As I began writing this post, the New Hampshire primary process was in full swing and, of course, is now long over, but I want to share some thoughts about my experiences in Iowa in the days surrounding the caucuses before they fade too far into the background.
Thanks to some help from family (and one babysitter!), as well as some vacation time in early January, my main contribution during this time was watching my children. This allowed my wife the free time necessary to volunteer for the week leading up to the Iowa caucuses. She’s been more involved with the campaign, is a bit more of a people person than me and I could not devote an entire week, so it just made sense for her to go instead of me.
My wife was able to obtain lodging with family in Iowa and give a week as a volunteer out of the Washington office led by Kiana. After she got there, the family invited me to stay for a few days as well, so I packed up the kids and headed off to Iowa. It had recently snowed, was extremely cold (temperatures in the single digits) and the wind was howling the whole way with gusts in the 30-40 mph range. This caused snow drifts to encroach on the roads and, on occasion, some serious visibility concerns. In fact, for one stretch of about a quarter of a mile, it was, essentially, blizzard conditions and I could not see very well.
However, we did eventually get there safely and one of the neat things about all of that blowing snow was the fact that the sun was out and also shining at the proper angle to allow a rainbow to appear off to my left as I was driving West towards Iowa. I have never seen a rainbow in the winter before and decided that this was a good omen, despite the ferocity of the cold and wind.
After my arrival in Iowa, the family decided to further assist us by watching the children for me so I could go out canvassing for one day with my wife. Although not many people were home during the day on this Wednesday, we did talk to quite a few folks despite the single digit temperatures and snow and ice that often made walking treacherous.
The highlight from canvassing has to be the family on our list that we found in a mobile home park. They had never caucused before and were not even really sure how it all was supposed to work. They invited us in to talk and said they were undecided. We spoke to them for a good ten or fifteen minutes, telling them about Barack Obama, his background, his books, how the caucus process works, where they should show up the next night, etc. The real thrill came when three of them walked into the caucus the very next night!!! They said they were still undecided, but they did end up supporting Barack.
The caucus we observed had 100 people sign in, although a few left early due to child behavior issues. I am told they had only 15 people sign in for the 2003 caucus. There were six delegates at stake. Only Obama, Clinton and Edwards were viable after the first count. I was a bit disappointed that the Richardson and Biden people ended up realigning mainly with the Edwards contingent. Also, one of them simply left rather than support a different candidate who was viable!
Although Obama had the most supporters of anyone with, if memory serves, 38, the math worked out that the delegates split evenly 2/2/2 for the big three. I actually took this as a fairly good sign. I knew Barack would likely be cleaning up in other areas of the state and a lot depends on how many delegates there were to go around versus the percentages for each group. I also noted that, if Barack could get 38% of the caucus-goers at other venues in addition to the one we were attending, he would be in really good shape.
After everything was all over at the caucus, I raced home to get on the internet to see what was happening at barackobama.com as well as to fire up MSNBC to get the reactions. As Obama supporters all know by now, it was a very very good night! I didn’t see the victory speech live since I was dealing with some toddler behavior issues and bedtime, but was able to catch it online later. My wife’s Republican family switched to Fox News right after getting home, but the Fox coverage of Obama was quite good anyway and they were duly impressed with the breadth and depth of the victory.
Another note on the Iowa family connection. They are all die-hard conservative Republicans, mainly due to their pro-life views and most of them caucused for Huckabee. How die-hard are they? Well, one of them has a bumper sticker still on their car that says “I trust President George W. Bush.” Before you write them off with some sort of stereotype or snarky comment about religious conservatives (that you might, even now, be making in your thoughts), you need to know a few things. They knew we supported Obama, yet still graciously opened their homes to us, cooked for us, watched our children for us (even to allow us to go out and celebrate the win) and were just about as wonderful as could be in terms of hosting guests from out of town. This graciousness even extended to our two year old, who, as she attempted to play with a snow globe, caused it to break and leak water onto the piano. Both of our kids are usually pretty good about not grabbing things like that, but grandma has snow globes at her house that they are allowed to play with. We felt terrible, but they didn’t even get upset since they understand that small children sometimes act that way and all was quickly forgiven.
My point in mentioning the family politics intrigue is that, in much the same way that Barack generally does not attribute evil, malice or bad intentions to his political opponents, we should all remember that, despite whatever political views may divide our families, our neighborhoods, our states or even our country as a whole, we are really all in this together.
After working so hard for so long, the Iowa victory was, indeed, very sweet. The fight for the nomination and the Presidency is far from over but, after we win it, I will think back to Iowa and the weeks and months leading up to it (and subsequent to it) and know that I helped to make it happen. This campaign is not just about Barack, it’s about me. I own a piece of this campaign, but I wanted to get this post out to make sure I share it!
I have recently grown a bit concerned while reading certain blog comments. Note: I am not a "concern" troll, so hear me out.
I have recently seen instances of new users posting with a question or a concern and immediately being met by regular contributors who immediately dismiss them due to not having a public profile or the perception of "concern troll" behavior.
In my view, posting a question to the supporter community about some allegation made by a rival campaign is not, in and of itself, troll-worthy. In fact, we should welcome the opportunity to correct misperceptions and thank them for taking the time to perform some due diligence instead of accepting the allegation as true.
The whole point of the exercise is to attract new people and convince them to join us. Not to get comfortable in some sort of seniority system that sends a negative message to anyone who didn't join the campaign at least X months ago.
I strongly urge everyone to use restraint when dealing with these types of new users. Unless or until their behavior warrants ignoring them or reporting them to site administration, please give them the benefit of the doubt.
Don't get me wrong, posting the same question or comment verbatim multiple times in the same thread, especially after receiving a response, certainly is troll-worthy.
As we have seen with some of the recent mudslinging from a rival campaign, it is definitely appropriate to respond with facts, but resist being baited into slinging mud right back. Likewise, calling someone a troll on the basis of one or two posts seems heavy-handed to me and, ultimately, counterproductive.
So, if your first reaction after reading a comment from a new user is "ah-ha, a negative comment/question, therefore you are a troll," I hope you will take a moment to consider how Barack Obama or Laura Hubka would respond if faced with a similar situation and give that new person the benefit of the doubt, at least until they prove they no longer deserve it by demonstrating consistent troll behavior and/or crossing the boundaries of decorum.
Undecided people are starting to make up their minds. Deciding which candidate to support, much like major purchasing decisions, such as cars, houses, etc. is, ultimately, an emotional decison. Let us try to ensure that the first interaction with Obama supporters is a positive one for all.
I think that, whoever the nominee is (and I believe it will be Obama), you can count on the "attack machine" portion of the Republican party and their minions to try the standard attacks and wedge issues they always use. It might be 527 groups, might be the GOP nominee or some combination, but you don't even need to know who the Democratic nominee is to know that they will, at one point or another, try the following attacks:(1) Gay marriage/civil unions. Nothing better for the GOP than to get everyone all worked up about this instead of focusing on foreign policy or the economy.(2) Flip-flopper. They'll find a way to spin something from the past and make this charge. Heck, a lot of the "netroots" types are already trying to make this attack by saying that, sure Barack opposed the Iraq war, but then he voted to continue funding it (and then they tout Kucinich)(3) Tax and spend. Ah, the classics. No matter who you are, when you are a Democrat, you will be accused of being a tax and spend liberal, blah, blah, blah. I'm not sure which is worse, tax and spend, borrow and spend or spend and spend, but the GOP has no room this election to lecture anyone about spending after Medicare Part D and the insane money being spent on Iraq.(4) Liberal. Conservatives have fairly successfully turned this into a dirty word for many people. It doesn't even matter whether you are actually liberal or not, if you are to the left of Ronald Reagan, they'll accuse you of being a liberal, possibly a commie or at least certainly a pinko. Oh, and then they'll start talking about all that "socialized medicine" that supposedly no one wants. Funny, they never talk about all that socialized food inspection, national forests, interstate highways, levy and dam building, firefighting, police work, etc. Well, maybe Ron Paul does, but you get what I mean, right?(5) Ridicule. From Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank, to "slick Willy, to Al Gore "inventing" the internet, to John Kerry windsurfing, they will look long and hard for an issue, preferably with a photo or video that they can use to try to make fun of the Democratic nominee.
Foreign policy is one of the best reasons to support Barack Obama, despite the oft-repeated fallacy that he doesn't have enough experience.
Who better to repair the damage to our reputation abroad than someone who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and who has actually lived in a foreign country?
Obama graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations.
As a US Senator, he is a member of the following committees:
Foreign Relations Committee
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Among Democrats, he has raised the most money from military donors
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html
Also, there are plenty of military and foreign policy heavyweights backing Obama:
— Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Former Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Former Director, Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command. He had a 32-year Air Force career. As a fighter pilot, he flew 274 missions over Iraq during and after the first Persian Gulf War.
— General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; Chief of Staff, United States Air Force (1990-1994).
— Dr. Richard Danzig; Secretary of the Navy (1998-2001)
— Dr. Tony Lake; National Security Adviser(1993-1997); Director of Policy Planning, State Department (1977-1981)
— Dr. Susan Rice; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs(1997-2001); Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs, the National Security Council, (1995-1997); Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping, National Security Council (1993-1995)
— Zbigniew Brzezinski; former National Security Advisor
— Ted Sorensen; John F. Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, legendary speechwriter, and "alter-ego."
— Samantha Power; lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction for her book "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,"
— Patrick Murphy, the only Iraq veteran currently serving in the US House of Representatives. Murphy joined the Army in 1993 and later become a West Point professor and a Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps attorney. He earned a Bronze Star as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, serving in Baghdad in 2003 and 2004. “Sen. Obama truly wants to unite America, and, speaking as a former captain in the 82nd Airborne Division, I know that he has the judgment we need to be our next commander in chief,” Murphy said Tuesday.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/congresss-only-iraq-war-veteran-endorses-obama-2007-08-21.html
http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/national-security-and-military-leaders-praise-barack-obamas-.html
I had created a blog entry about handicapping the VP race a while back. Although this group is obviously the perfect place to post it, I was having trouble adding it because it was already posted to ten groups so I'm, essentially, just copying it into this post.
______________
Okay, let’s have some fun and start envisioning the Barack Obama general election campaign, but only a bit, we have a lot of work to do to lock up the nomination!! Think of this as a short mental break from shooting down the Clinton fallacies and right-wing smear e-mails.
Who will Barack select as his running mate? Candidates and my initial odds estimate are below. My handicapping is based on general impressions, anecdotes and should be considered only lightly researched (if researched at all!)
Please feel free to respond and tell me if there are others to consider, give us your version of pros/cons/odds and/or if you disagree with any of the assessments.
Russ Feingold
Pros – He’s the “Feingold” in “McCain-Feingold,” Voted against dismissing articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, Has returned over $50,000 in pay raises from the US Treasury, voted against Iraq war
Cons –
Odds: 3 to 1
Jim Webb
Mark Warner
Pros – Executive experience as Governor of Virginia
Max Cleland
Pros -- Straight-talking southerner with strong military credentials
Cons – Voted for the Iraq war,
Bill Richardson
Pros -- Long resume, executive experience, should help energize the Hispanic vote
Cons – Generally uninspiring speaker; not the strongest debater
Odds: 100 to 1
Joe Biden
Pros -- Strong experience, especially foreign policy; good debater if he can limit the verbosity
Cons – Lengthy Senate tenure and occasional verbal gaffes a goldmine for opposition research; GOP sure to resurrect the plagiarism issue
Odds: 5 to 1
Chris Dodd
Pros -- as an “old white guy,” helps add balance to the ticket; experience
Cons – Lengthy Senate tenure a gold mine for opposition research;
Hillary Clinton
Pros -- Establishment candidate thought to have experience; her husband
Cons – Establishment candidate thought to have experience; her husband; judgment, character, fundraising and other ethics concerns, consistency and integrity not exactly a strong suit
Odds: Off the board http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaeljames/ChNn
Wes Clark
Pros -- Military experience
Cons – Endorsed Hillary; military experience marred by allegations of personality issues during his command
Odds: 1,000 to 1
John Edwards
Pros -- Humble upbringing and populist appeal energizes many traditional Democratic constituencies; experienced on the campaign trail
Cons – Couldn’t help deliver any Southern states with Kerry as the leading man; $400 haircut issue unfair, but out there and attacks on other candidates, flip-flop on public financing and trial lawyer history provide good openings for GOP attack machine
Odds: 15 to 1
Evan Bayh
Pros – Has executive experience as governor of conservative Indiana; young and ambitious
Cons – Endorsed Hillary; not well-known nationally; has presidential aspirations that were dashed due to Barack’s ascendance, adding youthful presence to the ticket does not help deal with the “inexperience” fallacy
Odds: 55 to 1
Al Gore
Pros -- Nobel Prize winner; enviros LOVE him; experience
Cons – After serving 8 years as VP and coming so close to the top job in 2000, does he really want to do this? Not everyone agrees on global warming/climate change, so focus on this issue might distract from everything else; if Hillary really does have dirt on him she may sabotage the campaign so that she can run again herself in 2012
Odds: 20 to 1
Dennis Kucinich
Pros – Should help solidify the liberal base
Cons – Not taken seriously by large portions of the electorate; great target for GOP attack machine
Mike Gravel
Pros -- Anti-establishment cred is unmatched;
Cons – Campaign and debate antics are a distraction; not taken seriously by large portions of the electorate
Odds: 1,000,000 to 1
Republicans
Chuck Hagel
Pros -- Crossover appeal; Retiring from the Senate, so nothing to lose; Iraq war positions amenable to Obama’s; Viet Nam infantry veteran
Cons – Failure to disclose involvement with electronic voting firm; Would he abandon the GOP?
Odds: 10 to 1
Dick Lugar
Cons – Would he leave the GOP?
John McCain
Pros -- Crossover appeal; military background; straight talk express nice fit with Barack’s forthrightness and transparency themes
Cons – Big differences on Iraq & healthcare; might have moved too far to the right during primary run to appease conservative base
Odds: 25 to 1
Ron Paul
Pros -- Crossover appeal; strong grassroots/netroots support;
Cons – Libertarian views make for severe differences on policy; not taken seriously by large portions of the electorate
Odds: 3,000,000 to 1
Mike Huckabee
Pros -- Crossover appeal; helps with religious voters and the South
Cons – Selling himself as the candidate of true conservatives and the religious right makes him a tough sell to Obama’s base; Abortion issue hard to reconcile; Wayne Dumond
Colin Powell
Pros – Unquestioned military credentials; gravitas; Secretary of State experience; Resigned rather than continue working for Bush
Cons – Two African-Americans does not balance the ticket; sales pitch at the UN for the Iraq war helped convince a lot of people to go the wrong way
Odds: 50 to 1
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Pros -- Star power; should make California electoral votes even safer; Strong leadership during wildfire crisis
Cons – Not born in the USA, so could he really serve as President if it came to that?
Odds: Off the board
Mike Bloomberg
Pros -- Personal wealth; entrepreneurial and executive experience with little political baggage; better Mayor than Giuliani
Cons – Nanny state policies in NY hurt independent & Republican appeal; limited public life and unmarried status could mean skeletons in the closet; Might prefer to run as an Independent and have top billing on a ticket
Odds: 35 to 1
Lincoln Chafee
Pros – The only Republican to vote against the Iraq war; left GOP in 2007 to become an Independent;
Cons – Lost his 2006 re-election bid; lacks military credentials
Odds: 250 to 1
Michelle Obama
Pros -- Great role model for women & girls; Excellent speaker; solidifies the Chicago vote
Cons – Unprecedented for a husband and wife to run for or hold office together ;-)
Oprah Winfrey
Pros -- Great role model for women & girls; Loved by millions; Has built a business empire
Cons – No political experience; would be attacked as too Hollywood (even though she's from Chicago at this point); Two African-Americans on the ticket would take attention away from other issues
Vladimir Putin
Pros – None
Cons – Already being courted by Stephen Colbert
Michael James
Pros – Balances the ticket due to being a Cubs fan
Cons – No political experience? Also, Barack is already strong in Illinois, so adding MJ, who is also from IL, doesn't really add much
Odds: 1,000,000,000 to 1
Mary Kay in St. Louis
Pros -- Mary Kay believes that Barak Obama best represents the core values of the Democratic party and the qualities we most need to lead the U.S. and the world in the 21st century.
Cons – Might be less well-known than Michael James (and that's saying something!)
Odds: 1,000,000,001 to 1
On Thursday November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address as he dedicated a national cemetery at the site of the Civil War battlefield in Pennsylvania.
I invite you to contemplate the words of Abraham Lincoln:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Pros -- Personal wealth; entrepreneurial and executive experience; better Mayor than Giuliani
Pros –
This article is astounding. I'm copying the link as well as the text of it into this post just in case it changes or gets taken down later.
http://fitsnews.com/2007/10/18/fitsnews-exclusive-clintons-claflin-crackdown/
Posted by fitsnews in 2008 Presidential Primaries. trackback
WOULD-BE “STUDENTS FOR BARACK OBAMA” TOLD ATTENDING HILLARY PRESS CONFERENCE WAS “PART OF CLASS”
FITSNews - October 18, 2007 - Students at Claflin University, a historically black college in Orangeburg, S.C., are accusing the school’s administration of prohibiting them from forming a “Students for Barack Obama” chapter, yet simultaneously compelling them to attend a press conference supporting his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton.
In fact, several students who serve as volunteers on Obama’s presidential campaign tell FITSNews that they were coerced into holding Clinton signs and standing behind State Sen. John Matthews, who unveiled Clinton’s higher education plan at a press conference held at the school last week.
Which would probably explain some of the unenthusiastic expressions visible in this photograph.
Here’s what we’ve been told …
About three weeks ago, an honors student at Claflin University says she approached the administration about establishing a Students for Barack Obama chapter at the school. The student was told that she and fellow students could not form such a group on campus, but no reason was given for the school’s decision.
Fast-forward to last week, when this same honors student says that she and other Obama supporters were in a class that was cancelled so that students could attend Sen. Matthews’ presentation on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She and other scholarship students say they were “coerced by administrators” into standing behind Matthews during his address. About half of those students are Obama volunteers who felt they had “no choice” but to stand behind Matthews at the event.
Not surprisingly, Clinton stickers and placards were passed out while the Senator was making his presentation, and a sign-up form for the Clinton campaign was circulated, which many of the students said they felt they were obligated to sign.
Claflin is technically a private institution, but it receives millions of dollars in government grants each year due to its historically-black designation.
According to a senior U.S. Department of Education official who spoke with FITSNews on the condition of anonymity, the school’s political favoritism - if proven true - may violate the First Amendment rights of these students, as well as a federal prohibition against using tax dollars to promote a political campaign.
“It stinks to high heaven,” the official said. “Given that Claflin receives federal money and based on the school’s clear support for Clinton and its efforts to limit support for Obama, this could be a violation of that prohibition. It could also be a potential violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association, but you’d have to determine the constitutional standard for a private school that accepts federal dollars. Are they considered a government actor for constitutional purposes or not? That’s what a case like this would hinge on.”
Claflin University did not return repeated phone calls from FITSNews seeking comment. Clinton’s campaign said it would look into the allegations.
Count on FITSNews to keep you in the loop as this potentially explosive story continues to develop …
Despite the fact that it is entirely too early to be worrying about such things, a lot of people have been speculating lately on who will choose whom for vice president. The VP topic is only slightly better than all the polling and horse race nonsense, but I’ve seen enough discussion on it lately to devote this blog post to the subject.
My hope is that people will take heed of what I am saying and either completely stop talking about this stuff on this site or at least help to set others straight when they start venturing down this path (whether here or in other forums).
Some Hillary supporters are advocating a Clinton/Obama ticket. Even some Obama supporters are advocating an Obama/Clinton ticket. Either eventuality is complete and utter nonsense and I’m going to give you the reasons why.
(1) The first and most important is that Obama will be the nominee, so no one will actually need to worry who Clinton would select as a running mate. The fact that Obama will win the nomination has not yet dawned on some people, which helps to fuel the speculation and means I have to present reasons two through four below.
(2) There is no way Hillary would pick someone who will outshine her on the campaign trail and remind everyone of her shortcomings. Talk about voter's remorse! Can you imagine the anxiety and dread that would ensue if, every single day of the general election campaign, the electorate was reminded that the best candidate in the race did not win the nomination? What about an Obama appearance drawing more people than the main candidate? No way. It would be Bayh or Vilsack or Wes Clark or someone like that, i.e. someone who would owe the Clintons and is in no position to overshadow Hillary or have an independent national power base. While Hillary would love to have the enthusiasm and grassroots organization of the Obama campaign, she would not be able to stomach Obama because he owes her nothing and is already a power player who does not need anyone named Clinton to advance himself.
(3) There is no way Hillary could go through the entire primary season saying Barack was too inexperienced and naïve and then turn around and say that, actually, you know what? Never mind all that, he actually is ready to be "a heartbeat away." Plus, if Hillary's strategy of painting him as inexperienced actually ends up working in the primaries, the Republicans will use it too, in addition to the full frontal assault they are longing to unleash on HRC. They will be able to hammer away on so many fronts it will make your head spin. They would be able to attack her judgment (how can she pick someone so naïve and irresponsible?), attack her flip-flops (how can she say Obama isn’t ready, then pick him as a running mate?) and, since the Republican candidate will not be named Clinton or Bush, the GOP candidate would have a much easier time arguing that he is the candidate of change. All of that is before they start dredging up past scandals, such as Whitewater, the travel office firings, the improbable commodities investment prowess, the FBI files mysteriously appearing, the Rose law firm billing records, the Peter F. Paul campaign finance felony case, etc. etc. etc.
(4a) Even if asked, if Barack wants to maintain his untainted image and be the champion of a different kind of politics, he would be wise to steer clear of any direct involvement with the Clintons. I strongly suspect that he is fully aware of this and would say no even if asked, but, as noted in (1), (2) and (3) above, I don’t see it even getting to this point.
(4b) The corollary is that, once Barack has the nomination in hand, he will not select Hillary as his running mate for all of the reasons that he has been talking about during this campaign. She does not represent the kind of change we need and her politics and image are divisive and will not allow us to achieve the progress we so desperately need. If you believe Barack when he talks about these things (and you should because he tells the truth), you cannot honestly say that Hillary would be a good choice for the VP spot.
The fact that there are a lot of Clinton supporters saying both that Barack is too inexperienced, but also that he would be a great VP choice for Hillary helps to illustrate how little thought they are putting into their choice of candidate. It also illustrates that, at some level, they recognize that Barack has considerable appeal to a broad swath of the electorate -- appeal they long to have on their ticket. They know that this sort of appeal will not magically appear for Hillary, so they like to think they can easily remedy that shortcoming by slapping Barack’s name in the VP slot, even though they have not thought things through enough to realize that their candidate would never ever actually select Barack. This should give Obama supporters some hope since this means such Clinton supporters already like Barack, they just need to be convinced that he really and truly is ready right now and should not have to wait in line behind Hillary. That is a much easier sell than trying to paint Hillary as unelectable or get into detailed debates about policy.
From a Clinton campaign perspective, obviously, they must know that Barack is the biggest threat to her winning the nomination. He’s a better candidate and they can’t win on substance, so how do they attack this problem? They certainly don’t do it by debating on the substance of the policy issues or character and integrity. They need a non-specific reason to convince undecided people to not vote for him and to keep their supporters in line. Thus, they say that Barack needs more experience to help get him out of their way and, in conjunction with that, do the triangulation thing to try to blur the distinctions, with the goal being to help make voters think that there is no really big difference other than experience, which Barack allegedly lacks. As an added bonus, this approach does not involve a series of nasty attacks that would alienate too many of Barack’s supporters or, more importantly, turn off the black community. As polarizing as Hillary is and as motivated as the GOP would be to run against her, she would be in real trouble if black voters stayed home or did not vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Not having enough experience is the one and only thing that would not be able to be remedied in time for the general election. Policy positions can be changed if necessary, money can be raised, advertising can help send targeted messages to ameliorate any deficiencies, debate performances can be spun, but if Joe and Jane Undecided can be persuaded that Barack needs to be a governor first or spend more time in the Senate, they will look past the huge advantages he holds in every substantive area and stick with the nostalgia for the 90's and comfort themselves that a woman will bring the change we need. Furthermore, changing the conversation to “who will be Hillary’s VP choice” feeds into the inevitability fallacy that the Clintonistas are trying to propagate.
So, good people of the Obama movement, I implore you -- Should it become necessary for you to express an opinion on a hypothetical Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket, please use anything I’ve written and anything else you know to shoot holes in the argument as expediently as possible and then move on to discussing why Barack is ready right this very minute to be the President and the fact that President Obama’s administration will get this nation of ours back on the right path both domestically and in foreign policy. Our time is much better spent supporting Barack and taking action to get him elected rather than distracting ourselves with whether or not Hillary’s lead is growing or shrinking or who will be the VP choice. In fact, I apologize for distracting you by delving into this subject, but I felt a strong need to try to clear the air. Now, let's go change the world!!!
The people on this site are well aware that Barack Obama is a superior candidate to Hillary Clinton in every conceivable way. He's a more inspiring leader, he has actually accomplished things in his life that benefited the public instead of just experiencing them or watching her husband achieve them and Barack's policy positions are superior as well.
Knowing all of this, many Obama supporters are dismayed by the litany of polls that are saying Hillary has a big lead. There are many good and well-known reasons to not trust the polls, whether national or state-specific, but this post is to shine some attention on one factor that I believe has largely been ignored.
While it is true there are some pollsters out there who have sold out to the Clintonista camp, even if there isn't any overt bias from the pollster, I think bias is introduced from the very beginning of most polls since they screen out a lot of people on the front end before they even ask any questions.
It's not all about not calling cell phones and stuff like that. For example, Zogby and some others dial phone numbers at random so there is a chance anyone can be called regardless of landline vs. cell or VOIP, etc.
To me, the main issue is that, if you are not identified as a "likely voter" and, specifically, a likely Democratic primary voter, in other words, an establishment Democrat, the pollsters are not even going to administer the poll to you.
Thus, because Hillary leads among establishment Democrats, who will definitely be identified as "likely voters" in the Democratic primary, is it any surprise that she would also lead a poll taken exclusively from people that are in this group?
It's not an issue of biased questions per se, although that's out there too, but more an issue of biased samples. For example, if I do a poll among sales people to find out which car they think is the best car, if I limit my polling sample to only those people who work for Chevrolet, Buick and Pontiac, do you think they will be likely to express a preference for a Saturn or a Cadillac? They might, but I bet you get a different result if you polled from a population drawn from all of the different manufacturers. You would also get a vastly different result if you polled from a population not restricted to just the insiders, e.g. asking florists or accountants which car they think is best instead of just the auto sales people.
The bottom line is that, if you've never voted Democratic before or didn't vote in the last election or aren't currently registered to vote, you aint gonna show up in the numbers being cited by the pollsters. Throw in the Vinod Guptas of the world and Barack is probably never going to lead in the polls until the votes are actually counted.
What other factors that have been heretofore ignored do people think is at work in terms of the the poll numbers?
My family spent part of the Labor Day weekend at Buffalo Grove Days which, as one might expect, is an event held annually in Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
We marched in the parade on Sunday with a group I estimated at about 50 supporters, complete with a small float and a van decked out in Obama signs and balloons. Throughout the parade route, there were mostly enthusiastic cheers from the crowd as they recognized the Obama contingent walking by. We also got some great reactions due to the dogs in our group that had signs saying "Bark for Barack," a request heeded by virtually all of the canine-Americans along the parade route (as well as many of the humans!)
It wasn't a completely pro-Obama crowd though. A few Ron Paul supporters tried to convince us to change candidates (no way!) and, in addition to that, I recall three or four individuals giving the thumbs down or saying something negative about Barack or something pro-Clinton. I also remember seeing one guy in a Kucinich shirt and another for Edwards. Overall though, a very positive feeling for President Obama emanated from the crowd throughout the entirety of the parade route.
The main thing I wanted to relate, however, was how we dealt with one guy in particular. I don't remember the specific words he used, but as we were marching and yelling "Hope! Change! Obama! Now!" this guy was basically telling us to shut up in a very vigorous way. It caught me a little off guard at first, but then I started to get really angry. The only productive thing I could think to do was to shout even louder. In short order, our group raised the volume level and easily drowned out the naysayer, HOPE! CHANGE! OBAMA! NOW!!! HOPE! CHANGE! OBAMA! NOW!!! To the point that he eventually gave up. It was a really cool moment.
I have never actively supported any candidate for any office until Barack Obama, so it was new territory for me to be wearing an Obama button and publicly supporting a candidate in a parade. It was a tremendous feeling to overcome the negativity personified by the guy who wanted us to shut up and go away. Well, I've got news for him, we are not going to shut up and we are definitely not going away.
I don’t think we will be able to change all of their minds, we don’t have enough time, but I think the main thing to keep in mind when we see or hear from these folks, is that we all need to do our best to take some sort of positive action and do something constructive. Someone trying to shout us down? Shout louder!! Someone posting a negative comment on a blog? Post a positive one and point out the error of their line of thinking. Someone touting a poll showing someone else in the lead? Go sign up another Obama supporter or send in a donation (or both!) March in a parade or wear an Obama button or shirt. Inspire someone.
If we all take action and pull in the same direction, we can and will make this happen and, in the process, make this a better country and a better world. As was said during Barack’s campaign for US Senator, “Yes we can!!!”
On the 8/29/2007 Glenn Beck show on CNN Headline News, one of Glenn's guests was Dan Patrick (the candidate for Texas state senate and talk radio host, not the guy from ESPN).
The topic of discussion was Fidel Castro's recent comments on the '08 race, i.e. the theoretical (but repugnant IMHO) Clinton-Obama ticket.
This guy Patrick may be running for state senate in Texas, but it couldn't have been more blatant misinfomation and distortion than if Howard Wolfson himself were delivering the message on the show.
I think we all need to speak up whenever possible when people try to spread falsehoods about our candidate, so I submitted some feedback to the show via their online form: ...
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?69
...and I suggest others do the same if they have time.
A link to the transcript follows (just search for "endorsement"):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/29/gb.01.html
The comments I sent to the Glenn Beck show are below, in the "extended post text" area.
Just go to the hunger site:
http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1
They have sponsors who contribute based on how many people click every day.
There are other similar sites you will see there too related to: breast cancer, child health, literacy, the rain forest and animal rescue.
On this day in history (17 August)...
In 1590, John White, the governor of the Roanoke Island colony in present-day North Carolina, returned from a supply-trip to England (of three years' duration) to find the settlement deserted, with no signs of violence or the 117 colonists he left behind (including his granddaughter, Virginia Dare, first child born to English parents in the New World). The only clue to their mysterious disappearance was the word "Croatoan" carved on a post.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton, following four hours of closed-door testimony before a grand jury, admitted to the nation that he had had an "inappropriate" relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
How are these two events related to the 2008 campaign?
Well, at some point, enough Democratic voters are going to realize that the Clinton years in the White House were not as great as they remember. The scandals, the deceit, the division. It is going to dawn on people that returning to those highly partisan days would not be a good thing for the country and, furthermore, there is no need to do so since there is a better option.
Shortly after that point is reached, the Clintonistas are going to return to their campaign and find it deserted with no sign of the supporters that used to be there. The only clue to the mysterious disappearance of her supporters will be the word "Obama" carved on the podium at the Democratic National Convention.
Well, maybe it won't happen exactly like that, but Barack is going to win!
"If you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you." -- Barack Obama, February 10, 2007.
