The difference in popular vote was 9.2% but in delegates it was only 5% if I figured it properly.
source
I have been getting a sense of weariness from Obama; Hillary is such a showperson it is hard to tell what is real, but from Obama I have admit I haven't seen his zeal lately. Maybe once he finally wins it (and I believe he will) (democratic ticket) he will be reenergized and can get away from this level of politics which has been the main these last few months. Say what you will about McCain; I don't think he will play the game the way Hillary plays it.
Revel
What planet do you live on. Reflect on the 2000 and 2004 elections and tell me that the conseratives wont make the next election a hell compared to the lovefest between Obama and Hillary. No matter who wins on the dam side the republicans are going to slime them big time.
rabel22 wrote:Revel
What planet do you live on. Reflect on the 2000 and 2004 elections and tell me that the conseratives wont make the next election a hell compared to the lovefest between Obama and Hillary. No matter who wins on the dam side the republicans are going to slime them big time.
Lovefest between Obama and Hillary?
You may have missed it, but Bill Clinton has just accused Obama of playing the race card. I wonder what Bill thinks his party has been doing as standard procedure for the last 50 years? And a trick the Clintons have refined to a fine art. Remember the chain dragging and burning of black churches, and so on and so on?
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
If I was a yank..I would vote for Obama before the other dipwicks you got running.
Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton
April 24, 2008 10:02 PM
Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.
The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.
For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.
Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws. For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal:
The first hard punch was thrown by my friend and colleague John Judis in a widely distributed piece on The New Republic web site, filed sometime around 3AM Wednesday, seven hours after polls closed in Pennsylvania. In the article titled, "The Next McGovern," Judis wrote:
"f you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities....Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as 'very liberal.'...[H]e is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency."
Joe Klein, in his weekly column for Time magazine, noted that Clinton has taken a beating,
"But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered - still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party [ Klein could have added, 'no longer the darling of the press.'] In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life - bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food - as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement."
Politico's Mike Allen describes the changed approach to Obama as a "paradigm shift," specifically citing the "seminal" [Allen is not one to mute his compliments] report of former colleague Chris "The Fix" Cillizza on WashingtonPost.com, the headline of which undoubtedly brought tears of joy to the Clinton campaign: "How Clinton Can Win It."
"A path does exist for Clinton," Cillizza wrote. "The best argument Clinton has at her disposal right now is that Obama cannot win over blue collar, white voters who have been hit hard by the economic slowdown and are looking for a politician to look out for them."
The critical chorus is even resonating across the Atlantic. Under the headline "The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain," London Times columnist Anatole Kaletsky wrote: "the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race."
The New York Times, never so declarative in a news story, poses the issues as questions. Adam Nagourney writes, "Why has he (Obama) been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination? ... Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?"
While Nagourney raised questions reinforcing doubts about Obama's credibility as a general election candidate, his colleague at the New York Times, Patrick Healy was one of the few reporters to write favorably of the Obama bid in light of recent criticisms. Healy wrote:
"[E]xit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia."
Healy, however, is the exception. While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.
The Clinton critique of Obama, and now the critique of much of the press, was further reinforced from another source, Republican strategist Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
"Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are 'bitter' and therefore 'cling' to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason."
rabel22 wrote:Revel
What planet do you live on. Reflect on the 2000 and 2004 elections and tell me that the conseratives wont make the next election a hell compared to the lovefest between Obama and Hillary. No matter who wins on the dam side the republicans are going to slime them big time.
If you have been keeping up with the news you would see the conservative apparatus and McCain are not necessarily one and the same. I am not denying that the conservatives as a whole will not keep playing this game; but I don't think they will get much encouragement from McCain. I believe he truly he did not want that ad run in NC and that impressed me but did not take away other objections I have to his presidency. For one thing I think he is too old and does not appear in the best of health for another; he has embraced controversial figures in his own part and the Iraq war and his views on domestic policies suck.
But if it came down to Hillary and McCain; I would have a hard time choosing Hillary; I am not sure I could make myself do it regardless of all those things I just listed.
Quote:"Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are 'bitter' and therefore 'cling' to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason."
All of these are such bull crap issues; I mean what difference do they make in the running of our government; not to mention some of which is true.
Quote:Only 26% Say Obama Looks Down on Americans
Gallop Poll April 22
Quote:Exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, double-talk, systematic deception, and lies presented as metaphorical "truths" are the order of the day.
National Review online
Obama, why the aversion to "straight" talk?
revel wrote:All of these are such bull crap issues; I mean what difference do they make in the running of our government; not to mention some of which is true.
The same is true for Obama's whole rhetoric about "hope" and "change". It's also a bull-crap issue, and it has very little to do with the way he would run the government if elected. If you look at his specific proposals for running the US government, Obama's magic disappears, and you're looking at a fairly normal Democratic politician.
If the theme of your campaign is feel-good inspirational fluff, you have to accept that it can be compromised by feel-not-so-good fluff like the Reverend Wright's remarks and Obama's bigheaded "bitter" comments. If the theme of your campaign is the wonky details of of running the US government, and that' you'll get them right, you need to run a different campaign from the outset. You can't have it both ways. You can't embrace fluff when it plays your way and insist on factuality and reason when it plays against you.
Thomas wrote:
The same is true for Obama's whole rhetoric about "hope" and "change". It's also a bull-crap issue, and it has very little to do with the way he would run the government if elected. If you look at his specific proposals for running the US government, Obama's magic disappears, and you're looking at a fairly normal Democratic politician.
Oh, I disagree somewhat. There is something magic about planning to do the health care negotiations on c-span. There is something magic about "no permanent bases in Iraq". There is something magic about offering to give the government back to the people. Now, I agree that if Obama stops looking like somebody who will change the status quo, he's done.
Obama's getting 90% of the black vote.
Doesn't say much for black voters truly embracing the political system, does it?
cjhsa wrote:Obama's getting 90% of the black vote.
Doesn't say much for black voters truly embracing the political system, does it?
Maybe you could expound on your reasoning.
cicerone imposter wrote:
When Bush took over the white house, oil was $20/barrell; it's now $120, but neocons want more of the same from McCain.
Go figure.
Actually, it was $31 a barrel when he was sworn in, and had dropped to around $25 a barrel when we invaded Iraq in 2003.
FreeDuck wrote:cjhsa wrote:Obama's getting 90% of the black vote.
Doesn't say much for black voters truly embracing the political system, does it?
Maybe you could expound on your reasoning.
They're voting for him BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. Doh! Racism, pure and simple. Hillary is the better candidate for the black vote, after all, her husband was the first black president.
cjhsa wrote:FreeDuck wrote:cjhsa wrote:Obama's getting 90% of the black vote.
Doesn't say much for black voters truly embracing the political system, does it?
Maybe you could expound on your reasoning.
They're voting for him BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. Doh! Racism, pure and simple. Hillary is the better candidate for the black vote, after all, her husband was the first black president.
Even if I accept your premise that they're voting for him because he's black, how does that say anything about whether they "truly embrace the political system"?
They obviously aren't weighing the candidates against each other. They also feel they owe no political loyalty to the Clintons, who pandered to them for eight years.
Miller wrote:Quote:Exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, double-talk, systematic deception, and lies presented as metaphorical "truths" are the order of the day.
National Review online
Miller - you're absolutely right -- that's a perfect description of the National Review online.
