Obama '08?

This may already be here somewhere but I just saw on CNN that Texas Dems are polling Clinton 50%, Obama 48% with a 4.5% MoE (they're tied).

The LATimes is reporting today that Obama had a secret meeting with Edwards yesterday - having "sneaked down to North Carolina".

Maybe he has the same deal with him.

Okay, on the theory that things like this sometimes gain legs, here is report of a rumor circulating around New York today. The 'money paragraph' in Armstrong Williams' most recent essay in "Human Events":

Quote:

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25021

Whatever happens, nobody can deny that this is one of the most interesting campaigns in quite awhile. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

If Obama does go the third party or independent route, he'd best make it good the first time. There just won't be much party support for him if he has to try again in another four years.

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, on the theory that things like this sometimes gain legs, here is report of a rumor circulating around New York today. The 'money paragraph' in Armstrong Williams' most recent essay in "Human Events":

Quote:

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25021

Whatever happens, nobody can deny that this is one of the most interesting campaigns in quite awhile. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

I underlined a section on the article.

Is this guys suggesting that Clinton should drop out of the race because supposedly Obama/Bloomberg are going to make a 3rd party run if Clinton is the democratic nominee?

Okay, on the theory that things like this sometimes gain legs, here is report of a rumor circulating around New York today. The 'money paragraph' in Armstrong Williams' most recent essay in "Human Events":

Quote:

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25021

Whatever happens, nobody can deny that this is one of the most interesting campaigns in quite awhile. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

I wonder if, during the next debate, that Obama will point out:

For Mrs. and Mr. Clinton, speeches do put food on the table!

There is a troublesome story coming out of New York. The report is that Obama received ZERO votes in 80 districts in New York, and no one knows why. No small matter, since this could mean more pledged delegates he does or does not get. [..]

Seems awful fishy to me. Comments?

Does anybody want to accuse Arianna Huffington of being a paid operative of the GOP?

The fact is the overall tendency of white voters in all the primaries so far has been more surprising in their preference for Obama than in any supposed continued racial antipathy. Odd that there has been so relatively little comment on that.

georgeob1 wrote:

The fact is the overall tendency of white voters in all the primaries so far has been more surprising in their preference for Obama than in any supposed continued racial antipathy. Odd that there has been so relatively little comment on that.

We must have been reading different articles. Perhaps all the commentary I've seen hailing the success Obama has had among whites, especially young whites, was all concentrated in those dastardly liberal blogs I read.

Personally, I agree up to a point - it is certainly encouraging to see Obama getting a large share of the white vote, and even in the South getting double-digit support among whites. Especially encouraging is his success among the youngest voters - about half of white voters aged under 30 voted for Obama in South Carolina, for example, more still in Georgia - not to mention states elsewhere in the country. Such things have certainly been commented (and cheered) on a lot here on A2K too; even just that nugget from SC must have been posted about a dozen times.

To my taste, perhaps even a little bit too much. I mean, it's great that even in the South, the kids apparently have no hesitation voting for a black man anymore (at least not in SC or GA; Alabama was another matter). But I mean - even in SC, Obama got a grand 24% of the overall white vote. OK, back then Edwards was still in the race, so the white vote was split three ways. But in Tennessee and Alabama, he also got just 25-26% of the white vote, and in Louisiana 30%, with Hillary taking a landslide of the white vote in each. Regardless of whether one posits that Hillary won that landslide purely on the basis of her personal appeal, or partly on the basis of being the white person in the race, I dont see a whole lot to celebrate in a black guy getting a quarter of the white vote. I know, I know - Jesse Jackson never even got out of the single digits; all I'm saying is that as long as people think it's "surprising," to use your word, or "encouraging" or whatnot, that a black man can get a quarter of the white vote in a certain state, race is still very much an issue in that state.