Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

alafairnadia

jeffrey wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]like I said in the clinton thread, I don't think that any of this is relevant beyond how obama will deal with the daily attacks of a general election. he's going to have shit coming at him from all directions - this is nothing. and to have him react in such a truly pathetic way is bad, campaign-wise. who cares what 'truth' is revealed afterward? in a campaign, short term information is key. you have to refute what's coming at you the best way you can.

which is why, frankly, I don't fault him for turning to the ken starr playbook. I agree with Carny and others - I'd prefer that dems not do this to each other. and I agree that clinton totally started it - she's getting beat and she's turning to the dirty tricks rule books for guidance. I get it. so, I also have no problem with obama getting called out on using the same dirty tricks. you get asked an uncomfortable or unanswerable question? don't answer - just attack. easy enough. obfuscation is the name of the game, that's how politicians live and, frankly, it's a lot ofwhat lawyers do. so everyone is probably vaguely comfortable. I just wish obama would obtain a thicker skin - he won't make it through a dirty tricks election if he reacts to every attack the way he did to the nafta shit.

I agree with your overall point for the General Election when needed, against the Repblicans.

And Obama did get totally stopped in his tracks when this NAFTA thing (that he had no idea of) came out of left field from all sides, focused on him alone for whatever reason.

Unlike other cases where he's been a cool customer under heavy fire, this time he blinked, and lost. Going forward, he'd better adapt the "fool me once, fool me twice" approach for the sake of the heavier battles ahead.

You are right, hesitation and lack of immediate response loses ground and causes doubt, and opens a huge flank for attacks to distract him.

He won't progress unless he gets a handle on that again, and right quick.

Had to give credit to your points where credit was due, but now I'm duckin' back to work for reals. (so things may be less long-winded for a while )

hey - I'm working on improving my poker game. trust me when I say that I've learned the monetarily difficult way that flinching or blinking is not going to gain any progress. whoever wins the nomination is going to have to look straight into mccain's eyes and basically say "bring it on, fucker" and totally mean it. I kinda can't wait.

quijibo

jeffrey

quijibo, just got home and saw this.

It is near impossible for me to convey just how much that made me lmao, especially as I still have yet to regain my breath.

Thanks for the fine refreshments.

/long post-laugh sigh

carnivore

DailyKos wrote: UPDATE 4: MSM Finally Admits Obama Won Texas
by MaverickModerate
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM PST
So far it's just NPR but it's a start. The are finally admitting what was evident late Tuesday night. With 41% of the Texas caucus vote in, Obama's 12 point lead (56/44) is insurmountable.

NPR is reporting a net 3 delegate lead for Obama once all is said and done.

This is how this works, first there is the TX primary:

Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.
Followed by the TX caucuses:

The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates
Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98
=======================
Obama wins by 3!

I diaried yesterday that the MSM narrative of Clinton winning Texas was false. It may be up to us, to make sure that this narrative must be changed to accurately reflect what really happened. Clinton did NOT have a 3 to 1 victory over Obama, it was a 2 to 2 tossup.

The media loves to jump the gun and sensationalize whenever it looks like there is a good story, such as another Clinton comeback. But in this case it is particularly reprehensible because as of Tuesday night these same results were evident with about 30% of the vote in. If nothing else, instead of illegitimately declaring Clinton the winner, they should have done what they did in Florida in the 2000 general election, wait for the final outcome before they declared the winner.

They jumped the gun and Obama paid the price by appearing to have lost his Mojo. Well I'm delcaring his Mojo is back!

Update: Wow, made the rec list. Thanks to all!!

Update 2 10:52:AM MST A few commenters are trying to make a point that Clinton maintains the popular vote lead in Texas. This is factually incorrect.
According to NPR, more than 1 million voters showed up to caucus.

Let's do a little math (Primary vote totals from ABC News):

TX Primary Result
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785

TX Caucus Result
Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000

Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus)
Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814
Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785

'nuff said?

Update 3 12:20PM MST
There is some controversy over whether it's fair to calculate the popular vote as listed above. It is a fair point to be sure. The Texas system is...unusual to say the least. And popular vote is open to interpretation. How do we define it really? The total number of votes cast? That is clearly advantage Obama. Or the total number of people who cast votes? Advantage Clinton.

In the end, I suppose it's up to Texas to define it. But I think Texas gives us a clue in that they are willing to allocate additional delegates based on the caucus results. In the end it is a judgement call and surely will generate continued controversy. Whatever the argument, it is clear that Obama won the delegate count, and thus the state.

Update 4 6:18PM MST
Well Keith Olberman just said the magic words. Obama WON Texas! If there was any doubt before, it's gone now. The MSM has indeed picked up on this.

izisharp

Anyone who's familiar with Samantha Power's work, or who's seen or heard her speak, probably shares my sadness in the fact she had to step down from the Obama campaign. Power is the Obama senior foreign-policy advisor who called Hillary a "monster" in a Scotland interview and who spoke too candidly for accepted standards by explaining that Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan will likely not occur in his promised 16-months from taking office, and that that plan is a "best case scenario".

I first learned of Power when she appeared on Charlie Rose in fall 2004 to promote her Pultizer Prize winning book on genocide and the world's perpetual failure to intervene in them. I remember my reaction to her intelligence and her reasoned, compassionate tone to be "man, we need a woman president. someone like her". Ironically, when a serious female contender came to be I leaned towards Obama, much for the same reasons I was originally moved my Power. I was thrilled to learn she was advising and backing Obama, and for her and the Obama campaign to be scarred by a relatively minor mistake, and a statement that is hardly as offensive as Hillary Clinton's recent moves, is extremely unfortunate and is a major disappointment.

livetotravel

izisharp wrote: Anyone who's familiar with Samantha Power's work, or who's seen or heard her speak, probably shares my sadness in the fact she had to step down from the Obama campaign. Power is the Obama senior foreign-policy advisor who called Hillary a "monster" in a Scotland interview and who spoke too candidly for accepted standards by explaining that Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan will likely not occur in his promised 16-months from taking office, and that that plan is a "best case scenario".

I first learned of Power when she appeared on Charlie Rose in fall 2004 to promote her Pultizer Prize winning book on genocide and the world's perpetual failure to intervene in them. I remember my reaction to her intelligence and her reasoned, compassionate tone to be "man, we need a woman president. someone like her". Ironically, when a serious female contender came to be I leaned towards Obama, much for the same reasons I was originally moved my Power. I was thrilled to learn she was advising and backing Obama, and for her and the Obama campaign to be scarred by a relatively minor mistake, and a statement that is hardly as offensive as Hillary Clinton's recent moves, is extremely unfortunate and is a major disappointment.

WORD!

quijibo

A few weeks back she was on the Leonard Lopate show hawking her new book, and i was very impressed. She possesses the precise intellectual logic we need in government, the kryptonite to Rovesian red-meat rhetoric

I'm saddened to hear she's left Obama's campaign, the comments in the Scottish paper were off the record.

michaelkeys

quijibo wrote: A few weeks back she was on the Leonard Lopate show hawking her new book, and i was very impressed. She possesses the precise intellectual logic we need in government, the kryptonite to Rovesian red-meat rhetoric

I'm saddened to hear she's left Obama's campaign, the comments in the Scottish paper were off the record.

One of my dearest friends, a veteran journalist, once told me there is no such thing as being off the record when talking to a reporter. They can, and will, use what you say if they need to.
It seems to me that someone of Power's experience should know that maybe you can make those kinds of comments to an in-law, over a beer at a family gathering, for instance, but not to a reporter. Under any circumstance.

livetotravel

Obama wins Wyoming...

Barack Obama 3,060 57.7%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2,168 40.9%

74% reporting | Updated 3:07 PM ET

quijibo

MichaelKeys wrote: One of my dearest friends, a veteran journalist, once told me there is no such thing as being off the record when talking to a reporter. They can, and will, use what you say if they need to.
It seems to me that someone of Power's experience should know that maybe you can make those kinds of comments to an in-law, over a beer at a family gathering, for instance, but not to a reporter. Under any circumstance.

it's bad judgment on her part
it's still wrong for the reporter to purposefully harm miss powers

i hope she signs onto the administration once barry's elected
she'll be like a liberal condoleeza
but hawt!

gerri the reporter is a retard

livetotravel

I agree that Samantha Power is remarkable - I wish Obama had taken a deep breath and not fired her.

Here's a great story - a young women in Clinton's fear-mongering 3 am ad is actually an Obama supporter! She'll be 18 in April and is campaigning for him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/3_amgirl_for_Obama.html

jeffrey

Livetotravel wrote: I agree that Samantha Power is remarkable - I wish Obama had taken a deep breath and not fired her.

He had to let her resign, she had to go for those remarks, if for nothing else other than to preserve and live by the high standards that he would ask others to observe.

Otherwise, he'd have lost his credibility in this respect.

Unfortunate, but necessary.

That said, she has been very humble and apologetic for the comments, has embraced the repercussions of having made such statements and the context of how they were completely unacceptable and damaging, instead of just trying to make excuses and say it was a "heat of the moment" thing.

Observing an honestly apologetic mea culpa here and maintaining that without mitigation going forward, as well as coming out and iterating her complete respect for Clinton and emphasizing her adoration for her, is just the sort of serious, selfless contrition that would open the door to her being welcomed back by all (including the other camp) in later months.

michaelkeys

jeffrey wrote: [quote=Livetotravel]I agree that Samantha Power is remarkable - I wish Obama had taken a deep breath and not fired her.

He had to let her resign, she had to go for those remarks, if for nothing else other than to preserve and live by the high standards that he would ask others to observe.

Otherwise, he'd have lost his credibility in this respect.

Unfortunate, but necessary.

That said, she has been very humble and apologetic for the comments, has embraced the repercussions of having made such statements and the context of how they were completely unacceptable and damaging, instead of just trying to make excuses and say it was a "heat of the moment" thing.

Observing an honestly apologetic mea culpa here and maintaining that without mitigation going forward, as well as coming out and iterating her complete respect for Clinton and emphasizing her adoration for her, is just the sort of serious, selfless contrition that would open the door to her being welcomed back by all (including the other camp) in later months.

Isn't it, at worst, hypocritical and at best, contradictory to call Sen. Clinton a monster and then later express "adoration for her"? I mean, apologize and move on, right?

livetotravel

Well, everythin ing context, right?

Here's the interview in The Scotsman...
"During the Scotsman interview, in the Waldorf Hilton, Ms Power had taken a phone call from the Obama campaign's economic adviser, before coming back and volunteering what the call had been about. "We f***** up in Ohio," she said, in reference to remarks about the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). She said the state had been "obsessed" with the issue and she feared the Clinton camp would seize on it.

"In Ohio, they are obsessed, and Hillary is going to town on it because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win," Ms Power said, before the former first lady's team victory in the state was announced.

"She is a monster too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything."

Ms Power agreed that Mrs Clinton had looked desperate in recent interviews, adding, in reference to international audiences: "You just look at her and think, ergh. But if you are poor and she is telling you that Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."


Here's her apology, also printed in The Scotsman...
"Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author who made the remark, said: "With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an adviser to the Obama campaign. I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

jeffrey

MichaelKeys wrote: Isn't it, at worst, hypocritical and at best, contradictory to call Sen. Clinton a monster and then later express "adoration for her"? I mean, apologize and move on, right?

Not in my opinion.

Honestly, one can completely respect and adore someone, and say they are a hellion of a competitor, on the battlefield.

No?

jeffrey

In addition, one can state much respect and adoration for someone, and still say they currently appear weak, desperate, pathetic, sleazy.

One comment is about the person in the long run in general, and the other is about the person at a specific moment in time.

Heck, I am very impressed by Obama and have a whole mountain of respect for him and what he stands for, but can also honestly say that he (and his advisors) sucked responding to Hillary this past week, and I think that for him to entertain going totally negative on Hillary as has been reported would be a sleazy, completely unnecessary thing to do right now, betraying so much of what he stands for and asks of others, and killing his credibility.

Catch my drift?

jeffrey

Sorry for 3 posts in a row :oops: , but there's some more interesting news out this evening.

A Democrat just won Republican (former) House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois today.

Why is this notable?

1) It was the former friggin' (R) House Speaker's seat, for one.

2) It is deep in the heart of (R) red state land, in terms of the district itself.

3) This, which I mentioned previously in this thread:

jeffrey wrote:

It's also worth noting the following:
...
2) Hillary can't win anywhere that's *not* already a blue state, whereas Obama has huge groundswell of crossover votes in red states.

So please, let's dismiss this idea of who can win the battleground states.

Obama's numbers are already well above McCain's numbers in all these states, red or blue, before the rest of the party swings in behind him.

If you ask me, the real battleground involves blue *and* red states, especially stripping away the ones that McCain is counting on to fill out his numbers, which increasingly drift toward Obama as McCain is being pushed farther right into the party fold/

Okay, why's that relevant here, folks may wonder?

Well, two things:

- It was an extremely important seat tally-wise, so McCain himself flew in to campaign for the (R) candidate in this deeply (R) area to make this a slam dunk

- Obama himself also flew in personally to campaign for the (D) candidate, and also helped craft and appear in a tv ad with the (D) candidate "touting Foster’s ability to bring change to Washington."

Oh, by the way, the (D) candidate was a physicist with no prior political experience, *and* the republicans spent over $1 million trying to defeat him.

Final tally (again, in this traditionally heavily Republican district):

52% Foster (D)
48% Oberweis (R)

Booyah. Cue shockwaves throughout the Republican and McCain universe.

Hm. Will Foster now become a superdelegate?

michaelkeys

I dunno, jeffrey...I can respect an adversary but not adore them. That's a bit too schizophrenic for my taste.

Oh, and the other noteworthy thing you didn't mention about the former Hastert district is that it's the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, the closest thing to Mecca the GOPers have. (Oh, how they'd love me for making that kind of analogy! )

jeffrey

Ack. You are 100% correct.

I came back and read the above and determined that I meant "admiration" not "adoration."

"Steeeempy, you eeeediot"

<--that's me in the sandbox, that's me in the spotlight, choosing my derision...

jeffrey

(reiterated merely for humorous photo effect)

jeffrey wrote: If you ask me, the real battleground involves blue *and* red states, especially stripping away the ones that McCain is counting on to fill out his numbers, which increasingly drift toward Obama as McCain is being pushed farther right into the party fold/

livetotravel

The B with the A with the RACK is kicking ass in Mississippi - together with his little Wyoming win this completely negates Ms Clinton's March 4th victories.

On to the Convention!

sweet tea

49% to 48%* is "kicking ass"**??

as i've said before, i think obama will win the nomination. but clinton has HUGE support too.

JOINT TICKET.


*cnn's current numbers. nyt has clinton at 50+ and obama at 48+, but also has obama winning. i think they just haven't updated.

**i'm a little surprised at such a violent metaphor, given your usual willingness to parse things so thoroughly....but whatever.

livetotravel

sweet tea wrote: 49% to 48% is "kicking ass"??

as i've said before, i think obama will win the nomination. but clinton has HUGE support too.

JOINT TICKET.

You're looking at actual votes with 10% of the precincts reporting - I'm referring to exit polls - wait, you'll see.

sweet tea

where are you finding them? all i'm getting is opinions of various camps on a joint ticket, mccain, etc.

livetotravel

sweet tea wrote: where are you finding them? all i'm getting is opinions of various camps on a joint ticket, mccain, etc.

Originally on MSNBC - here's the real vote total now with 31% of precincts reporting - getting into "kick ass" territory

Barack Obama 53,920 55%
Hillary Clinton 41,419 42%
31% of precincts reporting

sevenoneeighty

....And Obama may win the Texas Caucus too...?CNN is calling it for Obama.
Giving him more delegates - again.

Wow. I'm definitely confused. I just am.

Obama 56%
Clinton 44%
41% reporting

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX


What do I have to do?

March 11, 2008
Caucus win gives Obama more Texas delegates than Clinton
Posted: 08:00 PM ET
Obama won more delegates in Texas than Clinton.
Obama won more delegates in Texas than Clinton.

(CNN) — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.

Under the Texas Democratic Party's complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses on March 4. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses.

An additional 35 superdelegates were not tied to either contest. Clinton, of New York, defeated Obama in the primary by a 51-47 percent margin. But results of the caucuses were up in the air on election night and for several days afterward, due to state party rules that did not require local caucus officials to report their results to a centralized location.

carnivore

SevenOneEighty wrote: ....And Obama may win the Texas Caucus too...?CNN is calling it for Obama.

That was obvious last week. The MSM just didn't report it that way because a Clinton "comeback" was a way more dramatic story.

sevenoneeighty

Carnivore wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]....And Obama may win the Texas Caucus too...?CNN is calling it for Obama.

That was obvious last week. The MSM just didn't report it that way because a Clinton "comeback" was a way more dramatic story.

I had no idea - and I watch a lot of news.
What does this say about our friggin' media?
We need less story telling and more news and information.
Damn. I guess when it breaks on MArch 29 or so, it will be even bigger.
CNN is now showing Texas as "striped" on their TV map (part Obama/ Part Clinton). Geez-us.

carnivore

Now with 99% reporting in, it's 61% Obama, 37% Clinton in Mississippi. Of 33 elected delegates and 7 super-delegates, so far they're split 17 for Obama and 11 for Clinton.

quijibo

the MSM is an intricate web

their agenda gets printed on the sunday ny times
that gets picked up by all the other papers / television immediately
and also gets picked up by NPR through the week

solution: unsubscribe from the new york times, and throw out your television
and search for your news on the web

--i still can't bear to throw out my radio tho'