according to Clinton. At the South Carolina debate, Clinton said, "I believe your record and what you say should matter." So, it matters.

I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or "blistering." I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did. (And let's not forget, it's the Clinton campaign, and their surrogates, that keeps dragging up dirt about Obama's youthful indiscretions, not the other way around.)

Anyway, that's my take. The dynamics of the campaign changed dramatically today when John Edwards dropped out. Seems like Obama got out in front of it all today.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

teenyboone wrote:

eoe wrote:

sad.

Unbeknownst to many, you and I are on the same page! :wink:  :wink: Get it?  They're just "itching" for a fight, but the "JOKE" is on them!  I'm hear to apologize for calling you names, but I didn't get the nuance, until I looked it up.  If you saw the endorsement, our brother received from the Kennedy's, I think, I can deal with any of the "priviledged" white guy stuff, going on in this group.  Again, I apologize, for any misunderstanding.  PEACE, out! PS Thanks Glitter!  Can't answer private emails.  Sorry

and now teenyboone is going to the us versus them speech, privileged white guy remarks... yes indeed... I feel the unity....

Think whatever you like, you're WRONG!  Didn't know Rove was in this group!     [/qu

Obama in Denver today.

15,000 people showed up for a venue which could only hold half that.

Is Hillary drawing this many people? Is anyone?

McCain regularly shows up to crowds of 3-600. It's not comparable.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama picks up endorsement from the NY Post.

Cycloptichorn

Not really. I think this "endorsement" is better understood as merely another means to throw up every old clinton slander once again. There ain't much, if anything, positive about Obama in the piece.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm

The Post is possibly the worst paper in the US. As Alterman has put it (I'm paraphrasing), it's fundamental purpose seems to be something like "Go Likud!" Obama did speak within the last few days to a bunch of senior jewish organization people to push back against the "Obama is a Muslim" smear being pushed into the US jewish community (even Haaretz carried a piece on this meeting yesterday or Monday).

If anyone suspected that there might be some sneaky deal between Murdoch and Clinton (there are folks who thought this might be the case after Murdoch said some nice things about Bill a year or so ago) this ought to correct that very odd idea.

If Obama gets the nomination, just watch what this horrid rag gets up to.

Obama is flavor of the week... one hit wonder... temporary rockstar.... Hillary is the next president....

and btw teenyboone.... I didn't realize you could get on A2K before you had puberty... :wink:

That's true, nimh. However, most of the voters in Oklahoma are NOT in the small towns.

Current stats show Oklahoma's population at 3.5 million. Of that, 2.2 million is urban. The state's two major urban centers are located in the center of the state (Oklahoma City) and in the east (Tulsa.) Western Oklahoma has very low population density, so don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Other pertinent stats: 84% of the rural population is white, 11% Native American. Now you can better imagine the racism among rural voters.

Because it's predominantly a red state, Hillary-bashing was a very popular sport here during the '90s. People don't forget.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Frankly, I think you realize that the contentiousness is likely to be far more pronounced on your end, what with John McAmnesty getting the nod for your team. Don't you think so?

Cycloptichorn

No, I don't.

Tico, whistling past the graveyard

...

and on and on

Plus, the electoral graveyard is littered with candidates who drew big crowds. Think Howard Dean, Eugene McCarthy - and Ralph Nader drew a crowd of 12,000 in Boston.

Yes yes, I know, I'm a wet blanket...