To not have humor? I thought it was pretty funny. We're all a bunch of monkeys, anyway. And I think your "circle jerk" comment was funny as well. You should be me, attempting to portray Obama as (gasp!) a politician. I've received nothing but grief for the effort. You know what? It doesn't bother me at all. I like this thing we call politics. It's a rough and tumble game. Even when candidates are portraying themselves a "new" and above the fray, they are playing the game. And sometimes they make new rules. I really enjoy that! Impeach Bush.
For the first time in the race, both the Gallup Daily Tracking and Rasmussen Daily Tracking polls show Obama passing Hillary in the national vote. And neither has taken into account yesterday's wins at this point. Another good sign, hopefully. On the flipside, yet again, the Obama advisors seem to be getting ahead of themselves and setting expectations up way high, saying it's virtually impossible for Hillary to catch them. It's ok for analysts and us to do that, but campaign advisors shouldn't be publicly saying that kind of stuff. Hillary is also going negative in WI and presumably at the debates. Could get ugly before she hopefully finally flames out.
Major: I think the Obama camp knows what they're doing with the expectations game. It's important now for them to claim the frontrunner status as it helps them and hurts Hillary with fundraising and superdelegates -- both areas where she's having trouble as Obama looks more and more like a winner. And, not a little ironically, inevitability is probably his clearest path at this point to having some surprising success in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- each states where HRC is favored but where a sense that this thing is coming to a close and it's time to unite behind a candidate is his best path to success.
I'm not sure I agree here. There are at least a few times in this campaign when the Obama campaign screwed themselves with the expectations game. The worst was NH. They acted like they had it won - and that allowed the post-election spin to be one of a huge defeat for Obama, despite the fact that just two days earlier, he was trailing in every poll. It also potentially garnered up a sympathy vote and a more motivated Clinton base in that election. More recently, they started crowing about their $32MM January and how they were flush with cash and had a huge advantage. The result was a much more motivated fight by Clinton to raise cash, and tons of motivated contributers who raised over $10MM in 3 days for Hillary. While still behind, it provided her tons of money to compete for the next 2-3 weeks. If he had just sat quietly with the money and just used it in the competition instead of promoting it so much, I don't think you don't get nearly the success in the counter-effort by Hillary. I think his advisors (and possibly him - I have no idea the internal workings of the campaign) have a huge problem with getting ahead of themselves everytime they see some success. Hopefully I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Your points are well made and I sort of agree with them. Just trying to explain what I read as the logic behind it. Also, the campaign is in a different stage now than then. Since Obama came from behind to tie on Super Tuesday, out of the 8 contests held, he's won 7 races by more than 20 points and the 8th by 19. After Iowa, Hillary's camp was worried but not like this. They saw Super Tuesday as a firewall if they couldn't win before then. Now they are relying on a Guiliani strategy of downplaying every single post 2/5 race in February and waiting for March 4. There are stories every day now about her superdelegates and funders wavering. Whether smart or dumb (and I don't really know which is which on this) the idea is to knock her out now -- before her last ditch hopes in those three big states come to fruition. If it works, Hillary could lose one or more of those states like Rudy did Florida.
Yep, this is "Barry Obama" from the Tuts, Gramps, and Choom Gang days... Michelle Obama needs to tell him he stinks again, or something.
Very well could be - I hope you're right. I'm just hoping he's not overstepping expectations. If, for example, he were to lose Wisconsin, she would get two weeks of publicity of how "her campaign is back" and "stunning loss for Obama" because of how high he has set the bar. As long as he's winning, it's great. If he loses something though, he lets Clinton control the story this way. But maybe they really have made the judgement, like you suggest, that this helps them get those wins and it's the knockout blow. I do think he'll win one of OH/TX, but I certainly hope his people don't start saying that because if he doesn't, she gets to claim she's back.
I agree that the expectations game is a dangerous one, in either direction. If she wins WI by a small margin though while he wins HI on the same day, I don't think she gets a major bounce out of it. And the Obama team's not getting cocky about WI at all -- just about the delegate math going forward, in which way they're playing directly into the concerns of Clinton's major backers. I hope you're right about Obama getting either Ohio (unlikely) or Texas (a little more imaginable). If he gets either of those states, it will truly signal the end of her campaign -- even by James Carville's handicap. And I wouldn't like anything better than Texas deciding the nomination for Obama and going to see his victory speech (the big one) in Houston or Austin that night.
*That* would be truly cool. I believe his state HQ is in Austin, but I'm not sure. Austin loves him, so I'm guessing he's here if he's in TX or OH that night, but regardless, that would be awesome to see.
Don't count OH out Bats. Hillary only has a 17 point lead and there's three weeks to go. A lifetime in politics and Obama has come back from further down before all the wins. And OH largest newspaper endorsed Obama last Friday.
I hope Obama will win...he gives the world hope. Hopefully, he will get a chance and be able to deliver on the promise.
Good post and even better recognition of the irony. Now, I'll do my best to lower the level of discourse. It's like a quick team going against a taller but slower team. Obama finally has the advantage and now he's pressing full court to see if he can get enough steals to put the game away. Yes, he risks giving up an easy basket, but he can't afford to let the pace of the game change and have her pound the ball into the post. You don't win basketball games by playing not to lose and you don't win the Presidency without taking good risks.
Major: Are you in Austin? I'm here now too, rehearsing the Daniel Johnston inspired rock opera SPEEDING MOTORCYCLE, which I created and directed in Houston in 06. We open this weekend and run 6-9 weeks at Zach Scott. If you're in town, I hope you'll get to see it. I know Austin's a more likely spot for a speech, but here's an opinion piece talking about how Houston may be the key to the state: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/houston-key-to-unlocking-_b_86357.html mark: I surely do hope you're right. Just trying not to get ahead of myself. Jackie: We agree on something. What are the odds?
Jackie I encourage you to look deeply at his political voting history and also the substance of his messages. He delivers a great speech, but there's very little substance behind it.
He just seems like a genuinely good guy, highly intelligent, with an impressive biography. He is like the anti-Bush - at least that is what people around the world want to see in him. I don't think Obama would have as good a chance as he does have now if people weren't so damn tired of Bush and his administration. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the likes. History will not think highly of these people, and, in my personal opinion, rightly so. A concern with Obama would be potential lack of experience, and leadership in crisis situations. If I were Obama and were the Democratic candidate, I'd look for a very senior vice president candidate as a running mate. As a sidenote, I also think that it would be a huge step to have a black president for the first time. Ideally, one day this would not be a big deal at all, but since it has never happened, it would be now.
If Bush were running your points would be valid. He's only half-black, and he's hardly representative of African americans, given that he was raised by his white mother and in places where there aren't any blacks such as Indonesia and Kansas. Bill Clinton was much blacker.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3448825&postcount=48 When you say Obama is hardly representative of African americans, what exactly do you mean? What would be representative of African Americans? This is puzzling because a few threads ago you were arguing that black history happened a long, long time ago and has little or no bearing on the current state of affairs. Now you're saying Obama doesn't have the experiences other blacks have. If you're talking about things like generational poverty, racism, or lack of education, that shoots down your arguments in the other thread. Or maybe you mean something a bit more prosaic like perhaps he didn't eat enough watermelon and fried chicken or listen to enough rap music? And really... was Clinton raised by his black father? (Granted he did spend time in black hotbeds like Georgetown and Oxford.) By the way, I think Obama's trying to represent all Americans, not just African-Americans. Keep trying though.
Style and track record of the current president will impact what people will be looking for in the next president, regardless of whether the current president is running or not. As I said, I don't think all that should even matter, ideally. Obviously, it is a big issue because it would be the first time. But he has the potential of being a uniter, not a divider. It could go either way...blacks could think he's "not black enough" and whites could think he's "not white enough"....OR...this could be a historical chance for more blacks and whites than before to recognize that color of skin should not even matter - what matters is, does the guy make people's life in his country (and the world - the US president is the most important politician in the world) better, and his country and the world a better place, or doesn't he.
