Microtrends vs Macrotrends: Why Obama is Winning
CHICAGO -- Should Barack Obama end up winning his party's nomination, he will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 -- 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
If this moment happens, it will be because of what Sir Martin Sorrell (CEO of the conglomerate WPP, which includes among its many companies Mark Penn's Burson-Marsteller) said. "Mark Penn," he told me the other night in Los Angeles, "literally wrote the book on microtrends, but this election is about a macrotrend."
Penn and the Clintons set about slicing up the electorate into the "small forces behind tomorrow's big changes" that Penn described in his 2007 book Microtrends. They then devised policies and personas to try to appeal to each one -- only to watch dumbfounded as their microtrend sandcastles were washed away by the macrotrend tidal wave of the Obama campaign.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign model," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist told me this morning in Chicago, "is a very tired Washington model: 'I'll do these things for you.' Barack's model is 'Let's do these things together.' This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer. He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically.
"Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."
The microtrend vs macrotrend dynamic reminds me of Isaiah Berlin's division of mankind into hedgehogs and foxes. He took his imagery from a line in an ancient Greek poem by Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
According to Berlin, the fox will "pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way." This stands in sharp contrast to the hedgehog's "all embracing...unitary inner vision."
Based on the way the '08 campaign has played out, Democratic voters are showing signs of deep fox fatigue -- sick and tired of foxy triangulating, foxy slicing-and-dicing of the message, and foxy shifts in presentation. Voters want real change -- not daily changes in approach and messaging.
It's too early to sign the death certificate, but should the Clinton campaign end up in need of an epitaph, it won't need to look further than Penn's book. "Small is the new big," he wrote. "Many of the biggest movements in America today are small."
Except when they are very big, and getting bigger by the day. And you've missed them.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a woman, I have "lived and breathed" discrimination as well, throughout my life. It started when I was born, when I was led to believe that my main goal in life was to get married and please my husband, no matter what, if I ever expect to be happy.
Despite efforts by society to dictate my fate, I traveled a different road and opted to have a career. Of course, during that career as a journalist, I earned 40 percent less income than all the men in the newsroom, most of whom had less education and less experience.
Today, women earn 25 percent less than a man in the same job on average in America. Yet, if you so much as talk about the gender inequality in American, you are deemed a flaming feminist, one who is probably fat and gay. I'm neither.
I noticed the other night at the academy awards, that not a single woman has ever been nominated to win in the category of Producer. I wasn't surprised.
Sexism abounds in every nook and cranny of this nation, which is why women are just plain stupid if they don't crawl to the voting booth and vote for Hillary, a strong, intelligent warrior for every man, woman and child in this nation.
The sexims displayed by members of the left and the right these days make me extremely angry. I expected to see it on the right, but I never dreamed it was so rampant on the left as well. This isn't a race about the issues anymore---it's simply another assault against women. And it's yet to be determined if we will allow our sisters to be second-class citizens for another century or two by voting for Obama, a man of Muslim heritage who can't hold a candle to Hillary. .
And if you don't believe women are victims in America, you are blind.
America has the highest incident of rape than any other country. Google it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm voting for Hillary not just because she's a woman----I just shamelessly want her to win because she's a woman. Obama sucks.
If you are paid less because you are a woman why would i accept it? The EEOC is for everyone.
Please tell me about woman being discriminated on in terms of salary in which Industry? please tell me I am waiting ...
According to the Census Bureau, women in America earn 25 percent less income than a man on average in every single profession. That's a fact.
America has the highest incident of rape than any other country in the world. Google it. That too is truth.
Go Hillary.
"This isn't a race about the issues anymore---it's simply another assault against women." Oh, please. This worn-out whine is not helping your candidate's credibility or your own. And the cheap shot about Obama's "Muslim heritage" is shameful.
Why is it shameful to point out that obama's dad, grand dad and step dad were all muslims? Is he ashamed of his heritage? Is he ashamed of his middle name? Why? What is he so afraid of?
"I want her to win because she is a woman?" Certainly a crappy reason to vote for anyone. I am guessing you don't want men to vote for a man because he is a man. Crappy reason also. You vote, if you are intelligent, for the person you think would be the best for the country. I certainly welcome reasons to vote for a candidate that are relevent to the job, but because one candidate has one sort of sexual organs as opposed to another sort is a dumb arguement. Positions matter.
What has the candidate done, what will the candidate do in the future, can a candidate learn from mistakes and not repeat them. Can a candidate say I made a mistake? The current occupant in the white house cannot.
I am sorry you were raised in the sort of home you were but that is not the experience of all women. Yes women have been discriminated against, so have lots of people. Being a victim of injustice is not a reason to get a specific job. To be honest if this is the best argument you have it isn't much of one.
Arianna, I have lost all respect for you. Not because I disagree with your opinion, but because you don't have the courage to come out and formally endorse Obama. Instead you pretend to be objective and it is offensive.
well, we used to call the trend intersecting with time a Nexus for a quantum change. Obama seems to be the catalyst.
Obama didn't win California or New York.
So how, with 100 delegate advantage over Clinton, is Obama so conclusively winning?
Only because Arianna Huffington says so. To hell with what the voters decide. Believe the spinning media.
Hillary lost in 8 states, Obama has so far won in 26. Dont you see a difference in why the delegate advantage would go to Obama?
I believe in a fair fight, so one must call a win a "win". I would think Ariana is just reporting the facts. I sense no bias!
www.vernas
don't forget the orphan delegates of michigan and florida. like other delegates, they were given life by legitimate elections. do you pretend that obama can win the united states without michigan and florida's support?
That is because California, New York and New Jersey have the ultra-rich. For them Clinton keeps the statusquo in place, so they can on theiving the ordinary people ...
That is part of Clintons problem. She has only run in the big states. In Washington state she basically stiffed us, she showed up once and fielded no organization at all. At my caucus there were Obama people working to get votes. They haded out position checklists, the handed out buttons, stickers, they actually vied for our vote. Clinton's people didn't bother to show up. Clinton's campaign said effectively "Only the big states matter we don't give a damn about getting votes in the little states". Lots of people in those little states. People who do not feel that their vote is less important than the voters in the big states. But Clinton does. So what that California and New York voted for Clinton. They do not constitute a majority. A candidate who stiffs the little states is saying that some are more important to listen to. I DO NOT WANT A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY LISTENS TO THE BIG STATES. I want a president that listens to Americans in all places, of all genders, and of all political stripes.
you're lucky you are not a democrat in florida or michigan. AND WE ARE BIG STATES!
WHY ?? BECAUSE the media has already declared OBAMA the winner just like YOU have before it was even half over . !!! That's one way they steer the public.
Those sexist remarks towards Hillary from the MEDIA shows women still haven't achieved enough respect in this country. The MEDIA doesn't DARE say anything negative about Obama--haven't you noticed ? The blacks are behind OBAMA but you don't see that same kind of support for Hillary coming from women.
It took women 50 years to get the right to vote after the blacks won the right to vote and some women actually approved of it.
The preacher-like emotional speeches that Obama gives enrapture the idiot voters. . But if Hillary did this she would be ridiculed.
You got it. Watching Tim Russert in the last debate, with the tremor in his voice, cheeks flaming red, stuttering on his ridiculous questions to Hillary Clinton, you could feel the resentment and anger he had at her. Disgusting. Why does he (and other members of the media) hate her? Because she calls them on their shit. At the end of the debate when they asked the final question, Hillary nailed the problem with the whole debate process-No one wanted to discuss the real world crisis that exists today, and how the next President is going to handle that. All of the debates were failures on every level that matters. Journalists suck ass- and are not doing the American people any kind of service what-so-ever to honestly inform in today's world. It's all gross manipulation.
Why people hate Hillary? Because her judgment is flawed. And this doesn't have anything to do with her sex. She is failing because Barack is better candidate, more credible, better speaker, and tap into core of the American people. She should loose. Because she should take full respondsibility for 4,000 soliders and 600,000 Iraqis deaths. Now you continue to blame the media and continue to claim "world crisis" rhetoric, but this is microtrend thinking.
Ridiculous? How about the pressing of Obama on Farakkan? Did he press Clinton on An Coulter? The media is ridiculous in both directions; the only bias is that you tend to notice it when your candidate is on the receiving end.
Damn I'm getting tired of the whining from people like you that it's the media's fault Hillary's not doing well. Do you have such a short memory that you've forgotten when the media was crowning Hillary as the ineveitable winner when this contest started? She's losing it on her own.
I'm also damn sick and tired of being calledf an idiot by Hillary supporters like you. I'm a 62 year old long time Democrat who's read thousands of books on history and politics,. My significant other is a feminist going back to the 60s. She can't stand Hillary. We are not a bunch of sheep and your comments are insulting. People like you have done more to damage Hillary than the Republicans have.
Hello, Eoin45...
Was your previous comment intended for me? If so, I sincerely apologize for offending you...
However, I must respectfully disagree with your previous assertion that the "media" hasn't had any impact on the outcome of this Democratic primary. ...Surely, you can set aside your bitterness for a moment, and try to OBJECTIVELY review the "media's" coverga eof the primary for the past 6 MONTHS.
Clearly, NO RATIONAL person ignore the shamless, sleazy, "tabloid like" "Clinton bashing" that EVERYONE has recognized - except the guilty, of course...
To that end, please review the sections below for more details:
1. Sunday 02nd of March 2008 - San Francisco Sentinel:
MEDIA BIAS FAVORS OBAMA, WALTER SHORENSTEIN ASSERTS - Founder of prestigious Harvard Media Center; http://www
"The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.
Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party “superdelegates” and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign."
Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday’s key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.
The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama’s victories in the last 11 voting contests. They’ve encouraged supporters and voters to watch a “Saturday Night Live” skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.
Clinton appeared on this week’s “SNL” to praise a similar sketch that parodied the media’s treatment of her and her rival.
In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign’s assessment.
“I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign,” Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. “This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!’”
He was quoting the 1976 movie “Network,” in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.
“There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary’s hairdo or Barack’s baritone,” Shorenstein continued. “Is it in the country’s best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary’s laugh than Obama’s legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?”
Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.
“Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation,” Shorenstein wrote. “Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless.”
...PLEASE - Set aside your hatred, and open up your mind...
If Hillary could do it she would, but she can't!
so sad to see the blaming and finger pointing already. When you have to lash out to find someone to blame it is a sign of a failed campaign. A campaign that will have to look inwards to identify the cause of it's failures. "Whoa is me the media doesn't like me" is not a winning message.
"It took women 50 years to get the right to vote after the blacks won the right to vote and some women actually approved of it."
I agree with you. Those white women had to endure 400 years of slavery too. Think of all those white women hanging from trees. It was terrible the way they turned the dogs loose on those white women. God, this is so friggin ridiculous.
The macrotrend here is apparent to all that see themselves as part of the national community and not part of some subgroup. This seems to go to the core of the difference I see between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. I hear Clinton people talk about " The Issues". This is code for saying what she will do for me. In James Madisons Federalist paper #10 he warns of the danger of factions infringing on the civil liberties of others. Nothing could be more relevant to our recent history. The damage that has been done to the fabric of our society by politicians and special interests pitting factions against one another is self evident. Micro-trending is just the old tricks with a new label. Obamas supporters have rejected these old politics while Hillarys campaign has embraced them whole heartedly. I would respectfully suggest that everyone read this 200 year old document and marvel at its contemporary relevance. As a PoliSci undergrad 20 years ago I was fortunate to have an incredible professor who believed this to be one of the most important documents to understanding the peril that free nations must overcome. Here is the wiki link.
http://en.
Odd that Obama has won in sooo many Red states...R
word has it that many republicans have been voting Obama in- when it comes to the red states.
they could all turn around & vote with their party come november..
It is all too bizarre. Lots of these votes could evaporate when it comes to the Actual election.
Something just feels bizarre with all the spin.
I think you may be onto something here. I have heard over the weeks of the election, people saying they are republicans say they like Obama. The campaign insider with McCalin says he will not be with McCain's campaign if Obama is the opposing candidate. I find that very hard to believe.
None of the Republicans that say they want Obama give any reason other than they don't want Hillary Clinton. Now does that make any sense at all on the face of it. Is Obama really more acceptable to these GW Bush supporters? I doubt it, it just doesn't computer. Something smells pretty rishy here.
Very fishy, indeed. Republicans and Independants actually voting as Americans?!? A young, charismatic candidate not beholden to special interests or longing to revive (and this time win, dammit) the partisan wars of the last two decades is talking about and actually bringing the country together?!? And the press actually thinks this is a good thing?!?
Apparently, posters on this blog, Marc Penn and Howard Wolfson (not to mention HRC herself) are among the last to get this.
Obama '08
Do your own analysis and maybe you'll agree with mine: checkout the vote totals for the Dems vs the Repubs in the caucuses and primaries to date. The Dems are coming out in droves, sometimes 12 times more coming out to vote while Repubs are staying home.
That's why you might think Red states have suddenly become Dem majorities. In most primaries, you can only vote for the party you're affiliated with. Wisconsin was an open primary, meaning registered Republicans could vote for Obama, and they did by a very large margin. In no way should McCain call that a victory. In closed primaries, I think the Republicans are so fed up with their party's candidate that they are using their votes to spite RNC leadership: they're voting for the repub candidate that they want to see lose so badly in November.
If it's McCain vs. Obama they will vote overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. It will send a clear, unmistakeable messages to the RNC: get real!
I agree with these two posts.I beleive this is Karl Roves plan to hold on to the presidency
Nonsense. Proof of any of your assertions?
Hello, Eoin45...
Here's your proof....O
MSNBC.com - Posted February 28th, 2008:
"Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama - True support combines with stop-Clinton sentiment in next week’s primary", by Alex Johnson
http://www
So, if we assume that this is an accurate report, it seems that Texas Republicans would stoop to any level to defeat Hillary Clinton...
"Stop-Clinton movement takes root":
“Obamacans,” as the campaign likes to call its Republican supporters, offer a variety of reasons for turning out for Obama, not the least of them a lack of interest in the Republican primary now that Sen. John McCain of Arizona has all but wrapped up his party’s nomination. Others say they genuinely think Obama is the best candidate for change.
But a significant proportion say they are temporarily backing Obama for strategic reasons. They plan to vote Republican in November, but for now, their goal is to try to make sure Clinton cannot win. .."
Yvette
i remember in the mid '90's my relatives spouting all sorts of anti hillary crap and blaming their problems on her. while it IS true that the hillary haters will be out to vote against her if she becomes the nominee, it is also true that a barack-mccain supporter may easily choose to vote republican in november. what we need to do is increase the number of people who want a democrat in office after the election. and we need a good on the ground campaign to register voters now and get them to the polls in november.
Yes, a weird vibe! It's like this is a play--someone knows how it ends. Like "The Truman Show" or something. I have the uneasiest feeling.
"word has it" any other made up bs you want to spread?
HuffPost's Pick
Arianna,
There are two macrotrends this year. One is the rejection of most of the conservative Republican program. The other is the sweeping feeling that we need both a generational change of leadership and a change of the tone of political discourse. The incoming tide of the first trend works in favor of almost any Democrat, but the second trend has become a tidal wave built on top of the incoming tide and Obama is the master surfer.
Both trends were visible in my precinct caucus on February 9. Although both senators Obama and Clinton were running TV ads in Washington state and both made brief campaign stops in Seattle, there was no visible campaign across the sound, where I live. I received no phone calls from either camp, and as a core Democrat -- even serving as precinct committee chair in 2004 -- my phone number is certainly on many Democratic voter lists. Having made a small donation to the Obama campaign I did get a few emails from them, but that was it.
In spite of many Democrats here still not realizing that only the caucus counted -- we also have a primary -- the turnout for my precinct was over four times what it had been in 2004. Other than for a community meeting about ferry service or ferry fares I haven't seen this many Kingstonians at any meeting. This first macrotrend alone would have served Senator Clinton well -- there were more Clinton supporters at the caucus than the total number at the 2004 caucus. But they were overwhelmed by the Obama tidal wave, three to one. And in spite of what I'd heard from the press, that the Obama wave was being pushed mostly by African-Americans and college students, the supporters of both senators in my precinct were pretty much a cross section of Kingston. There was not a single African-American there (not very many in central Kingston, the area included in the precinct). A few youngsters (for both candidates) who barely would qualify to vote (18 by election day in November), but mostly a cross section of the ages you would see in town or on the ferry.
After the precinct committee chair figured out how many delegates to the county convention each side got (eight for Obama, three for Clinton, one for uncommitted), we actually had a competitive election among the Obama group to select the delegates! Four years ago when I chaired the precinct it took a bit of arm twisting to get enough of the caucus-goers to be delegates.
KST
Kingston, Washington
Hillary's biggest problems are her lack of integrity and sound judgment.
Another error in judgment by Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons have a history of not taking sexual harassment seriously
now this.
From NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestion
In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
(Full Story below)
http://fir
This is propaganda pure and simple.
Arianna, you make a good argument here. However, I think there are more complex dynamics at work during this presidential campaign than what you've presented. For starters, here's one from today's L.A. Times. At first, I thought it was written by your own, Sam Stein:
http://www
Obama is an attractive candidate, but one of the reasons Obama is winning is because we are not asking him the tough questions to fill in the blanks.
Don't you think her touting her age and dubious experience over his youth and obvious capability is a bit like her calling her 'boy' though?
Hey, Wagadaog..
Sinc e when does asking the Democratic voters to compare years of experience & record of public service equate to Clinton calling Obama "boy"???
I'm a Prinecton educated, black woman (from the "south"), who is TIRED of hearing other blacks insinuate that EVERY question or comment that the Clinton camp raises regarding Obama's qualifications has racial undertones
PLEASE - Let's grow up, and start examining issues WITHOUT constantly injecting the subterfuge of race!!!
Yvette
Personally, I'm tired of the mantra that people supporting Obama are in love with an image and looking past substance. If anything, this is true of Clinton supporters who see a face from a "happier time" and look past the long litany of scandals and indiscretions linked to the Clinton name. This is not just about an ill-advised liaison, this is about a passive-aggressive strategy that alternately plays victim-aggressor to keep the Clintons on top. Finally, however, we have a candidate for whom the use of "we" refers to the American people without the sense that this is a platitude.
Obama gets many "tough" questions.
Try this fun little game: the next time Sens. Clinton and Obama face off, count the number of personal barb, oh-no-you-di'nt (snap) lines each candidate delivers. First, you'll notice that nearly all come from Hillary. Second, you'll notice they come when she no longer feels comfortable and in control. All of which brings back memories for me...which is why I'm voting for Obama.
This is right on the money.This was plain to see at the last debate.Sen
Yassou Arianna!
Where are you when we need you? Rachel Skalar(sp?) was on MSNBC this evening and it was embarrassing to watch her. I'm sure she's a lovely person, but not ready for prine time....sh
I like Obama, though I'm barely paying attention to the details. He is an idealist we all want to support and I think he can win the democratic nomination. However in order to become president and function successfully you have to be able to compromise to push your agenda; each compromise being at the micro-level. Obama functions at the macro-level. For this reason I see Hillary as a politician and Obama as a community leader.
I'm grateful to politicians who compromise so I don't have to. When Obama switches into micromode I'm not sure he would succeed.
If I were to guess who would succeed against McCain and run a country successfully, I think that would be Hilary.
wrong
Sorry, but you are double wrong, I see you have no "real" understanding of the political process here. Obama surpasses Hilary in leadership, presentation skills and temperament. Obama is a good negotiator
I understand your position, he's very attractive. However we haven't had the acrimony that will happen when the nominees are finalized into candidates. I hope to be proven wrong.
I see Senator Clinton as President and Obama as a community organizer,
ghina:
In looking at what Obama has really accomplished as a community leader, I can't see that he merits that position either. He did a lot of talking but when he remained silent while the sick and poor were thrown into the street - both with his friend Resko and then with his wife's hospital (where the uninsured and poor were charged 3x's the norm - and then sued and left in the street to rot..
Well what can one say. He seems to talk a lot, but does very little.
I don't care Hillary or Obama. I will never ever vote for a Republican, after Ronald Regan ruined the middle class in favor of his rich cronies and sold us down the river. I can't say that I am that excited about Hillary (slimey) at least Obama offers the ability to speak English, shows signs of some common sense.
I think that the country is headed for bigger problems unless we the people decide that we are not going to buy what Washington/Wall Street and Madison Avenue have been selling us.
"at least Obama offers the ability to speak English, shows signs of some common sense."
What is THAT all about? Hillary, while not the speaker Barack is, has a very good handle on English to my ear. But since you bring up the issue, I tried to count in the last two debates the number of times Barack said "UH"....- FYI; I lost count . Now I think your argument is silly, but if you really want to go there, Obama stumbles alot when he isnt reading someone else's speech from a teleprompt
So fricking what, BardEric?? Real people say "uh." Where's the mystery, much less the fault?
Yes, Hillary Clinton has trained herself not to say "uh," but if you pay attention, she's simply replaced it with her patented "pregnant pause;" to such an extent that it's become her trademark. Hillary-mimics don't even need to get her voice right. They just break up their sentences with one-to-two-second silences, and everyone knows it's HRC.
Try counting Hillary's stoppages next time. You'll have to get a new abacus.
-----
Kill your tv, and free your mind.
sorry was referring to GW.
Am re-watching the last debate right now. I got so sick of watching Barack look down, blink & say ahhh, uhh, so many times I lost count. He seems to pick up on Hillary's words, them make them his own. Including the CHANGE message. I've been watching this happen from the 1st debates when she was attcked by most of the others constantly. I'm sick of watching her get bashed. I, personally have gone through this myself many times. I knew more and did more than any of my male counterparts, but they ended up with more money, plus I got bashed daily. Funny how my questions are never brought up........
Star2000..
I agree. all he does is mimic HIllary and then try to steal her issues and use them as his own. He has repeated everything she has said in EVERY debate.
Now he's even running his ads touting universal health care as his own.
Is the public deaf dumb and blind?
Heck he even stole her last ad on TV. I mean what on earth is he going to do against McCain? Will he agree with everything McCain says?
What the hell are you talking about?Are you saying that Senator Clinton dosent speak english???You have some major problems.O
Hillary Clinton indeed is getting more tedious as the weeks go by, and many people I talk to who favored her months ago are now bored silly and annoyed she is getting petty in her attitude toward Obama.
Garveigh:
I disagree. I think people are starting to get bored when Obama tries to discuss issues. Once he's run out of Hillary's ideas, he starts to ramble and stumble and talks a lot of gibberish - that's forgotten as soon as he's said it. The only thing I can remember coming out of his mouth (that's not Hillary's) is change and hope. After that there's just a great big void of nothingness.
His latest catch phrase is judgment. What judgment - other than he opposed the war. Now what else? Can anyone tell me... again I'd like something he didn't steal from Hillary, please.
That isn't going to happen. He even stole her latest ad . It would be interesting if he could come up with just 1 thing on his own.
Microtrend, Macrotrend, trendtrend. Who cares? These guys don't know what the electorate wants. They try to use scientific methods for something that is so unscientific: public opinion and public interests. We are not predictable!!!! So don't pretend to try! I think Obama is inspiring young people and older, seasoned uninvolved voters because he is not talking the same old party poop. I want to help him. He has inspired me to try to help him as best as I can. I bet he has done that to millions of other people. Hillary doesn't really inspire me to give her my vote much less help her help us! I don't trust her because I see the major contributors to her campaign and she is in the pockets of the very people who have messed up Washington. If her "judgement" and "experience" is so great how come see is still listening to Mark Penn and that silly bunch of people????
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
