Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination has been settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's worth looking systematically at the major factors that gave victory to Obama. After all, fifteen months ago, conventional wisdom viewed Obama as an audacious long shot. The very idea of a first-term African American senator with a name like Barack Obama defeating the vaunted Clinton machine seemed preposterous.
Here are my Top Ten reasons why lightning struck in the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination (apologies to David Letterman ):
#10. Great Team. Obama assembled a great team that could work together. He stayed away from lobbyist insiders like Clinton's Mark Penn or McCain's Charlie Black, and choose political professionals who are committed to progressive values like David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes. From the first he insisted on one key rule: no drama. There was little of the infighting and division in the Obama operation that ate away at the Clinton campaign. Clinton had many capable staffers and consultants, but Penn's divisive leadership style and failures as a strategist doomed the campaign organization to dysfunction. When the brilliant Geoff Garin was tapped to succeed Penn as Chief Strategist in April, it was simply too late.
#9. All-State Strategy. Mark Penn was convinced that Clinton could sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday focusing only on the big states. In fact, some have reported that he mistakenly believed that California had a "winner take all" primary. Obama's team hunted for delegates in every nook and cranny of America - especially in the caucus states that Clinton really didn't contest. Obama ran an active, on-the-ground campaign in every contest, from California to Guam. As a consequence, as one anonymous Clinton insider reports, Clinton lost the nomination in February after Obama ran the table in 11 straight states.
#8. No Plan B. The Clinton campaign had no fall-back plan when it failed to capture the nomination on February 5. There was no money, no organization and no plan to contest the states that lie in the land beyond Super Tuesday.
#7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field. Obama ran the best field operation in American political history -- particularly in the all important Iowa Caucuses. His campaign left no stone unturned, or a vote on the table, in any state. It opened offices everywhere, hired and trained great staff, and managed through simple, streamlined structures. It would have been easy for Obama to squander the massive influx of volunteers who were mobilized through his inspirational message. But the campaign developed structures to integrate and effectively use volunteers, both on the ground and through the Internet. In particular, it developed highly sophisticated new Internet tools to allow volunteers around the country to participate meaningfully in voter ID and get out the vote operations.
#6. Explosive Obama Fundraising. Obama's ability to compete everywhere, to build great field structures and to out-communicate Clinton in the paid media rested squarely on the massive fundraising operation. Obama's traditional fundraising program ended up matching the vaunted Clinton fundraising machine. But the newly developed Internet operation provided a massive advantage. So far Obama has recruited over one-and-a-half-million donors. In other words, by the time the primary season ends, almost one of every ten Obama primary voters (so far there have been 16.3 million) will have made a financial contribution to his campaign. That is beyond unprecedented.
#5. Obama Out-Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message. Obama's message has been consistent from Day One. Clinton lurched from "experienced insider" to "populist outsider" from Margaret Thatcher-like "Iron Lady" to a "victim being bullied." And of course, Obama's huge small-donor-driven fundraising advantage gave him the ability to out-communicate her in the paid media - often by a factor of two-to-one.
#4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger. A core element of that Obama message has always been hope and inspiration. Early on, John Edwards hit an important cord of populist anger that is critical to any successful Democratic campaign. Right now especially, people want their leaders to be populist outsiders not "competent" insiders. But Edwards was unable to resolve that anger into hope. Obama touched the anger but also held out possibility. When Hillary "found her voice" as the fighting populist at the end of the campaign, she tapped into anger as well. She didn't hesitate to play the fear card -- both when it came to foreign policy, and by channeling the Republican frame that "elitist professional types" are trying to destroy your way of life. But she never managed to inspire and resolve that fear into hope.
Inspiration is the one political message that simultaneously persuades swing voters and motivates mobilizable voters who rarely come to the polls. The North Carolina landslide provided a striking example of how inspiration can generate massive mobilization at the same time it appeals to independent swing voters.
#3. Unity Trumped Division. Obama showed that appeals to division - whether from elements that stirred up fear that a "black candidate couldn't win" - or from his former pastor - could be overcome by America's overwhelming hunger for unity. Americans - and particularly young Americans - are sick of Republican appeals based on the things that divide us, particularly race. It isn't 1988 anymore. A whole generation has passed from the scene and been replaced by young people who simply don't get the passions that allowed the fear of "Willie Horton" to decide the 1988 presidential race.
#2. Change Trumped Experience. Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn's fundamental strategic error was to position Clinton as the "Experience" candidate, when America desperately wanted change. Eighty percent of the voters think America is on the wrong track. They want change in general - and most importantly, they want change in the way special interests dominate Washington. Mark Penn, the consummate lobbyist-insider himself embodied the very thing people believe is wrong in Washington. It's no wonder he made this catastrophic strategic blunder.
#1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate. Inspirational, articulate, brilliant, funny, attractive and naturally empathetic - his history as a community organizer, his experience abroad, his beautiful family, accomplished wife, and adorable kids: Obama is the kind of candidate any campaign manager would want in any year. But he is perfect for this year. While the Clintons represented the Bridge to the 21st Century, Obama is the 21st century. His own, multi-cultural story is the future of America. As the campaign tested him, he showed he was cool, deliberate and effective under fire.
In the end, people vote for people. Campaigns are ultimately about the qualities of candidates --about whether or not people want them to be their leaders. Potentially, Barack Obama could become an historic, transformational leader. But John McCain has many qualities that are attractive to swing voters as well. Nothing is preordained. Now it will be up to every Democrat, every Progressive, to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make Barack Obama the American President who leads the world into a new progressive era of unprecedented possibility.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com
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
I step on you, Alpha, and you are pushed beneath me, just as Hillary falls by the wayside, taking her place among history's biggest all-time chokers/tragic figures, the long forgotten Salieri to Obama's Mozart.
What an appropriate name, Creamer, for one who could pen such a pixillated paean to the bedazzling tingle-maker, His Inspirationness, The Obama. One almost expected to hear Obama's celestial choirs hallelujahing in the background as the passionate progressive prose flowed like holy water.
Well, not really, but such precious praise is way over the top. Creamer's song will be sadder in November, unless The Obama wises up and COAXES Clinton onto the ticket. He can't win, vaunted organization notwithstanding, without Clinton and her loyalist supporters.
Obama is God, isn't he?
How is a comment like that contributing to the discussion, hin?
Right. You might want to invest in a lot of whatever you are smoking. Clinton would be poison to Obama--not because she'd poison him to get the job (though some people would be afraid of that) but because she is the opposite of everything he stands for.
She represents old politics--say anything to get elected--schmooze with the fat cats--triangulate and compromise. She was for the war. She is thought of by 60% of DEMOCRATS as a liar. And she brings out Republicans and independents to vote against her. Not to mention that she's now explicitly running as the "white, hard-working people's" candidate.
Coax her? I don't think so. Find a nice challenger for her Senate seat next go-round? That's possible.
Ah, the attacks begin. Don't forget the race card, if you run out of insults. It's always a good last resort.
He needs her, but not on the ticket. I'd rather see him ask Bill.
Clinton will be nothing in the party - she will be sent packing with Bill to Siberia. Clinton's negatives are so high, she can't beat McCain in the fall anyway.
Whatever Obama might be, he is not a bald faced liar. Clinton's recollection of sniper fire in Bosnia proves that she is a liar or delusional. When one lies about something meaningless, what will she do when things get serious?
Clinton inspires nothing. She has tried everything and nothing has worked. Clinton would bring nothing to the ticket. She needs to go away now. I wonder if she's paid her bills from IOWA?
The biggest danger to this country is not recognizing great leadership when it appears. For those who think Obama supporters are so many love struck teenagers, what has George W. Bush offered in the way of leadership these past seven plus years?
Obama is a unique candidate and he has a rare combination of intelligence, intangibles and talent. Hillary is all about her ambition. Obama's ambition will have a constructive purpose.
No, I think that the biggest danger to this country are the "love-struck teenagers.
And here we thought you thought the biggest danger was a Black Liberation mole out to kill whitey!
Incidentally, I'm 42, in the senior executive service--trained as a historian--and if you can say anything at all about Obama supporters, it's that we are from across the economic, age, and racial spectrum.
SethBullock: I'm beginning to think you are a stalker. Please, angry SethBullock, leave me alone. I'm just a poor girl lost in the woods of Obamaland with all these scary monsters and race card throwers. Please SethBullock, stop picking on me . . .
ROBERT CREAMER . ;
YOU MISS SOMETHING # 1 MEDIA
# 2 REPUBLICANS CROSSOVER
# 3 PEER PRESSURE IN CAUCUS
# 4 more PILLOW FROM THE MEDIA
# 5 THE DEADS VOTING IN SUBURBS WITH BLACKS MAYORS
Re #5 Can we possibly see some proof that backs up your outrageous allegations? And PROOF please, not just more allegations.
He's right on several of these, Republican crossover was minimal played little into the counts from what I can tell
Another commenter was trying to play down the race card issue by pointing out that 97% of Iowa voters are white (which ever shade of white you might be). The fundamental problem is that they are not all Democrat voters.
The black community tends to have a higher percentage of voters that are democrats.
Hence the Democrat vote can be skewed when nearly 90% of the black voters are voting for Obama. This indicates a vote not for Obama's policies or experience but rather the color of his skin. It's racism too. Obama manages to win in some states because the "white" voters are at least trying to make a decision based on policies and experience (more of a 60 to 40 percent with "white" voters with 60 for Hillary and 40 for Obama).
Obama's demographics don't actually look very good on a national level when start taking into account those republican voters in states that are Republican and Obama received delegates because of the male leaning vote there and then remove any caucus
capability to override a popular vote (Texas is a good example).
His policies are nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's but he lacks the experience. I honestly think the Democrats best chance to win his with Senator Clinton a Nominee and Senator Obama as VP on the ticket right now. This combination lends a better vote combination
While I support Obama and think that he is a very good candidate - I do not think it is so much that Obama came in and won - it is Hillary provided the opportunity and lost it.
1) Hillary sunk her chances with the Pro-Iraq War vote - and then her refusal to say "I was wrong".
She went straight with the General Election strategy of being 'tough" on war - but forgot she had to win the Primary first.
This single act provided Obama the wedge issue he needed to start getting votes from lots of folks who hate this war - and hold people who voted for it responsible for their actions.
2) Hillary's complete inability to answer the question on Illegals getting a driver's license in New York during the debate.
It was not so much the issue that sunk Hillary - it was Obama and Edwards had been hammering Hillary saying that she will do and say anything to get elected. This provided voters with that exact situation - Hillary was simply unable to answer the question with a real answer because she was afraid of losing votes, and then her campaign waffled for a while before she finally said "No they should get a drivers license".
I believe that these two issues are key reasons why Hillary lost her chance to be President.
#1 yes.
Not so much #2.
She really ran one of the worst campaigns ever. She ran through millions of dollars seemingly without a plan, and she changed her message once every week.
You can't win if you change your message every week.
No 2 definitely! This particular debate is where my support for Senator Clinton started it's downward spiral. I saw someone totally fumbling for an answer, had no position of her own, who had not triangulated an answer with her advisers before the debate just in case this was asked. It was pathetic to watch someone supposedly so prepared not being able to stand on her own two feet and give her position on a topic. This started to show how she was really not "experienced" as she claimed and it shed the initial light for me that every move and answer she gives is carefully calculated as to what she thinks voters will want to hear. In this case, she hadn't triangulated what the voters would have wanted to hear, hence the major flub.
I do agree with you that she ran one of the worst campaigns ever, ran through millions of dollars with hardly any return for the money spent, and changed her message weekly to whatever her team thought would buy votes that week. Bosnia, Ireland lies aside, I think the worst point was the gun totin' whiskey sluggin' redneck act-in her designer pants suit.
Jazzbeau wrote:
"Could lead one to believe hinnis not only makes wildly partisan and unsubstantiated accusations but steals from his boss by screwing off on political blogs all day when he's supposed to be working.
Unless, of course, he's a paid neocon troll."
Excellent point. I began this discussion with hinnis earlier this morning on a different thread, asking the same question I asked here. There he replied:
"I didn't reply, because some of have to work for a living, which I need to get back to, now. Have sweet dreams of your messiah. posted 05/13/2008 at 12:15:39 "
After that, he posted 18 comments on this thread alone. I suspect, as you do, that the "work" he does is spreading these lies. If you do a quick google search you will find that he makes the same posts on numerous other sites.
The only other possibility is that he is genuinely obsessed by the idea of black liberation theology, and believes that if Obama is elected he will somehow "punish" white people. (Discussing Obama's church affiliation is the closest he ever comes to a substantive basis for his opinions). If hinnis was merely a crazed fanatic, though, you would think he would take the opportunity I have been providing him today to proclaim to us all (or at least to all the white people) the horrors that await us if Obama is elected president.
In either case, he deserves to be challenged.
You people should write fiction. Needless to say, I don't need to document my daily activities for your review. Get a life. I answer those I wish to answer; I ignore others. After all, it is a free country still, isn't it?
I haven't actually seen you answer anyone's questions, but thank you for making my point, hinnis.
Then you haven't looked. Look again, and you will find that I have answered questions posed by some. Don't feel bad that I didn't answer yours; there was no intent to offend.
By the way, I'm very flattered by all of the attention. Even counting my posts . . . does this mean we are going steady?
Good point, I've never had a job where I would need to keep a copy of a book on Black Liberation Theology on my desk.
I have my own business. I can keep any book on my desk that I wish. Thanks for your attention, though.
Hear, hear Tex!
Great article. The only point that I think was left out is that Clinton, much like many Democrats in Congress and pundits in the media, failed to recognize the true sentiments of the people. Her vote on the Iraq war was a major factor in her losing the nomination. I would guess that she was looking forward to the general election and anticipating the Republican support that vote would provide.
Moreover, to say that people want change is not sufficient. People are realizing that their government and media are blatantly lying to them, manipulating them and squandering their futures. When Clinton began employing the tactics that were used to bring us to our current state of affairs, she sealed her fate.
I have faith that the same kind of sentiments that elected us a Democratic Congress will ultimately elect Obama our next president. Of course, racism and media bias are his only real obstacles. So the question is, will the American people vote with their best interests in mind, or will they let their lower natures win the day.
Nifty article. I agree with all of it. Clinton comes off as an "anything to win" candidate, which I suspect motivated her hat-changing all the time. Obama appeared, because of this loss of direction, to be the more sincere of the two. I'm betting it isn't just a smart political maneuver on his part, but actually reflects who he is. GO OBAMA
Clinton was a defeat waiting to happen. Obama provided a good alternative to those looking for a change and provided a breath of fresh air in the Dem party, who really wants to see Billary in the White House again?
We'll see how genuine a candidate he is in the coming months. I think he is going to have a hard time going head to head with McCain. I think he's still a little wet under the ears and he'll be tagged as your typical tax and spend liberal (which he is). We shall see, it will be interesting.
I would say in light of nearly a trillion dollars having been blown away by the republican (and their fellow democ(R)ats, wink wink) futile war agenda, any planned social spendings can hardly be used against anybody at least at the present moment. If we are capable to wasting such an awful lot of money why can't we invest a fraction of it into ourselves?
Exactly! We have billions daily to spend on war, yet nothing to spend on education, infrastructure, health, energy policy, etc. Anyone who proposes spending (or re-appropriating the billions wasted) is automatically labeled "tax and spend". Let's re-appropriate. Sorry Iraq (or should I say Halliburton), the billions are needed here at home for the people who provide that money. How many crumbling bridges can we replace with one month of appropriations for Iraq? No new taxes, just taking the current taxes and using it for the people of this country.
quite the good article...
reasons 1 thru 10 are all the same...oba
Yes, but I don't think that the race card will play as well in the general election against McCain. It primarily works with the far left of the Democratic Party. The rest of us are getting pretty sick of it.
Ah, hinnis, there you are! Any answer to my question yet? In case you have forgotten, the question is what, exactly, do you believe Obama will do as president that causes you to believe he is "dangerous," as you have claimed on several discussion threads. I'm sure everyone here would be interested in hearing your response.
People are getting pretty sick of something but I don't think that's it.
How is Obama playing the race card? Please point to actual examples, not rediculous rhetoric. And Hillary's roots are as red as Karl Rove's. That's a fact.
I see I've built up a fan club since I've been here. As far as your questions, would it really do me any good to explain myself to you? You're just going to keep on towing the Obama line anyway. I've learned from experience, that the vast majority of Obama supporters are not open to ideas which don't conform to theirs, so why bother.
Rather than the concept of a "race card" (unfair appeal based on race), look to the concept of a "dog whistle", which is so high-pitched, that only dogs can hear it (no putdown intended). But in this election cycle, the Clinton campaign has used a "reverse" dog whistle that would be heard, and acted upon, by voters who did not realize that they had heard it. That is why when some Obama supporters cried foul, because they heard the dog whistle and found it offensive, the voters the dog whistle was designed to influence didn't realize the Clintons had sounded that whistle, and attacked Sen. Obama and his supporters for objecting to it.
"Rev. Wright" was a dog whistle. "He wouldn't have been my pastor" was a dog whistle. The innuendo that Sen. Obama must be a radical black militant because he belongs to Rev. Wright's church is a dog whistle. "Obama is a weak candidate who was expected to win South Carolina because even Jesse Jackson won there" (too many Black voters in South Carolina who would automatically prefer any dark-skinned candidate) is a dog-whistle. The dog whistle called Sen. Obama out as different from the hearer, and planted the seed of distrust in whatever he said about his feelings for this country.
"Playing he race card"; do you mean because he's black? You Hillary sycophants an chant that mantra until the cows come home, but EVERYONE knows that the Clintons played the race card. "Hard working Americans, white Americans" says it all. She was telling those hard-working white Americans to be afraid, that the black man just can't win, "So vote for me! I'm white!" She plays on the underlying racism in America like a true Republican. She and Joe Lieberman should team up and form the Judas Party. They've betrayed their democratic ideals, they've betrayed the Democratic Party, and they've betrayed rank and file Democrats across the country by showing their true Republican colors. So keep on making your ridiculous assertions about the "race card". It just makes you look like a stupid liar.
No, we don't mean because he's black; we mean because he plays the race card.
You ,by the very lying garbage you've posted ,are the racist
Why do you believe it's okay to constantly spin and put words in Hillarys mouth that You are guilty of?
That's such a BS response. Initially, Sen. Obama sought to avoid and neutralize the race issue altogether. He was forced to address it after the MSM and the blog-o-sphere mandated him to respond. The way the media gorged itself on Rev. Wright, Obama's name, his upbringing (constantly repeating madrasa for two weeks), whether or not he was "black" enough, etc. all created the race card. And you use it as a scapegoat for his success. He succeeded DESPITE people like you.
When is he ever talking about race on the campaign trail except when barraged with questions about Black Liberation Theology and Rev. Wright? And his response is always to shift to policy issues and remind the questioner that those issues are divisive.
If you recall, it was Sen.Clinto
I have seen this so many times during the election cycle. Republican party activist using wedge issues to distract, anger and divide. Remember that no matter what anyone says, come November, the pundits, republican tricksters, etc will have only one vote...jus
My god...Okie
"The Clintons built the bridge to the 21st century. Obama IS the 21st century." Great line. Obama should use it in his speeches--giving you credit of course.
Does anybody REALLY believe that Obama is a racist??HES half white for christ sake! his mom was white,his grand parent are white.The church he attended is one of the largest congregations in chicago.Bi
Everything said about Obama, by the bigots, was false, Hillary, the Media, and of course those in society who can't seem to get over their prejudice mindsets. This is why Our Nation is so sick.
Did you even bother to read hinnis's post? Doesn't it bother you the least little bit - even if only SOME of it is true?? Can't you Obama fanatics at least listen to some facts before you divide this country even worse than it is??
Neetsie37: No, it does not bother them, even a little. I've found that for Obama and his supporters, the only bad racism is that which is not practiced by themselves or their associates. They will bend over backwards to defend the racist Rev. Wright, if it will help Obama. They will make excuses for the racist theology to which Obama subscribes (black liberation theology) because it serves their purpose. Yet, if Hillary Clinton had belonged to a white racist church for 20 years, and had considered it white racist pastor to be her "mentor and spiritual adviser," these same people would be screaming bloody murder. IT IS THE WORST KIND OF HYPOCRISY, and it contributes to the strong feeling that many of us have that the "Obama revolution" must be stopped.
Please do your homework on Obama's religion before you make such assertions. I'll give you a head start. Look on the church's website, and it will tell you that Obama's church preaches black liberation theology, as formulated by James H. Cone. Then, read some of Cone's books about black liberation theology. If you do, you will see statement such as these:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Now, if this statement doesn't bother you, then you are voting for the right candidate.
It's obvious where you get all your bullshit now. If I copy and paste your "research" into the Google field, it reveals all I need to know about your highly-tuned research skills.
All you do is repeat and regurgitate the rants from worldnetdaily and Glenn Beck.
Please do your OWN homework. Pathetic.
And my religion says to murder gay people and adulterers and slavery is o.k. shall I go on?Sorry but I do my homework I minored in comparative religion so count me as not shocked when theological arguments get a little wacky because most religions are wacky.
hinnis, one quote does not make an argument. For example, the quote you cite here may be much less troubling if you also consider the following: ""Being black in America has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are." (Black Theology and Black Power, p. 1).
But let's not waste time arguing about the arcane theological meanderings from 1968 of Obama's pastor's philosophical mentor. Let's talk about Obama himself. Can you answer my question now? What, exactly, do you think he would do as president that causes you to consider him "dangerous?" Your failure to respond is costing you credibility, I'm afraid.
If you could enlighten us with your wisdom could you please show one example of obama using the race card? and if you could answer this one if Rev wright is so crazy why did the clintons have him at the white house?Just asking?
DJJD: no no, come on now, Hinnis DID do their research. That is indeed a statement made by Cone and if you go to Rev Wright's Trinity Church website they clearly state that they support black liberation theology. Hinnis isn't just regurgitating, they did their work!
HOWEVER, my counter to that would be that Black Liberation theology is not just one set of beliefs, there are different aspects to it. There is the one that is outright black supremacy; the white man is the devil, end of story. However, there is another school of black theology which simply states that blacks must fight oppression wherever they find it and look to rise up in the world. It also states that they believe God is on their side in the quest for justice. This is the school of thought Trinity Church seems to adopt when I read through their material: they simply believe in equality and they reject the idea of a God who wants them to be oppressed. THat seems pretty rational to me, Hinnis.
HuffPost's Pick
As an obama supporter from day 1, I would like to say that I am GLAD that Hilary came so far and did so well. There are things about her policies and Senate voting record that I fundamentaly disagree with, hense I did not vote for her in the primaries.
HOWEVER Hilary has done something wonderful for the young girls of this country. Before Hilary, what women dominated the nightly news...Bri
This is very true. Nice comment Black Cat.
Hillary never bothered to read any of the bills put before her very eyes. All she knew how to do was sign the bills down the Republican line, always voting with the "Idiots.
lobearoo: Can't you just stop the hate, if only for a minute?
Well, I won't be voting for Obama. I remember McGovern had a great organization too. How many states did he win?
So you would rather have four more years of bushco(tm) on steroids???
The number one reason Obama will lose the GE:
Hillary Clinton supporters who will be voting for McCain.
If they would like 4 more years of Dubya's failed policies, then they can go right ahead and be sore losers, participate in the disaster that they will be creating, in this place we call america!
Being a sore loser at a time in history like this would be a bad choice...
However, anyone that supports Hillary would definitely be capable of doing this country a disservice "she has"
I truly believe McCain will make a better president than Obama. Lack of experience is a scary thing.
You will be getting 4 more years of corporatist government no matter who wins the general election fraud.
If you're right, frustrated, then Hillary Clinton supporters will get precisely what they deserve: 100 years in Iraq and the illegalization of all abortions (however desperately they're needed).
Otherwise known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". To the "white working class" guys I'd say: your fathers' and grandfathers' Unions got you where you are today. The Republicans fought them from Day One, and Reagan was Union-buster in Chief. It's time to wake up.
Or Republican voters who voted for Hillary switching back to McCain or Republican's trying to stack the deck in states with high minority and poor working class voters by demanding they show proof of citizenship.
Obama will win the Presidency if this is a fair race and not a repeat of 2000-2004 where Bush corrupted the voting system and as in 2000 the Republican backed Supreme Court gave the nomination to Bush instead of Gore .
Republican's stand for the party that loves the rich and hates the poor and admires those who are corrupt.Lo
frustratedinohio it seems you keep saying over and over again in your blogs that McCain will be a better president than Obama .Well I guess that shows where your party affiliation is.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
