This is only one reaction to Obama "throwing Wright under the bus" and might be an isolated incident but this bears watching..
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7190
Wright, Farrakhan, Nation of Islam connection---Andy Martin---Conservative
http://www.pr-inside.com/catfight-senator-obama-and-reverend-wright-r563919.htm
Obama's Sistah Souljah Moment
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
What Will Blacks Think Of Obama's Denunciation of Wright?
Obama just took a huge political risk. He has denounced Reverend Wright. As I recall, initially Black Ministers were going to denounce Obama if he had condemned Obama when the tapes were first aired. I suspect this is the reason, among others why Obama was not more forceful in his denunciation of Wright. Now that he has, it will be interesting to see if he will face any backlash at the hands of Black voters who might feel he has deserted his pastor. Stay tuned!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/043008dnpolslater.b0d0e71c.html
Transcript of Obama Press Conference
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/
Transcript of Obama Philly Speech
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNiZjM5Njk5Y2Q3ZDBiYjQ1ZGJhYWRiNTY0NzU1ODA=
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/043008dnpolslater.b0d0e71c.html
Transcript of Obama Press Conference
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/
Transcript of Obama Philly Speech
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNiZjM5Njk5Y2Q3ZDBiYjQ1ZGJhYWRiNTY0NzU1ODA=
Hillary Clinton Should Get The Nomination, But...
The boneheaded Democrats will probably give it to a wounded Obama and lose the General Election because they are afraid of what African Americans will do...dump the party. Young voters will probably be disappointed also because they had become enchanted with Barack Obama. The party should not discount the real possibility however that women, the core of Clinton's support, will be outraged that the Party gives the nomination to an obviously weakened Obama, therefore taking a calculated risk with the Presidency, and will probably stay home.
Michigan Solution?
The rumor mill has been going for a few days about a decret deal being worked out to seat Florida and Michigan's deleagates. I wonder how they plan on doing that, since the Obama people have rejected every attempt to have a revote? Splitting the delegates 50/50 is a non-starter in my mind because Hillary Clinton will not accept any solution that keeps Obama in the lead in the popular vote.
Apparently Carl Levin and others want the Dems and the DNC to split the delegates The four want to allocate 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama. The approach splits the difference between the equal delegate proposal coming out of Chicago (g4 for each) and the 73-to-55 delegate split that the Clinton campaign would obtain from the results of the primary, with almost all of the uncommitted delegates being pledged to Obama. The four also write that they oppose the challenge by DNC member Joel Ferguson, which would give superdelegates a full vote and pledged delegates half of a vote.
THE PROPOSAL represents a climbdown of sorts for Michigan Democrats and is not likely to be well received at the Clinton campaign. DNC officials have said that, absent a deal between the two candidates, only the credentials committee can sanction a solution.
A senior Obama official said of the proposal, "we'll look into it."
A letter was sent outlining the proposal.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/michigan_dems_propose_delegate.php
Apparently Carl Levin and others want the Dems and the DNC to split the delegates The four want to allocate 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama. The approach splits the difference between the equal delegate proposal coming out of Chicago (g4 for each) and the 73-to-55 delegate split that the Clinton campaign would obtain from the results of the primary, with almost all of the uncommitted delegates being pledged to Obama. The four also write that they oppose the challenge by DNC member Joel Ferguson, which would give superdelegates a full vote and pledged delegates half of a vote.
THE PROPOSAL represents a climbdown of sorts for Michigan Democrats and is not likely to be well received at the Clinton campaign. DNC officials have said that, absent a deal between the two candidates, only the credentials committee can sanction a solution.
A senior Obama official said of the proposal, "we'll look into it."
A letter was sent outlining the proposal.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/michigan_dems_propose_delegate.php
Obama's Appearance on Fox
What the hell is Move on whining about? Obama chose to go on Fox because he was trying to show that he can appeal to white voters. In fact, he told Chris Wallace that he thinks he can get the white vote in November because he won them in Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Wisconsin other red states. What Obama fails to understand is this: That was then, this is now. I guarantee that he would not have received white votes if the Reverend Wright issue had been known. Maybe Obama was trying to convince himself that he can appeal to white voters or he was just delusional. He needs to realize and understand the reality that the political landscape has changed. He is no longer seen as the candidate of Change and Hope. He is now linked with radicals like Wright and Farrakhan, like it or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/moveon-obama-got-outfoxed_b_98995.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/moveon-obama-got-outfoxed_b_98995.html
Rep Ike Skelton Endorses Hillary Clinton
The Reverend Wright Controversy seems to have dislodged some Superdelegates to go Hillary Clinton's direction. Rep. Ike Skelton From Missouri, where Hillary Clinton narrowly to Obama, has endorsed the New York Senator for President, citing her support in rural America, her commitment to national security and her dedication to U.S. troops. Skelton is the last of Missouri's four Democrats in the congress to declare their preference for President. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver also backs Clinton. Reps. William Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan have endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
North Carolina Governor Endorses Hillary Clinton
The two-term Governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley has endorsed Hillary Clinton. This is a significant endorsement and a BIG get for Hillary. I suspect that something is afoot. Why, if the Governor thought Obama would win, would he support Hillary Clinton? With the polls in North Carolina now in the single digits (Obama has a 5 popint lead), down from a 10 point lead, maybe the Governor senses that an upset is possible.
Superdelegates, Take Notice
Barack Obama is a weakened candidate. Hillary Clinton would be a much tougher General election opponent to John McCain than Barack Obama. If Superdelegates make the nomination decision with their heart instead of their heads, they will rue the day. Obama can't win after the Reverend Wright spectacle. The Democratic Party would be "rolling the dice" as Bill Clinton prophetically calculated in January.
Hillary Clinton's 9 pont lead in a matchup against John McCain shows that she gained some momentum after her Pennsylvania win. In addition, The Reverend Wright Media Tour has significantly hurt Obama, despite the fact that he keeps trotting out two or three Superdelegates after every Hillary Clinton win, no doubt to stem the excitement and "bump" from her victories. Even with Obama's Pastor Dilemma, they keep coming out, as if that will make the problem go away. What is amazing is the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that they have lost two Presidential elections when they were expected to win.
Hillary Clinton is now leading in Indiana again and has cut Obama's once formidable lead to 5% points. She has also taken the lead in the daily tracking polls, suggesting that Obama is losing support rapidly.
Hillary Clinton's 9 pont lead in a matchup against John McCain shows that she gained some momentum after her Pennsylvania win. In addition, The Reverend Wright Media Tour has significantly hurt Obama, despite the fact that he keeps trotting out two or three Superdelegates after every Hillary Clinton win, no doubt to stem the excitement and "bump" from her victories. Even with Obama's Pastor Dilemma, they keep coming out, as if that will make the problem go away. What is amazing is the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that they have lost two Presidential elections when they were expected to win.
Hillary Clinton is now leading in Indiana again and has cut Obama's once formidable lead to 5% points. She has also taken the lead in the daily tracking polls, suggesting that Obama is losing support rapidly.
Now He Denounces Him?
Why is Obama denouncing Reverend Wright now? Is it because his poll numbers have plummeted? As I recall, he made the calculation in his "brilliant" speech to do the opposite? So, what has changed? Let me guess---Reverend Wright has shown himself to be exactly what we have imagined from his sermons, despite Obama and his supporters protestations to the contrary. In fact, as late as Sunday in his Fox interview with Chris Wallace, Obama was still defending Jeremiah Wright and blamed the media for airing the story. Was Reverend Wright's revelation that Obama is a politican who says what he has to to get elected behind the sudden denunciation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?pagewanted=all
Hillary Smart To Appear on O'Reilley Factor
Once again, Hillary Clinton, the master chess player, is making another masterful move--appearing on the O'Reilley factor tomorrow. Remember that Hillary Clinton appeared on Countdown with Keith Olberman the day before the Pennsylvania Primary, in a move to highlight her toughness. Recall that Olberman has been a tough critic of Hillary Clinton. He even compared some of her supporters to David Duke (KKK). She went into the lion's den, tamed the lion and won Pennsylvania convincingly. That portends well for the Senator ahead of Indiana and North Carolina primaries where polls show her with a lead in Indiana and a narrowing of Obama's once impressive double digit lead.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/closer-in-carolina/?ref=opinion
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/closer-in-carolina/?ref=opinion
So Now Dukakis Wants Crown a Nominee?
What the hell is this clown Dukakis talking about? He blew a 20 point lead and lost the Presidency. No wonder he is still advocating the weak ass candidacy of Barack Obama. It would be political suicide, in my opinion, to give him the nomination, as I suspect there is more ammunition to come, perhaps in the form of a response from Reverend Wright revealing unknown beliefs. Once again, Democrats are so arrogant that they think they can win with a candidate who is clearly weak, instead of going with their heads, they are once again going with their hearts and will lose yet again. They are so arrogant that they assume everything will remain the same until November. Anything can happen in politics as the Obama supporters are now discovering. In addition, if these bastards think that they can just divide the delegates 50/50, they are sorely mistaken! Hillary Clinton will never agree to this so I guess Dean and the other "neutral" Superdelegates are working feverishly to end this campaign and anoint Obama. If they do this, and not count Florida and Michigan votes, I don't care how bad this Economy is, they will lose. If they arrogantly think, we'll end it and the people will come around because the economy is bad, they will be shocked! I don't think they understand how pissed people are about counting their votes. They had better be careful. I for one am prepared to stay home and switch party affiliation. I have the form waiting, just in case the arrogant bastards decide to proceed with their devious plan.
http://origin.observer.com/2008/dukakis-its-probably-obama-08-campaign-needs-improve?page=0%2C1
http://origin.observer.com/2008/dukakis-its-probably-obama-08-campaign-needs-improve?page=0%2C1
Obama Condemns Statements
April 29, 2008 2:34 PMEd OKeefe-->
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Sen. Barack Obama strongly condemned recent comments made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in a high-stakes gamble by his campaign to control a spreading political firestorm.Reacting to what he called the "spectacle" of his former pastor at the National Press Club, Obama, D-Ill., denounced Wright saying, "What Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything I have ever done or said in my life.""Whatever relationship I had with Rev Wright has changed as a result of this," Obama said.Speaking the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, Rev. Wright called the recent criticism surrounding his sermons "an attack on the black church"."This is not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill or Chelsea, this is about the black church," Wright said, speaking before an enthusiastic audience of black church leaders at the onset of a two-day symposium. Throughout his speech and a subsequent question and answer session, Wright defiantly argued that many of his critics had not heard his whole sermons and that the media had twisted his words. Wright vigorously defended himself against accusations he is unpatriotic but in Washington, he went on to compare U.S. troops to the Roman legions that killed Christ, to praise Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farakhan, and to suggest that the AIDS epidemic was a racist plot.WATCH THE WORLD NEWS VIDEO REPORT ON WRIGHT'S CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS BY CLICKING HEREThe Reverend also said he was quoting a previous U.S. Ambassador to Iraq when he said African Americans should sing "God damn America" not "God Bless America" in his first sermon following the 9/11 attacks."You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back on you," Wright said on Monday. "Those are Biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright 'bombastic' principles."Obama came out forcefully on Tuesday, insisting he was "disappointed" by Wright, and rejecting his one-time pastor's assertion that the controversy was an attack on the black church.The candidate went considerably further than he has in the past in distancing himself from Wright, accusing him of "insensitivity and outrageousness" in his Monday appearance at the National Press Club in Washington."The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago," Obama said. Wright has been Obama's pastor since the Illinois Democrat joined the church. He performed Obama's marriage ceremony and baptized the candidate's two daughters.Obama did not say if would stop attending Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago. A new pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss, recently took over for Wright, after Wright's retirement from the pulpit.The reaction was much stronger than what Obama offered the previous day and reflects a decision by the Obama campaign to try to directly confront the comments by Wright, after weeks where Obama tried to perform a more delicate dance where he distanced himself from the message but not the messenger."I have said before and I will repeat again that some of the comments that Reverend Wright has made offend me and I understand why they've offended the American people," Obama told reporters hastily gathered for an impromptu press conference on the tarmac in Wilmington, N.C.
"He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign and so he may make statements in the future that don't reflect my values or concerns," Obama continued, later adding with a smile, "I think certainly what the last three days indicate is that we're not coordinating with him."Clearly the Obama camp deemed that effort not enough and the decision to speak out again seems designed to quell concerns among Democrats -- including superdelegates -- about some of Wright's more inflammatory remarks. But it also raises additional questions for Obama -- including why he maintained a 20-year spiritual relationship with Wright, and why he chose not to denounce Wright when the story first spread six weeks ago.ABC News' Rick Klein, Sunlen Miller, Jake Tapper, Nitya
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Sen. Barack Obama strongly condemned recent comments made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in a high-stakes gamble by his campaign to control a spreading political firestorm.Reacting to what he called the "spectacle" of his former pastor at the National Press Club, Obama, D-Ill., denounced Wright saying, "What Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything I have ever done or said in my life.""Whatever relationship I had with Rev Wright has changed as a result of this," Obama said.Speaking the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, Rev. Wright called the recent criticism surrounding his sermons "an attack on the black church"."This is not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill or Chelsea, this is about the black church," Wright said, speaking before an enthusiastic audience of black church leaders at the onset of a two-day symposium. Throughout his speech and a subsequent question and answer session, Wright defiantly argued that many of his critics had not heard his whole sermons and that the media had twisted his words. Wright vigorously defended himself against accusations he is unpatriotic but in Washington, he went on to compare U.S. troops to the Roman legions that killed Christ, to praise Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farakhan, and to suggest that the AIDS epidemic was a racist plot.WATCH THE WORLD NEWS VIDEO REPORT ON WRIGHT'S CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS BY CLICKING HEREThe Reverend also said he was quoting a previous U.S. Ambassador to Iraq when he said African Americans should sing "God damn America" not "God Bless America" in his first sermon following the 9/11 attacks."You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back on you," Wright said on Monday. "Those are Biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright 'bombastic' principles."Obama came out forcefully on Tuesday, insisting he was "disappointed" by Wright, and rejecting his one-time pastor's assertion that the controversy was an attack on the black church.The candidate went considerably further than he has in the past in distancing himself from Wright, accusing him of "insensitivity and outrageousness" in his Monday appearance at the National Press Club in Washington."The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago," Obama said. Wright has been Obama's pastor since the Illinois Democrat joined the church. He performed Obama's marriage ceremony and baptized the candidate's two daughters.Obama did not say if would stop attending Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago. A new pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss, recently took over for Wright, after Wright's retirement from the pulpit.The reaction was much stronger than what Obama offered the previous day and reflects a decision by the Obama campaign to try to directly confront the comments by Wright, after weeks where Obama tried to perform a more delicate dance where he distanced himself from the message but not the messenger."I have said before and I will repeat again that some of the comments that Reverend Wright has made offend me and I understand why they've offended the American people," Obama told reporters hastily gathered for an impromptu press conference on the tarmac in Wilmington, N.C.
"He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign and so he may make statements in the future that don't reflect my values or concerns," Obama continued, later adding with a smile, "I think certainly what the last three days indicate is that we're not coordinating with him."Clearly the Obama camp deemed that effort not enough and the decision to speak out again seems designed to quell concerns among Democrats -- including superdelegates -- about some of Wright's more inflammatory remarks. But it also raises additional questions for Obama -- including why he maintained a 20-year spiritual relationship with Wright, and why he chose not to denounce Wright when the story first spread six weeks ago.ABC News' Rick Klein, Sunlen Miller, Jake Tapper, Nitya
Obama Cuts Ties To Reverend Wright
Obama cuts ties to Wright at surprise press conference in North Carolina. Developing.
WASHINGTON--Sen. Barack Obama finally cut the chord on Tuesday with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, after Wright conducted a press conference Monday at the National Press Club here Obama called a "spectacle" and "appalling."
In an exercise of extreme damage control, Obama appeared at a surprise press conference in North Carolina to denounce and, finally, cut the ties to the man who married him and baptized his daughters.
"Yesterday, I think he caricatured himself," said Obama of the "performance" Wright gave at the National Press Club on Monday morning. Wright read a speech about the black church experience but then turned combative during the question and answer session.
That Wright thought is was appropriate to "command the stage" for three of four days in the midst of the presidential campaign made Obama, he said, "angry" and "saddened." A PBS interview with Wright was broadcast on Friday, followed by a speech Sunday night at the Detroit NAACP aired live on cable outlets and the final straw, appearing, at all places, the National Press Club.
Posted by Lynn Sweet on April 29, 2008 12:59 PM Permalink
WASHINGTON--Sen. Barack Obama finally cut the chord on Tuesday with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, after Wright conducted a press conference Monday at the National Press Club here Obama called a "spectacle" and "appalling."
In an exercise of extreme damage control, Obama appeared at a surprise press conference in North Carolina to denounce and, finally, cut the ties to the man who married him and baptized his daughters.
"Yesterday, I think he caricatured himself," said Obama of the "performance" Wright gave at the National Press Club on Monday morning. Wright read a speech about the black church experience but then turned combative during the question and answer session.
That Wright thought is was appropriate to "command the stage" for three of four days in the midst of the presidential campaign made Obama, he said, "angry" and "saddened." A PBS interview with Wright was broadcast on Friday, followed by a speech Sunday night at the Detroit NAACP aired live on cable outlets and the final straw, appearing, at all places, the National Press Club.
Posted by Lynn Sweet on April 29, 2008 12:59 PM Permalink
Obama's Predicament
Barack Obama, the darling of the press, is seemingly under siege. Consequently, there is no shortage of suggestions from the pundits about how he should handle the Reverend Wright nightmare, including coming out forcefully and condemning the good reverend, make a series of speeches, or portray Wright as crazy and delusional. I suspect that Obama will do none of the above. He will probably continue to give the same tepid response because if he did address Wright's comments again, he would have to come clean about what he knew, when he knew it, what he agreed or disagreed with Wright about, and then Wright would probably respond by stating exactly what beliefs they both share. I don't think Obama wants to take that chance. I also think will only make delicate admonishments because if he pushes hard, Wright will be even more aggressive in his responses. At that point, he might spill the secrets and we will finally find out exactly who Barack Obama is.
Obama missed a golden opportunity when he gave his speech on race. He should have distanced himself completely from Wright, instead for reason only he and Wright knows, he chose not to. Now, the controversy has come back to bite him in the butt. What Obama should have done is acknowledge what he knew, state categorically that those were not his views, and proclaim that he was a proud American. However, he handled Reverend Wright with kid gloves and threw his own grandmother under the bus. The curious question is: Why can't he walk away completely from the Reverend. What secrets does Reverend Wright know about Obama's beliefs? The problem for Obama is he is virtually a "blank slate" as he puts it and unfortunately for him, everyone is now filling in the blanks that they sense was untold. While one can't convict a person based solely on one's associations, it does provide a window into a person view of the world. Wright is not Obama's only questionable association, there is also William Ayers and Tony Rezko who is still on trial. Add in the "bitter" comments, Michele Obama's comments and one starts to see a pattern emerging.
Obama missed a golden opportunity when he gave his speech on race. He should have distanced himself completely from Wright, instead for reason only he and Wright knows, he chose not to. Now, the controversy has come back to bite him in the butt. What Obama should have done is acknowledge what he knew, state categorically that those were not his views, and proclaim that he was a proud American. However, he handled Reverend Wright with kid gloves and threw his own grandmother under the bus. The curious question is: Why can't he walk away completely from the Reverend. What secrets does Reverend Wright know about Obama's beliefs? The problem for Obama is he is virtually a "blank slate" as he puts it and unfortunately for him, everyone is now filling in the blanks that they sense was untold. While one can't convict a person based solely on one's associations, it does provide a window into a person view of the world. Wright is not Obama's only questionable association, there is also William Ayers and Tony Rezko who is still on trial. Add in the "bitter" comments, Michele Obama's comments and one starts to see a pattern emerging.
Why Wright Threw Obama Under The Bus
the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a very angry and hurt man. Imagine how you would have felt if you took someone under your wing, brought him into your fold, mentored him, became almost like a father and he disses you. He married Barack and Michele Obama, baptised their children, and was such a major influence in Obama's life that he named the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope after one of Wright's sermons. Now, imagine then that this individual excluded you from probably the most important announcement of his political life: The announcement to run for the Presidency of the United States. If you were relegated to the basementas wright told us he was, suggesting that his protege was ashamed of him, or regarded him as a political liability, it is understandable then that Wright would be inclined to be "bitter." I believe Wright feels Obama has treated him badly, even used him and his church for political expediency and he feels no loyalty toward Obama at this juncture. I think he feels that he made Obama and he can destroy him.
When Reverend Wright says Obama is a politician and says what politicians say to get elected, he is in fact saying Obama agreed with his sermons and is now singing a different tune now that he is running for President. Clearly, Reverend Wright wants to expose Obama as a person who will say and do whatever it takes to be elected. Wright's comment about "hoping to be Vice-President" was very sarcastic and telling. I suspect that Wright believes Obama will never get the nomination and if he does, he won't become President. The quip about "playing the dozens" was I think directed at Obama, not at the media.
Reverend Wright made the comment that "if Obama was meant to be President, no racist white people could prevent it from happening" but how about a racist black person (in the eyes of whites)? Despite his comments to the contrary, Wright was making a political statement by appearing at the National Press Club. He knew darned well that Obama has had difficulty wooing white Reagan Democrats and so had to know that his controversal statements (which he repeated) would turn off the very voters Obama needs to win to secure the nomination. So, one has to come to the conclusion that he did it to destroy Obama's Presidential hopes.
When Reverend Wright says Obama is a politician and says what politicians say to get elected, he is in fact saying Obama agreed with his sermons and is now singing a different tune now that he is running for President. Clearly, Reverend Wright wants to expose Obama as a person who will say and do whatever it takes to be elected. Wright's comment about "hoping to be Vice-President" was very sarcastic and telling. I suspect that Wright believes Obama will never get the nomination and if he does, he won't become President. The quip about "playing the dozens" was I think directed at Obama, not at the media.
Reverend Wright made the comment that "if Obama was meant to be President, no racist white people could prevent it from happening" but how about a racist black person (in the eyes of whites)? Despite his comments to the contrary, Wright was making a political statement by appearing at the National Press Club. He knew darned well that Obama has had difficulty wooing white Reagan Democrats and so had to know that his controversal statements (which he repeated) would turn off the very voters Obama needs to win to secure the nomination. So, one has to come to the conclusion that he did it to destroy Obama's Presidential hopes.
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Black Church Is Not Being Attacked
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is attempting to hide behind a "wall of smoke" when he accuses the media of attacking the "Black Church." I have been in a "Black Church" on many occasions, and while it is customary to preach about social and political issues, I have never heard any preacher/minister spout the kind of venom I heard from the mouth of Reverend Wright.
The good Reverend and every Obama supporter I have seen address the issue refuses to acknowledge the impact of the Reverend's words. They talk about taking the words out of context, taking snippets of the sermon and running it in a constant loop, saying MLK spoke that way, the good work his church is doing, his service in the Marines, the fact that he is now retired, to name a few excuses being perpetuated, but they refuse to say "GD America" and the other explosive statements are wrong, divisive and hurtful. Instead, they, including the Senator himself, continue to defend the Reverend and lay the blame at the feet of others and the media rather at the feet of the man who spoke the words.
Reverend Wright's little redemption tour is nothing more than an attempt to put others on the defensive in an effort to deflect from his incendiary comments. What is at issue is his criticism of America's foreign policy positions, and its history of racism and has NOTHING to do with an attack on the Black Church. He claims his church is part of a white denomination in one breath, then in another claims there is an attack on Black Theology. No one I have heard discuss his comments have attacked the "Black Church" as he has claimed. What has happened is an analysis of his remarks, his 20 year relationship with Barack Obama and how this relationship has shaped Obama's beliefs. No one is talking about his Mama, his daddy, or his grandmother's religion has he has suggested. That is just a bald-faced lie.
Reverend Wright seems to relish the media attention he is getting, even as he criticises the media for parsing his words. He was just preening and dancing like a pugilist in a boxing ring. As a matter of fact, there no difference in his demeanor from what America saw in the "snippets" and what we saw today. In fact, his performance reinforced the opinions that have been drawn about him, and he did nothing to dispel the negative impressions about him. In fact, Reverend Wright seems hell bent on embarrassing Obama. He has basically characterized Obama as a say-anything-do-anything politician that says what he has to to get elected, the very criticism that Obama has of Hillary Clinton! Essentially, he is saying Obama is not being true to what he actually believes. The good Reverend seems to want the destruction of Obama's campaign because he is further alienating the very constituency Obama so desperately needs. This "performance" makes it less likely that Obama will ever convince these voters to support him and as such, his prospect of getting the nomination just took a serious turn, despite having a delegate lead. If he is unelectable, a delegate lead will not matter because the Democratic Party insiders is not going to risk losing the Presidency and other local races because of this controversy. I suspect that Wright is doing these speeches to intimidate white America, daring them not to vote for Obama, and the Democratic party in particular, if Superdelegates choose to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton. What is ominous is the sense that a message is being sent that Blacks will cause trouble if/when Hillary gets the nomination if the calculation is made that Obama can't get white middle class votes.
The good Reverend and every Obama supporter I have seen address the issue refuses to acknowledge the impact of the Reverend's words. They talk about taking the words out of context, taking snippets of the sermon and running it in a constant loop, saying MLK spoke that way, the good work his church is doing, his service in the Marines, the fact that he is now retired, to name a few excuses being perpetuated, but they refuse to say "GD America" and the other explosive statements are wrong, divisive and hurtful. Instead, they, including the Senator himself, continue to defend the Reverend and lay the blame at the feet of others and the media rather at the feet of the man who spoke the words.
Reverend Wright's little redemption tour is nothing more than an attempt to put others on the defensive in an effort to deflect from his incendiary comments. What is at issue is his criticism of America's foreign policy positions, and its history of racism and has NOTHING to do with an attack on the Black Church. He claims his church is part of a white denomination in one breath, then in another claims there is an attack on Black Theology. No one I have heard discuss his comments have attacked the "Black Church" as he has claimed. What has happened is an analysis of his remarks, his 20 year relationship with Barack Obama and how this relationship has shaped Obama's beliefs. No one is talking about his Mama, his daddy, or his grandmother's religion has he has suggested. That is just a bald-faced lie.
Reverend Wright seems to relish the media attention he is getting, even as he criticises the media for parsing his words. He was just preening and dancing like a pugilist in a boxing ring. As a matter of fact, there no difference in his demeanor from what America saw in the "snippets" and what we saw today. In fact, his performance reinforced the opinions that have been drawn about him, and he did nothing to dispel the negative impressions about him. In fact, Reverend Wright seems hell bent on embarrassing Obama. He has basically characterized Obama as a say-anything-do-anything politician that says what he has to to get elected, the very criticism that Obama has of Hillary Clinton! Essentially, he is saying Obama is not being true to what he actually believes. The good Reverend seems to want the destruction of Obama's campaign because he is further alienating the very constituency Obama so desperately needs. This "performance" makes it less likely that Obama will ever convince these voters to support him and as such, his prospect of getting the nomination just took a serious turn, despite having a delegate lead. If he is unelectable, a delegate lead will not matter because the Democratic Party insiders is not going to risk losing the Presidency and other local races because of this controversy. I suspect that Wright is doing these speeches to intimidate white America, daring them not to vote for Obama, and the Democratic party in particular, if Superdelegates choose to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton. What is ominous is the sense that a message is being sent that Blacks will cause trouble if/when Hillary gets the nomination if the calculation is made that Obama can't get white middle class votes.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary's Winning Formula/Strategies
Gongratulations To Hillary On Her Tremendous Win!!
Ideas/Strategies Moving Forward
-- Push an all-out effort to win Indiana and get an UPSET in North Carolina--The Ground Game is where the races will be won. Organize, Organize, Organize!
--Register new voters, make phone calls, canvass, arrange rides for voters, babysitting, wake up calls, text-messaging, place yard signs, banners, etc.
--Get dedicated young volunteers to travel from state to state, cities, and town to town to recruit other young people to generate enthusiasm!
--Stay focused on the issues: The Economy, Health Care, Autism, high gas prices, inflation, soaring food prices, consumer sentiment, Airline service, Airline safety, Iraq, Education.
-- Stay on message. Don't get tricked into making comments by the media (Bill), even though he had a valid right to be upset.
--Have someone fact check EVERYTHING, then DOUBLE CHECK EVERYTHING! A MISTAKE MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!
--Change the perception that Hillary is untrustworthy. Create a new narrative to blunt this perception. Maybe have someone who is not a political person who knows her make the rounds on cable TV about the Hillary he/she knows.
--Let the people see the "real" Hillary. Show her funny and human side more often. Drive up her POSITIVES. LOWER HER NEGATIVES.
--Show confidence, strength, forcefulness and control.
--Walk the neighborhoods, meet people, shake their hands, look them in the eye, LISTEN to their stories, show empathy, be real.
--Continue to tell people what she will do, how she will do it, be honest about how hard it will be. --Having voters like myself taking ownership of the Campaign is a great strategy. Keep doing that.
--Try to appeal to more new voters. Get the names of voters at rallies. Ask them to give names of at least two people. Increase voter database.
--Organize other fundraising efforts at the local levels: Car washes, bake sales etc.
--Use his lead in North Carolina to stress that he has the advantage. That he is expected to win big. Stress you are the underdog but you intend to vigorously contest the State.
--Obama surrogates are downplaying Hillary's win as an "expected" win but he outspent her by 2 or 3 to one to try and knock her out, so the "notion" that they did not expect to win is specious. Their claim that they are not "disappointed" after spending $11 million dollars is ludicrous. Obama himself said on a Radio Show yesterday that it was going to be closer than people expect.
Talking Points To Superdelegates
--Florida and Michigan delegates should be counted for Hillary (Or at least Florida), where both candidates were on the ballot in a legitimate and CERTIFIED election. AND Obama ran ads!
--Florida voters did not break rules and should not be punished. Republicans engineered the situation for political reasons.
--No 50/50 split of delegates in Florida and Michigan. That would not give Hillary the popular vote numbers she needs to surpass Obama.
--Obama cannot close the deal. Why, with fundraising advantage, outspending Hillary by as much as 5-1 at times (2 or 3-1) at election time, can't he beat her. He needs to WIN to get the nomination, not GIVEN the nomination because he calculatingly ran up delegate numbers and refuses to allow Florida and Michigan to be settled democratically.
--He won delegates primarily in Caucus States, not exactly representative of the electorate as in primaries, and based on the coalition he's built, had a significant advantage.
--He's won in Republican States. That is great but REALISTICALLY, how competitive would those states be for a Democrat? When was the last time Democrats won the Red States he used to rack up delegates?
--Hillary won the BIG states that Democrats need to win to win the White House. Obama has not yet DEMONSTRATED he is strong enough to win in November. Hillary has proved consistently that she can win these big states.
--Hillary has more delegates if we go by the Electoral College Map, the measure by which the Presidency is won.
--Hillary's has built a coalition that is demonstrably more consistent as a voting block. They have been unwavering in their support for the party through the difficult years. They will not balk.
--While it is exciting that young voters seem to be energized, they have not proven their reliability in past General Elections. I would be nervous to entrust the outcome of the Election to this group.
--The Reverend Wright controversy, "bitter gate," Bill Ayers, Flag Pin, "punish With a Baby" and the inconsistent and incoherent answers he has given is bothersome to voters and will be an issue in the General Election. Use the results from exit polls to drive this point home.
--The media is wrong when it/they claim Obama has not been hurt by the controversies/comments. The polls have not been able to capture voter sentiment on these issues.
--Stress doubts about his electability. Why are voters resistant to him? If they are resistant now in a Democratic Primary, are they going to be more open to him in the General? Are you willing to take that chance and lose the White House yet again?
--We don't know when the "next" thing will emerge. After all, what do we know about him and his past associations?
Negativity
--Obama and his surrogates has consistently gone after Hillary's character, honesty, trustworthiness, her husband, his Administration and they complain about negativity?
--What about the 4 page memo about their strategy to use the race card?
--He's been outspending her, dropping negative leaflets, negative ads about her and they media blames Hillary for everything, even when it has NOTHING to do with her! eg. Reverend Wright!
--Dick Durbin claimed today that if Hillary has not raised the "issues" he would not be damaged. *Was it Hillary that went to the Church for 20 years?
*Was it Hillary who "associated/befriended" Ayers
*Was it Hillary who made the "bitter" comments and insulted voters' religion and way of life? *Was it Hillary who said young girls/teens would be "punished with a baby?"
*Was it Hillary who made the calculation for whatever reason, not to wear a flag pin?
*At what point will the media and the Party Demand answers from Obama? Why is his troubles (of his own making) not his responsibility? Is this the kind of President he would be? Would the "buck stop with him" or would he blame staff again (handwriting on the memo)about Campaign Finance.
--The New York Times article criticizing Hillary is baseless and shortsighted.--Compile and put out a list of negative ads, things that have been said about Hillary and her family.--If the Obama Campaign decides to go negative and "bring up" things to embarrass Hillary and Bill, at that point, EVERYTHING WILL BE FAIR GAME, including Michele Obama's words. No one in this campaign has mention her, and she has said MANY things.
Ideas/Strategies Moving Forward
-- Push an all-out effort to win Indiana and get an UPSET in North Carolina--The Ground Game is where the races will be won. Organize, Organize, Organize!
--Register new voters, make phone calls, canvass, arrange rides for voters, babysitting, wake up calls, text-messaging, place yard signs, banners, etc.
--Get dedicated young volunteers to travel from state to state, cities, and town to town to recruit other young people to generate enthusiasm!
--Stay focused on the issues: The Economy, Health Care, Autism, high gas prices, inflation, soaring food prices, consumer sentiment, Airline service, Airline safety, Iraq, Education.
-- Stay on message. Don't get tricked into making comments by the media (Bill), even though he had a valid right to be upset.
--Have someone fact check EVERYTHING, then DOUBLE CHECK EVERYTHING! A MISTAKE MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!
--Change the perception that Hillary is untrustworthy. Create a new narrative to blunt this perception. Maybe have someone who is not a political person who knows her make the rounds on cable TV about the Hillary he/she knows.
--Let the people see the "real" Hillary. Show her funny and human side more often. Drive up her POSITIVES. LOWER HER NEGATIVES.
--Show confidence, strength, forcefulness and control.
--Walk the neighborhoods, meet people, shake their hands, look them in the eye, LISTEN to their stories, show empathy, be real.
--Continue to tell people what she will do, how she will do it, be honest about how hard it will be. --Having voters like myself taking ownership of the Campaign is a great strategy. Keep doing that.
--Try to appeal to more new voters. Get the names of voters at rallies. Ask them to give names of at least two people. Increase voter database.
--Organize other fundraising efforts at the local levels: Car washes, bake sales etc.
--Use his lead in North Carolina to stress that he has the advantage. That he is expected to win big. Stress you are the underdog but you intend to vigorously contest the State.
--Obama surrogates are downplaying Hillary's win as an "expected" win but he outspent her by 2 or 3 to one to try and knock her out, so the "notion" that they did not expect to win is specious. Their claim that they are not "disappointed" after spending $11 million dollars is ludicrous. Obama himself said on a Radio Show yesterday that it was going to be closer than people expect.
Talking Points To Superdelegates
--Florida and Michigan delegates should be counted for Hillary (Or at least Florida), where both candidates were on the ballot in a legitimate and CERTIFIED election. AND Obama ran ads!
--Florida voters did not break rules and should not be punished. Republicans engineered the situation for political reasons.
--No 50/50 split of delegates in Florida and Michigan. That would not give Hillary the popular vote numbers she needs to surpass Obama.
--Obama cannot close the deal. Why, with fundraising advantage, outspending Hillary by as much as 5-1 at times (2 or 3-1) at election time, can't he beat her. He needs to WIN to get the nomination, not GIVEN the nomination because he calculatingly ran up delegate numbers and refuses to allow Florida and Michigan to be settled democratically.
--He won delegates primarily in Caucus States, not exactly representative of the electorate as in primaries, and based on the coalition he's built, had a significant advantage.
--He's won in Republican States. That is great but REALISTICALLY, how competitive would those states be for a Democrat? When was the last time Democrats won the Red States he used to rack up delegates?
--Hillary won the BIG states that Democrats need to win to win the White House. Obama has not yet DEMONSTRATED he is strong enough to win in November. Hillary has proved consistently that she can win these big states.
--Hillary has more delegates if we go by the Electoral College Map, the measure by which the Presidency is won.
--Hillary's has built a coalition that is demonstrably more consistent as a voting block. They have been unwavering in their support for the party through the difficult years. They will not balk.
--While it is exciting that young voters seem to be energized, they have not proven their reliability in past General Elections. I would be nervous to entrust the outcome of the Election to this group.
--The Reverend Wright controversy, "bitter gate," Bill Ayers, Flag Pin, "punish With a Baby" and the inconsistent and incoherent answers he has given is bothersome to voters and will be an issue in the General Election. Use the results from exit polls to drive this point home.
--The media is wrong when it/they claim Obama has not been hurt by the controversies/comments. The polls have not been able to capture voter sentiment on these issues.
--Stress doubts about his electability. Why are voters resistant to him? If they are resistant now in a Democratic Primary, are they going to be more open to him in the General? Are you willing to take that chance and lose the White House yet again?
--We don't know when the "next" thing will emerge. After all, what do we know about him and his past associations?
Negativity
--Obama and his surrogates has consistently gone after Hillary's character, honesty, trustworthiness, her husband, his Administration and they complain about negativity?
--What about the 4 page memo about their strategy to use the race card?
--He's been outspending her, dropping negative leaflets, negative ads about her and they media blames Hillary for everything, even when it has NOTHING to do with her! eg. Reverend Wright!
--Dick Durbin claimed today that if Hillary has not raised the "issues" he would not be damaged. *Was it Hillary that went to the Church for 20 years?
*Was it Hillary who "associated/befriended" Ayers
*Was it Hillary who made the "bitter" comments and insulted voters' religion and way of life? *Was it Hillary who said young girls/teens would be "punished with a baby?"
*Was it Hillary who made the calculation for whatever reason, not to wear a flag pin?
*At what point will the media and the Party Demand answers from Obama? Why is his troubles (of his own making) not his responsibility? Is this the kind of President he would be? Would the "buck stop with him" or would he blame staff again (handwriting on the memo)about Campaign Finance.
--The New York Times article criticizing Hillary is baseless and shortsighted.--Compile and put out a list of negative ads, things that have been said about Hillary and her family.--If the Obama Campaign decides to go negative and "bring up" things to embarrass Hillary and Bill, at that point, EVERYTHING WILL BE FAIR GAME, including Michele Obama's words. No one in this campaign has mention her, and she has said MANY things.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why Obama is Not Ready to be President
He's an inexperienced political opportunist whose main reason for wanting to be President is personal, for power. He is not patriotic. How can he be, listening to Rev. wright and his rantings? I don't believe his explanations that he NEVER heard the sermons, the specific comments, or whatever version he wants to come up with. I think he's a liar.
The patriotism issue is a real issue for me: If you don't like the country, you should not be the leader of the country. His wife his an America hater too, yet she wants to be first lady? The connections to Rezko and William Ayers, the terrorist, is valid to determine Obama's judgment and character, since we know nothing about him.
The flag pin issue might seem trivial to some but it is very telling. He takes the pin from a veteran last Tuesday, pins it on his lapel, after claiming that doing so does not prove one's patriotism, to get the man's vote no doubt. He than shows up at the debate the following night without it. Be consistent. If you chose not to wear one, don't wear one to get votes. He was quick to surround himself with flags when he gave his "race" speech though. Very convenient. I guess the flag served its purpose in that instance.
The patriotism issue is a real issue for me: If you don't like the country, you should not be the leader of the country. His wife his an America hater too, yet she wants to be first lady? The connections to Rezko and William Ayers, the terrorist, is valid to determine Obama's judgment and character, since we know nothing about him.
The flag pin issue might seem trivial to some but it is very telling. He takes the pin from a veteran last Tuesday, pins it on his lapel, after claiming that doing so does not prove one's patriotism, to get the man's vote no doubt. He than shows up at the debate the following night without it. Be consistent. If you chose not to wear one, don't wear one to get votes. He was quick to surround himself with flags when he gave his "race" speech though. Very convenient. I guess the flag served its purpose in that instance.
Expectations: Too high, Too Low?
My Garin, if I could give you one constructive criticism: Be more assertive! Do not let David Axelrod manhandle and push you around! I saw the interview this past Sunday on Meet The Press and he clearly dominated the interview. I think, and I am only seeing you on TV, that you are not by nature a pit bull like Axelrod. You are a dignified and mild mannered person and it appeared that he gave you a beat down. However, there is one caveat: He might have overdone it. I thought, and I may not be objective, that he was entirely too aggressive while you tried to have a dignified discussion. Of course, Tim Russert was just stoking the flames!
I also saw you earlier today (Tuesday)(election day) on Andrea Mitchell's show and she was trying to downplay Obama's role in the so-called negative campaign ads. Is she serious? He has more money, he's running more ads, and Hillary Clinton is responsible for the negative campaign ads? By the way, your performance was 10X better than Sunday and I'm glad you pushed back at her when she suggested the ad that briefly showed Bin Laden was too negative. Are we supposed to ignore the big elephant in the room? What do these people think Republicans are going to run on? It isn't the Economy. It will be National Security. That is a mistake Democrats always make: That the Economy and domestic issues will win elections, to the exclusion of National Security. I think it is valid and very appropriate to remind people that Terrorism exists and we have not caught Bin Laden. The Republicans will surely remind us of that to neutralize the DEMS advantage with the Economy and social issues.
Do not get into discussions about margins of victory with the media. The fluctuations in the polls are a result of them (journalists) talking up Obama and always asking negative questions of/about Hillary. Even Larry King was asking some very tough questions last night compared to the puff ball questions he asked Obama after the Reverend Wright revelations. I thought Hillary performed exceptionally well on his show and on Keith Olberman's show. She did not moan and whine about the questions but showed a toughness and a real grasp of the issues. She was not stumbling over her words and hemming and hawing. She knew what she was talking about, not searching and making up answers as she's speaking.
What is a win? A win is when you beat the other person. The margin should not matter but we know that a big margin is better than a small margin in terms of narrowing the gap in the popular vote. However, Why is the bar set so high for Hillary when Obama only has to "close the gap?" Why, after raising more money, massively outspending, tons of negative ads and fliers, can't Obama beat Hillary? Seems to me the media needs to be focusing more on this question.
THE SPIN BY THE CAMPAIGN TONIGHT AND TOMORROW, regardless of the margin of victory should be:1) He has raised more money2) Outspent Hillary by 2,3,4,5 to 1 and he cannot beat her. He is like a salesman who knocks on some one's door, talks enthusiastically about what he's selling, but then, does not articulate the benefits of his product and therefore does not closes the deal.3) Why is the bar so high for Hillary but all Obama has to do is come close? Can he merely come close in a General Election, or does he have to not only make the Presentation, but more importantly, CLOSE THE DEAL! He has yet to prove that he can.4) He has spent to win Pennsylvania, therefore, he should be held to a high standard and be EXPECTED TO WIN! Can you imagine the Headlines if Hillary had spent as much as Obama has and not be able to close the deal? Imagine the Headlines!5) This is the same thing that happened to Gore in 2000. The media set the bar for Bush so low, that no matter how badly he performed, he was a winner. 6) Continue to talk about the "secret" deals going on regarding Florida and Michigan.7) Obama had a fair shot at the vote in Florida, and he lost. Both he and Hillary was on the ballot in Florida and he ran ads. In Michigan both Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot voluntarily. They both had ground operations in Michigan. Both ran as "uncommitted" and told people to vote that way. They made a political calculation and lost. Why should Hillary be punished because she left her name on the ballot?7) Talk about History. Ask the journalists about the states he's won. Ask them to show you, statistically, the last time Democrats won in the states in which he racked up delegates? When was the last time Democrats won in red states? And, even if he had a chance earlier on at the height of his "movement" that has changed in light of Reverend Wright and "bitter gate." He is even less likely to win in those states now.
So, the main focus should be on performances in the States Democrats NEED to win and have traditionally won when they win the White House. This is, I BELIEVE AN IMPORTANT POINT. OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE MAP. HE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE HE CAN WIN BLUE STATES IN A PRIMARY.
I also saw you earlier today (Tuesday)(election day) on Andrea Mitchell's show and she was trying to downplay Obama's role in the so-called negative campaign ads. Is she serious? He has more money, he's running more ads, and Hillary Clinton is responsible for the negative campaign ads? By the way, your performance was 10X better than Sunday and I'm glad you pushed back at her when she suggested the ad that briefly showed Bin Laden was too negative. Are we supposed to ignore the big elephant in the room? What do these people think Republicans are going to run on? It isn't the Economy. It will be National Security. That is a mistake Democrats always make: That the Economy and domestic issues will win elections, to the exclusion of National Security. I think it is valid and very appropriate to remind people that Terrorism exists and we have not caught Bin Laden. The Republicans will surely remind us of that to neutralize the DEMS advantage with the Economy and social issues.
Do not get into discussions about margins of victory with the media. The fluctuations in the polls are a result of them (journalists) talking up Obama and always asking negative questions of/about Hillary. Even Larry King was asking some very tough questions last night compared to the puff ball questions he asked Obama after the Reverend Wright revelations. I thought Hillary performed exceptionally well on his show and on Keith Olberman's show. She did not moan and whine about the questions but showed a toughness and a real grasp of the issues. She was not stumbling over her words and hemming and hawing. She knew what she was talking about, not searching and making up answers as she's speaking.
What is a win? A win is when you beat the other person. The margin should not matter but we know that a big margin is better than a small margin in terms of narrowing the gap in the popular vote. However, Why is the bar set so high for Hillary when Obama only has to "close the gap?" Why, after raising more money, massively outspending, tons of negative ads and fliers, can't Obama beat Hillary? Seems to me the media needs to be focusing more on this question.
THE SPIN BY THE CAMPAIGN TONIGHT AND TOMORROW, regardless of the margin of victory should be:1) He has raised more money2) Outspent Hillary by 2,3,4,5 to 1 and he cannot beat her. He is like a salesman who knocks on some one's door, talks enthusiastically about what he's selling, but then, does not articulate the benefits of his product and therefore does not closes the deal.3) Why is the bar so high for Hillary but all Obama has to do is come close? Can he merely come close in a General Election, or does he have to not only make the Presentation, but more importantly, CLOSE THE DEAL! He has yet to prove that he can.4) He has spent to win Pennsylvania, therefore, he should be held to a high standard and be EXPECTED TO WIN! Can you imagine the Headlines if Hillary had spent as much as Obama has and not be able to close the deal? Imagine the Headlines!5) This is the same thing that happened to Gore in 2000. The media set the bar for Bush so low, that no matter how badly he performed, he was a winner. 6) Continue to talk about the "secret" deals going on regarding Florida and Michigan.7) Obama had a fair shot at the vote in Florida, and he lost. Both he and Hillary was on the ballot in Florida and he ran ads. In Michigan both Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot voluntarily. They both had ground operations in Michigan. Both ran as "uncommitted" and told people to vote that way. They made a political calculation and lost. Why should Hillary be punished because she left her name on the ballot?7) Talk about History. Ask the journalists about the states he's won. Ask them to show you, statistically, the last time Democrats won in the states in which he racked up delegates? When was the last time Democrats won in red states? And, even if he had a chance earlier on at the height of his "movement" that has changed in light of Reverend Wright and "bitter gate." He is even less likely to win in those states now.
So, the main focus should be on performances in the States Democrats NEED to win and have traditionally won when they win the White House. This is, I BELIEVE AN IMPORTANT POINT. OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE MAP. HE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE HE CAN WIN BLUE STATES IN A PRIMARY.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Hope?
Barack Obama wants to have it both ways: Attack his political opponents while claiming to be a "different" kind of politician. How can that be when he has sunk to new lows by whining and complaining and using his vast resources to air ads that are quite nasty. He claims that Hillary Clinton is at fault: "She started it". What is he, a 2 year old? He has more money, more ads, more mail pieces, and he blames her for the negativity? C'mon.
Obama is nothing more than a dirty, old style Chicago politician. He talked about it in New Hampshire as I recall, and has been getting away with it. He successfully "painted" the Clintons as racists in South Carolina and took the black vote away. Then he branded Geraldine Ferraro a racist and again took the high ground. The media neglects to mention the memo in which his campaign outlined how they would use the race card to their advantage.
The man is finally being seen for the phony is suspected he was. He is nothing more than an ambitious, opportunistic, arrogant, unqualified, naive, power hungry, out -of -touch politician who cares nothing about these people. They have been blinded by the shine that has finally worn off. Only the very young is apparently still mesmerized by his snake oil salesman like presentation because they don't seem to want or care about substance or specifics.
Obama is shooting himself in the foot yet again. This weekend he said that "either Democrat would be better than John McCain, and all three of us would be better than George Bush." Wow, what a dope! Obama's campaign has been painting McCain as Bush 3; a big blunder that undercuts his point that McCain would be a continuation of Bush. I though Hillary made a mistake by saying in the debate that Obama was electable. She had said McCain had passed "the commander in chief threshold" whereas Obama had not, a slight referencing Obama's inexperience. However, we learned that in addition to saying people were "bitter" and "clinging" to their religions as a way to express their frustrations, Obama made remarks that he was more qualified than Clinton and McCain In foreign policy affairs because he went to Pakistan once when he was in college and he lived in Indonesia when he was a child. Really? Are you kidding me?
Obama is nothing more than a dirty, old style Chicago politician. He talked about it in New Hampshire as I recall, and has been getting away with it. He successfully "painted" the Clintons as racists in South Carolina and took the black vote away. Then he branded Geraldine Ferraro a racist and again took the high ground. The media neglects to mention the memo in which his campaign outlined how they would use the race card to their advantage.
The man is finally being seen for the phony is suspected he was. He is nothing more than an ambitious, opportunistic, arrogant, unqualified, naive, power hungry, out -of -touch politician who cares nothing about these people. They have been blinded by the shine that has finally worn off. Only the very young is apparently still mesmerized by his snake oil salesman like presentation because they don't seem to want or care about substance or specifics.
Obama is shooting himself in the foot yet again. This weekend he said that "either Democrat would be better than John McCain, and all three of us would be better than George Bush." Wow, what a dope! Obama's campaign has been painting McCain as Bush 3; a big blunder that undercuts his point that McCain would be a continuation of Bush. I though Hillary made a mistake by saying in the debate that Obama was electable. She had said McCain had passed "the commander in chief threshold" whereas Obama had not, a slight referencing Obama's inexperience. However, we learned that in addition to saying people were "bitter" and "clinging" to their religions as a way to express their frustrations, Obama made remarks that he was more qualified than Clinton and McCain In foreign policy affairs because he went to Pakistan once when he was in college and he lived in Indonesia when he was a child. Really? Are you kidding me?
The Day Before The Showdown In Pennsylvania
It the eve of the Pennsylvania Primary and the media is all abuzz about the voting tomorrrow and the polls. Apparently, there was a 13 point shift in the Gallup daily tracking poll, which garnered no real story, but by early afternoon, Obama had "suddenly regained the advantage by 7% points after only having a 2% points advantage a few hours earlier. Last week he had enjoyed an 11% point advantage prior to the debate. Apparently, the debate had some impact on the tracking poll, which was a detriment to Obama. I also suspect that whenever Obama performs poorly, the pundits who are unabashed in their support for him, comes on and "explains" what he meant to say, as if Obama can't speak for himself, and has had countless opportunity to do himself without the media heads doing it for him. When they do, it is surprising how quickly the numbers shift back to show him leading. It is simply amazing to watch. Chris Matthews was clearly unhappy with the state of the polls in Pennsylvania when he spoke with Andrea Mitchell earlier on her show. I even heard David Shuster (not a Clinton lover) and Matthews claiming that the undecideds favor Obama. Someone even said Obama was predicting a win on a radio show, then I heard on Fox that he did not actually predict a win.
Hillary Clinton will be on "Countdown with Keith Olberman", a harsh Clinton critic, who has compared her supporters to David Duke (Neo Nazi). This will be required watching. I am sure Hillary will hold her own against anything Olberman throws at her. This is very smart because this will prove that she is tough and not afraid to confront her critics. She has already appeared on Fox (Greta Van Susteren), unlike Obama who has yet to appear. She will also appear on Larry King Live tonight. This is also very smart as she will have a very wide audience to showcase her command of the issues. I bet any amount of money that Larry King will ask tough questions, in stark contrast to the puff ball questions he asked Obama after the Reverend Wright story broke.
Hillary Clinton will be on "Countdown with Keith Olberman", a harsh Clinton critic, who has compared her supporters to David Duke (Neo Nazi). This will be required watching. I am sure Hillary will hold her own against anything Olberman throws at her. This is very smart because this will prove that she is tough and not afraid to confront her critics. She has already appeared on Fox (Greta Van Susteren), unlike Obama who has yet to appear. She will also appear on Larry King Live tonight. This is also very smart as she will have a very wide audience to showcase her command of the issues. I bet any amount of money that Larry King will ask tough questions, in stark contrast to the puff ball questions he asked Obama after the Reverend Wright story broke.
Finally, A Debate of Substance
The outcry from the media about the "irrelevance" of George Stephanoupolous and Charlie Gibson's questions in last Wednesday's debate was striking. I have lived in America for 25 years and have never heard other journalists openly criticize their colleagues in this way. I felt that the questions were terribly relevant because "everyone" had been talking about Reverend Wright for weeks, despite Obama's "speech" and the comments surfaced that showed him in a different light than what he had been presenting to the American people. Also, a day before the debate, a veteran gave him a flag pin during a campaign stop, which he gladly pinned on his lapel to secure that man's vote, then he showed up at the debate without said pin. In addition to that, he had previously said he would not wear a flag pin. It seemed to me that there were several contradictions at play, and the moderators would have been irresponsible if they had not asked those questions. Others have said said, well, it took 45 minutes to get to the substance of the issues. However, we have heard both candidates positions on the issues, and the media keeps telling us that there is no difference between them on the issues (I disagree), so I think their characters are fair game, particularly when Obama has been saying Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and dishonest. If it then comes to light that Obama is not who he claims to be in public, and clearly he is not, it is very relevant.
The backlash from Obama supporters in the media and the public at large, even a rapper of all people, is totally ridiculous and inappropriate. If Obama had an issue with the questions, why didn't he push back against it like Hillary Clinton did in a previous debate? Instead he got angry, because he fumbled his answers because he was not being transparent. I felt that the debate was the first time Obama was given tough questions to get to the real individual running for the presidency. Obama has been hiding behind the big crowds at his rallies, given low ball questions at the previous debates, and was "allowed" to "parrot" Hillary Clinton's answers in those debates. I think the fact that he did not anticipate the questions or had prepared answers showed real weakness and will be troubling for Superdelegates. If he complains now about questions in a debate, how in the world is he going to withstand the Republican attacks? I don't think Obama can withstand tough political punches like Hillary Clinton. He has a glass chin (to use a boxing analogy), and will suffer a TKO if he becomes the nominee. When he says Hillary Clinton was whining in previous debates, does he and his campaign stop to think that maybe people, especially men, expect women to "whine" but men do, they are perceived as weak?
The backlash from Obama supporters in the media and the public at large, even a rapper of all people, is totally ridiculous and inappropriate. If Obama had an issue with the questions, why didn't he push back against it like Hillary Clinton did in a previous debate? Instead he got angry, because he fumbled his answers because he was not being transparent. I felt that the debate was the first time Obama was given tough questions to get to the real individual running for the presidency. Obama has been hiding behind the big crowds at his rallies, given low ball questions at the previous debates, and was "allowed" to "parrot" Hillary Clinton's answers in those debates. I think the fact that he did not anticipate the questions or had prepared answers showed real weakness and will be troubling for Superdelegates. If he complains now about questions in a debate, how in the world is he going to withstand the Republican attacks? I don't think Obama can withstand tough political punches like Hillary Clinton. He has a glass chin (to use a boxing analogy), and will suffer a TKO if he becomes the nominee. When he says Hillary Clinton was whining in previous debates, does he and his campaign stop to think that maybe people, especially men, expect women to "whine" but men do, they are perceived as weak?
Tortured Explanations
When Barack Obama's "Bitter" comments were revealed, his supporters immediately rushed to his defense, claiming his comments were the "truth." In fact, Obama refused to back down from his comments, claiming exactly that. Then, he revised his comments, claiming he "used the wrong words" but that the "sentiments" were correct. Then he claimed he put it inartfully, and then by Saturday afternoon he said "if anyone was offended by the remarks, he regretted it" He did not say he was sorry for the remarks. I thought this was striking and very revealing.
All along, Obama has been pounding Hillary Clinton for her Iraq vote, claiming she never acknowledged her mistake. Why did he not take his own advice and admit he made a mistake when he made his now famous "bitter" comments? I would suggest that perhaps he can't. Mr. Obama has never acknowledged or taken any responsibility for anything that has been unearthed about him, including the Rezko connection, Reverend Wright, his handwriting on a document in which he pledged to accept public financing. It is always someone else's fault and not his, or he has a "plausible" explanation for the predicaments in which he finds himself.
All along, Obama has been pounding Hillary Clinton for her Iraq vote, claiming she never acknowledged her mistake. Why did he not take his own advice and admit he made a mistake when he made his now famous "bitter" comments? I would suggest that perhaps he can't. Mr. Obama has never acknowledged or taken any responsibility for anything that has been unearthed about him, including the Rezko connection, Reverend Wright, his handwriting on a document in which he pledged to accept public financing. It is always someone else's fault and not his, or he has a "plausible" explanation for the predicaments in which he finds himself.
"Bitter" Pill To Swallow
Barack Obama has finally revealed his true colors; those that Hillary Clinton's supporters have always known: He says and behaves one way in public, but is another in private when there are no cameras or crowds within earshot. I have sensed, and have blogged about his arrogance and condescension going back months to Iowa and New Hampshire. Comments such as "you can be one of my advisers" and "you're likable enough, Hillary" were clear indications, at least to me, that he was condescending and patronizing. I felt at the time, despite the pundits' claims, that Hillary won New Hampshire not because she "choked up" but primarily because women were turned off by his egotistical remarks. He thought he had the nomination locked up after his win in Iowa and was not magnanimous in victory. Frankly, I thought he was gloating and was quite boastful.
His recent revelations about what he "really" thinks about others who he thinks is beneath him, is only surprising to those in the media, but not me. I sensed this about him from the jump. He often speaks with contempt when he is questioned or pushed to give specifics about what he intends to do beyond his campaign rhetoric. When he uses the word "notion" he seems to be saying "how dare you question me." I believe what one says when they are in "private" is revelatory. It is often in these unscripted moments that you discover the true character of an individual. I was not surprised when I heard his comments that was surreptitiously recorded in San Francisco because I has been quite furious at the media for not looking at him closely enough, not reporting on facts that myself and other supporters of Hillary Clinton had uncovered, including the separatist agenda of his church while he was claiming to be a uniter. His connection to Rezko, William Ayers, and Auchi were also issues I/we felt the media was irresponsible in not reporting. Obama's assessment that small town people were "bitter" and "clinging" to their faith, guns, and harboring antipathy towards immigrants, trade, and people that were "not like them" revealed the condescension and patronizing language that I believe is part of the "real" Barack Obama. Why the media has not explored it is, I think, self-explanatory. They had already "decided" that there was not going to be any negative reporting about Obama. I was so frustrated with the likes of MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and to a lesser degree, ABC that I started watching FOX! Why did I do that? Because it was the only way I was going to hear what I knew to be issues of concern for me about Obama that was not being covered by the other networks. The Reverend Wright issue or the 70s terrorist Williams Ayers would have never seen the light of day had it not been for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Time and time again, the main stream media has buried stories that were negative to Obama. Notable was the story about Obama's votes in the Illinois State Senate (130 present), p[articularly the 6 votes he changed, claiming he pushed the wrong button. He was never asked tough questions aabout why he changed those votes. His "explanation" was simply accepted without question, as were his explanations about his 20 years in his church and what he knew and when he knew it about the incindiary comments of his pastor.
His recent revelations about what he "really" thinks about others who he thinks is beneath him, is only surprising to those in the media, but not me. I sensed this about him from the jump. He often speaks with contempt when he is questioned or pushed to give specifics about what he intends to do beyond his campaign rhetoric. When he uses the word "notion" he seems to be saying "how dare you question me." I believe what one says when they are in "private" is revelatory. It is often in these unscripted moments that you discover the true character of an individual. I was not surprised when I heard his comments that was surreptitiously recorded in San Francisco because I has been quite furious at the media for not looking at him closely enough, not reporting on facts that myself and other supporters of Hillary Clinton had uncovered, including the separatist agenda of his church while he was claiming to be a uniter. His connection to Rezko, William Ayers, and Auchi were also issues I/we felt the media was irresponsible in not reporting. Obama's assessment that small town people were "bitter" and "clinging" to their faith, guns, and harboring antipathy towards immigrants, trade, and people that were "not like them" revealed the condescension and patronizing language that I believe is part of the "real" Barack Obama. Why the media has not explored it is, I think, self-explanatory. They had already "decided" that there was not going to be any negative reporting about Obama. I was so frustrated with the likes of MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and to a lesser degree, ABC that I started watching FOX! Why did I do that? Because it was the only way I was going to hear what I knew to be issues of concern for me about Obama that was not being covered by the other networks. The Reverend Wright issue or the 70s terrorist Williams Ayers would have never seen the light of day had it not been for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Time and time again, the main stream media has buried stories that were negative to Obama. Notable was the story about Obama's votes in the Illinois State Senate (130 present), p[articularly the 6 votes he changed, claiming he pushed the wrong button. He was never asked tough questions aabout why he changed those votes. His "explanation" was simply accepted without question, as were his explanations about his 20 years in his church and what he knew and when he knew it about the incindiary comments of his pastor.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Michelle Obama"s Thesis: Princeton Tried To Restrict Access
I'll make comment later after I read the entire thing
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
By the way, she is on one of the videos!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
By the way, she is on one of the videos!
Payback is Sweet!
Obama's supporters are learning a hard truth. The talk about unity and Hope is a load of crap. As they would say back home, the man is a "ginnal," a "trickster", a "bandulu." Did they "really" buy into the lies he has been telling them: I'm a n"new" politician? Wake up idiots! You are "finally seeing him for what he is, an opportunist. These idiots deserve exactly what they are getting! They have been conned, used up, and discarded like garbage!
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/850853.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_8878207
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_marcy_wi_080410_obama_delegate_purge.htm
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/850853.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_8878207
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_marcy_wi_080410_obama_delegate_purge.htm
Republicans Switching Party To Vote Democratic
What is really behind the recent phenomenon of Republicans switching party to vote in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses? Are they doing doing this because they are disenchanted with the Republican Party or are they being mischievous. It somehow does not feel right that the Elections Laws are so broad that a people can switch parties for the sole purpose of undermining a candidate (Hillary) or party (Democratic) because people want to create mayhem, then switch back the very next day to ensure they are again Republicans come November, thereby giving John McCain an unfair advantage in the General Election.
We really have to examine the motives of these "College Kids" who are running around the country fawning all over Obama who "convinces" their parents to vote for Obama, then say its okay for their parents to revert to Republicanism. Do they 1) Understand that this is illegal 2) realize that this might result in the wrong person getting the nomination 3) Care that it puts the Democrats at a disadvantage the longer the primary process drags on and 4) One has to wonder whether they would actually turn out and vote this time. So far, all the talk about the turnout of young voters has been just that, talk and no action. Let's see if the put their pens where their mouths are.
We really have to examine the motives of these "College Kids" who are running around the country fawning all over Obama who "convinces" their parents to vote for Obama, then say its okay for their parents to revert to Republicanism. Do they 1) Understand that this is illegal 2) realize that this might result in the wrong person getting the nomination 3) Care that it puts the Democrats at a disadvantage the longer the primary process drags on and 4) One has to wonder whether they would actually turn out and vote this time. So far, all the talk about the turnout of young voters has been just that, talk and no action. Let's see if the put their pens where their mouths are.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
More White People Needed: Divisiveness is the Norm
How utterly divisive is this?!! The Obama Campaign has no shame and will exploit anyone to get the Democratic nomination.
.http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/09/obama_wants_more_white_people
.http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/09/obama_wants_more_white_people
Obama Supporters are Tring to Short-Circuit the Electoral Process
Well, surprise , surprise! Barack Obama and his scurrilous supporters are trying to short circuit the electoral process to get him the nomination. Once again, they are using mob tactics to intimidate Superdelegates into supporting him, effectively knocking Hillary Clinton out of the race. It says something about him that he is ruthless enough to resort to these tactics to win. It also shows that he cares nothing about the rights of voters. Barack Obama is interested in one thing: Being President and becoming powerful. The American people be damned! My dislike for Obama at this point is so intense, I really don't care if the Republicans win again.
For the record, if he manages to become President, the Democratic Party will lose thousands of loyal supporters, including me. African Americans will be shocked when they discover, too late, that he will do squat for them. Won't that be a rude awakening for them!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-08-obama-superdelegates_N.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/clinton-blasts-media-doub_n_95723.html
NPR's website.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-treuting/hillarys-superdelegates-t_b_94907.html
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2008/04/08/Opinions/Should.Rodham.Clinton.Cede.Democratic.Primary.To.Obama-3308782.shtml
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/bill_clinton_michell_obama_tel.html
Reverend Wright?Obama Articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/does-obama-transcend-race_b_95898.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/to-get-elected-obama-must_b_95816.html
http://media.www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/storage/paper673/news/2008/04/09/Discourse/Obamas.Pastor.Fueling.The.Fires.Of.Hate-3312463.shtml
http://globalpolitician.com/24467-elections-obama-mccain
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/09/obama_wants_more_white_people
For the record, if he manages to become President, the Democratic Party will lose thousands of loyal supporters, including me. African Americans will be shocked when they discover, too late, that he will do squat for them. Won't that be a rude awakening for them!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-08-obama-superdelegates_N.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/clinton-blasts-media-doub_n_95723.html
NPR's website.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-treuting/hillarys-superdelegates-t_b_94907.html
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2008/04/08/Opinions/Should.Rodham.Clinton.Cede.Democratic.Primary.To.Obama-3308782.shtml
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/bill_clinton_michell_obama_tel.html
Reverend Wright?Obama Articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/does-obama-transcend-race_b_95898.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/to-get-elected-obama-must_b_95816.html
http://media.www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/storage/paper673/news/2008/04/09/Discourse/Obamas.Pastor.Fueling.The.Fires.Of.Hate-3312463.shtml
http://globalpolitician.com/24467-elections-obama-mccain
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/09/obama_wants_more_white_people
Monday, April 7, 2008
Nader's Real Objective in Running Again
I despise Nader...
I think his desire to run for President is driven by own ambitions and his hatred for the two major political parties. It has nothing to do with the American people. He cannot win, so why enter the race at the expense of the American People? Is he really that Narcissistic? I think he is.
Nader's run would siphon off votes from the Democrats, and quite possibly, hand the victory to the Republicans, again. And you know what, Ralph Nader does not care. He would rather have the Republicans win than the Democrats, in my opinion. Everything he has said and done since 2000 has been angry and unapologetic, even though his actions saddled us with 8 years of Bush.
Nader ran again in 2004 and received less than 1% of the vote. That is not viability. He has painted the Democrats and Republicans with the same brush, declaring that they are no different from each other. I KNOW that is false and self-serving on Nader's part, used in his vain attempt to justify the misery he has wrought onto the American people. There are huge philosophical differences between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to governance, priorities, policies, approach to problem-solving etc. Nader's anger is so palpable that he will stop at nothing to stick it to the Democrats, even if it means another 4 years of the Republicans. No Democrat would even contemplate for a millimeter of a second, even giving Nader a thought when considering a running mate.
I think his desire to run for President is driven by own ambitions and his hatred for the two major political parties. It has nothing to do with the American people. He cannot win, so why enter the race at the expense of the American People? Is he really that Narcissistic? I think he is.
Nader's run would siphon off votes from the Democrats, and quite possibly, hand the victory to the Republicans, again. And you know what, Ralph Nader does not care. He would rather have the Republicans win than the Democrats, in my opinion. Everything he has said and done since 2000 has been angry and unapologetic, even though his actions saddled us with 8 years of Bush.
Nader ran again in 2004 and received less than 1% of the vote. That is not viability. He has painted the Democrats and Republicans with the same brush, declaring that they are no different from each other. I KNOW that is false and self-serving on Nader's part, used in his vain attempt to justify the misery he has wrought onto the American people. There are huge philosophical differences between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to governance, priorities, policies, approach to problem-solving etc. Nader's anger is so palpable that he will stop at nothing to stick it to the Democrats, even if it means another 4 years of the Republicans. No Democrat would even contemplate for a millimeter of a second, even giving Nader a thought when considering a running mate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)