Interesting stat - Obama got more votes in SC than McCain & Huckabee got combined. That means, while very unlikely, an Obama campaign could put a state like SC in play.
A fun read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&hpq&oref=login A President Like My Father By CAROLINE KENNEDY OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama. My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals. Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960. Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual. Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process. I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility. Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning. I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved. I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans. I'm still not convinced he can win enough delegates on Super Tuesday, but he absolutely needed a night like tonight. Now he needs to build on it the next 10 days and get the races in so many of these states much tighter.
Question really for another thread, but why is Bill saying anything, doing anything at all? How are these 2 even still married? Why are women voters voting for a woman who isn't even capable of getting a divorce? just some random thoughts.
Let's look at how this nonsense started. First, the fairy tale on Iraq stand, then the contribution by President Johnson. People can dispute the merit of argument, but how those were linked to the race card is truly beyond me. The media caught the sound bites, and then Obama camp piled on. Don't tell me that they didn't know that the controversy would help Obama on African-America vote in SC. Remember that HRC didn't perform that bad in SC poll before the whole thing started. But after that, the first black president suddenly became the white man that belittled African-Americans. Regarding to Clinton speech in MO, what do you expect him to say? As nasty as most on the forum have tagged them to be, if they were also dragged through the mud, do you expect them just fold and pretend that race didn't play a role in SC campaign? Never mind that SC voting record did helped their argument. Obama need the SC win much much more than HRC. I am glad that he's got what he wanted, but I don't like the fact that race played the role as it did. It is a shame that this mess will probably cause both candidates dearly in the future. HRC loses black, moderate and independent, and Obama fares worse in whites. It will only benefit Republican nominee in general election. Both Obama and HRC deserve better. We want to know how they will lead the country, not just race, gender, catchy phrase and old history. There is not much discussion on the detailed plans and policies, but petty fights. I put the blame on the media. Use Clinton MO speech as an example, what the hell did they broadcast it for? He is not the candidate!!! The media made him the focus of their reports, not just because he is the former president. The media just want controversy, rating and storyline. Most reporters are more interested in scoring points on Clintons than reporting the policies of HRC and Obama. If this trend continues, we will only know that Obama=change and HRC=Bill when either one faces general election. It is not fun to watch another phony Likability show set up by the media, just like the previous two episodes, Gore vs. Bush, and Kerry vs. Bush. We know how bad those two have turned out.
brush, I share your frustration with the media to an extent. But can you not see that HRC put Bill out there to be covered by the media? He is a former president who is the husband of Hillary! What do you expect the media to do, ignore him? He is on the stump to create a two against one advantage on Obama. This is no media creation; it's a deliberate Team Clinton creation. When has a former president ever got down home and dirty in another presidential campaign? Try never. This is big news. In most of the rallies in Iowa, more people went to see Bill than Hillary. That isn't a media creation. He is a more commanding figure than she is. The media is going to inflame things because that's what they do. Both Obama and Clinton feed that beast. On race, remember Obama won Iowa and finished a close 2nd in New Hampshire, both states where the black vote is insignificant. If it weren't for HRC's moment of sympathy NH, Obama would have won there too. Regarding Caroline Kennedy, that's a nice piece her handlers drew up but I can't believe it's going to influence many people just because she is JFK's daughter. Whoop dee doo!
Just some numbers to chew on -- Obama got 295,091 votes to Clinton's 141,128 (more than twice as many). He got more votes than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined (279,723). He won 78% of the black vote, 25% of the white vote, and 52% of the non-black vote under 30. Democratic turnout was twice that of 2004 (532,000 to 280,000).
Exit poll tracking. The numbers are striking. Obama wins across every demographic and even takes women 60% to Hillary's 30% http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#SCDEM
I agree with you how HRC used Bill for her campaign. It is not pretty for Bill's legacy. But what is her alternative? Her campaign is mainly based on Bill's accomplishment, and I believe it is one main reason that many dislike her. Let's say that HRC does this all by herself, don't you think that Obama's wife gives him an unfair advantage, too? Every campaign needs an attractive and credible person to say things that the candidate normally avoid. I don't know Bill's role actually helped or hurt HRC's chance. I saw more people got turned off by him, at least on the web. Well, this is the first time that the wife of a former president campaign for her turn, and we will just have to wait and see what will happen. On the bright side for Obama, this is a good test to see what he is made of. If he cannot survive well against the Clintons in his own party, I don't like his chance competing with more intense attack from the other side. I kinda hope that media and Obama people vet him more intensively in the primary, if they want him to win. He is basically getting a free pass right now, and his opponents took all the pounding for negative campaign issues. He is still a politician, and I don't think he is that clean and naive as portrayed. In the past 8 years, multiple war hero were turned into traitor, weasel and coward , and an AWOL kept winning as a chickenhawk. Anything can happen to Obama's halo during general election, and surprise is the last thing most people want. I don't know whether the following is true or not. If it is true, I really worry about Obama's chance in general election if he wins the primary. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php Exclusive: After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analysts Until Dem Primary Is Settled January 24, 2008 -- 7:11 PM EST // // Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion. I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network. After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn't been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn't appear until the Dem primary is resolved. Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended." Feist pointed out that a few other analysts aligned with campaigns of both parties had been told the same, and added that aligned analysts would only be appearing in contexts where they were acting as campaign surrogates. Carville did appear on Larry King on Jan. 9 as a surrogate. Carville and Begala's presence on CNN has led to criticism for the network in the past. A few months ago the liberal blogosphere roundly condemned CNN for presenting them as neutral observers without identifying them clearly and frequently as Hillary supporters. In response to the criticism, CNN started identifying them as Hillary backers. It appears that the Obama campaign may have kept up its criticism of their appearances, however. Asked about the Obama camp's protest, Feist said: "We get advice from all the major campaigns about who should or should not be on CNN. If we listened to all of their advice, then there would be very few commentators left to put on television." Interestingly, not everyone at CNN appears to agree with this decision. "People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene." Not an argument that will find much sympathy in the lib blogosphere, perhaps, but worth noting. Anyway, interesting stuff.
^^^ Why would that article worry you about Obama's chance in the general election if he wins the primary?
If media takes side in primary for Obama, he will not get enough scrutiny in primary. If CNN doesn't like those three's bias, they can just put a counterbalance for Obama. By removing them totally, CNN is making judgment for right or wrong, and this is the job of a king-maker. Who knows what media will do, when Obama gets the nomination.
They just removed them from their unbiased analyst pool - as well as others who were biased towards a particular candidate. They haven't taken them out as commentators, where you're supposed to get bias. How on earth does not having biased analytical coverage mean that someone won't get enough scrutiny?
As if everyone of any consequence and experience in the political arena doesn't have bias? Seems like censorship to me. Perhaps Fox will have them on. If so, you could cut the irony with a knife. Impeach Bush.
By claiming that they were biased, CNN removed partisan analysts from the primary of their own party. They will later be re-installed as UNbiased analysts for the partisan general election. It is truly fair and balanced political reporting. No wonder Clintons are not happy.
It has nothing to do with censorship. CNN can put on whoever it likes and reject whoever it wants to. If CNN wants to present an unbiased show and thinks Begala and Carville would be the type to attempt subterfuge, then I think they are quite reasonable in what they are doing.
I don't think people have too big a problem with Bill campaigning for Hillary and saying good things about her. See Iowa. But when he turns into a hatchet man who's job is to engage Obama in Hillary's stead, then you have a problem. If Hillary were saying the same things herself it wouldn't be as bad, but she's having Bill say the rough/controversial stuff so she looks clean and above it. That is cowardly IMO and makes her look small. From my standpoint, it just magnifies the fact the only reason she is in the position of Senator running for President is because of Bill's coattails. I completely agree with you on the vetting process. Obama needs to receive some hard blows.
I have no interest in defending Clintons for what they are doing. All I want to say is that Clintons are probably not as evil as many made them to be, and Obama is not a saint either. We just need to support the one that can get things done, and right the direction of the country. The infights in Dem always split the party, while GOP manages to unite in the end. You like Bush or not, he managed his political venture much better than any Dem choice in the past 8 years. I still cannot understand why Nader supporters helped to select the extreme opposite of their ideal.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...ngton/entries/2007/06/08/_political_medi.html Interesting read from last year. One of McCain's top strategists (I think he's the campaign manager now - not sure) said he'll resign rather than run a general election campaign against Obama. He'd still support McCain but he likes Obama too much.
So Hillary is about to pick up a 600-delegate advantage over Obama and a boatload of momentum. Has Obama seen his best days come and go? Will there be anything left to decide after Super Tuesday?
After this last primary, it'll be interesting to see how much those numbers change (and considering the endorsements Obama is getting right now). And it shows that not only is Ms. Clinton not out of it, by any stretch of the imagination, but why Edwards is hanging in there. Edwards may end up being the kingmaker at the convention. Unlikely, but not impossible at all. What a trip! Impeach Bush.
