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
Message to all you Clintonistas:
You can say what you like, threaten to do what you like, it is a free country. But YOU are the reasons why Hillary lost.
Example: today, I registered 22 new voters, of all ages, income levels, education levels, and they are all going to vote for Obama. This makes 73 for the week. I am only one of hundreds of thousands of volunteers doing this, and we are going to sign up millions more than the 3.5 million we have already signed up.
Another example: I made another campaign contribution to the Obama campaign. I'm not wealthy, I help out when I have a few extra dollars, just like the majority of the 1.5 million donors who have raised over $250 million for the campaign. I am nowhere near maxed out, and will make further donations. The average donation is only $109.
What have YOU done for the Clinton campaign? I thought so. Don't hold it against us because we are passionate and committed. If you want to stick to the negative tone set by YOUR candidate, by all means, it's your right. If you want to cut off your noses to spite your faces and vote for McCain, by all means, do so.
But, expect to sit on the sidelines and sulk because for every defector we will sign up 10 new voters. Y'all don't know what's hitting you, do you? Neither will McCain.
p.s. If by some miracle, Clinton DOES get the nomination, you can thank OUR effort to get new voters if she wins in November.
So, y'all need to chill out. WE are the loyal Democrats, not you.
Karate,
If we can be a little more sensitive to Hillary's supporters, it will serve well. Although I agree with your pride in all of us getting a massive swell to support Obama across the country, we don't need to "nanny-poo-poo" Hillary's supporters. We need to welcome them, and ensure that they understand that this is the opportunity to promote and pass the values and policies for which BOTH candidates campaigned.
The second they don't feel belittled and frustrated by a loss, the greater the likelihood that they'll start worrying about getting the SOB's out of the White House, and getting someone in who will enact the values for which they initially voted.
Obama supporters + Clinton supporters = 20 years of Democratic White House.
Although you're reaching out to new voters, and continually canvassing (as I am, too), we can be an awful lot more productive by tempering the bitterness. I would submit that reaching out instead of slapping Clinton supporters would make your efforts twice as effective.
BOOYA!
I sort of agree with you, but your post does nothing to help Obama win in November. We want those Clinton supporters to support Obama, not to be pissed because you are saying they didn't work hard enough . . . plenty of them worked very hard. The failure of the overall strategy falls to the candidate, not the grassroots organizers.
Wow, great post! It is so true! Obama supporters are just more passionate. I live in Boston, and those I know who were Obama supporters were like you, donating (small ammounts), doing voter drives, going around campuses; in other words, campaigning. Of my friends who supported Hilary...they voted for her, that's it. And to be fair, that's all I've ever done thus far in politics, vote for who I like, that's it. Now obviously there are some Hilary supporters that actively campaigned for her, but that is a vast minority, whereas a MUCH larger percentage of those who backed Obama became actively involved in his campaign. THAT is why people are calling this a revolutionary, unprecedented campaign. Obama was able to motivate people unlike any other candidate in recent memory. He got people to be participants in the entire campaign process, not just the part where you cast your ballot. he got me to do what I SHOULD have been doing all these years; get INVOLVED politically, don't just vote!
Obama supporters just wanted it more, they were more inspired, so they worked harder than Clinton supporters. Posting on HuffPo blogs isn't really contributing, it doesn't make a real difference. So if all you did was yell at people online and vote in your primary, THAT'S WHY SHE LOST. We just tried harder. We won. Deal with it.
Well you don't have any lack of ego, do you?! I can only speak for myself but I know that I like 3oo + Hillary Helloers have been calling for months into each and every state and have donated money as well. Our passion for our candidate is going to make it very, very difficult to vote for Obama. I don't really consider him a real Democrat. Just listen to the returns from West Virginia today and you'll know what we have been doing for our candidate. Some New Yorkers have actually gone into various states nearby and worked the doorbells and the streets for her. If the Democratic Party ignores the number of voters Hillary has won, there will be price for the Party to bear: no Obama!
SethBullock - You were right about that fear-mongering comment. It was OT and I apologize. And you were right that we probably aren't that far apart. I'm not an Obama supporters but I don't hold any animosity for him and when he is the nominee I will drag my unhappy self to the polls and vote for him.
Now I'm off to bed - have a good night all.
Good reasons, all. But doesn't it also seem that the personality of the defeated contender, and by extension of her campaign, played a large role in the outcome?
To me, it was the mean-spiritedness, the imitative, co-opting tactics, the lack of any inspired original message, and the total neediness of the defeated contender that clinched it for Obama. I sensed the defeated contender needed to be president more than I can recall of any other candidate of the last 60 years, and that neediness was unseemly and not indicative of sound mental health. She acted as if it was her birthright to be our leader, this was her time, and when Senator Obama's rising star outshone hers, she lost it big time, and then it was over.
One thing we may have learned as a country from this campaign - the old successful politics of smear the other guy and promise the voters a chicken in every pot will no longer work. Senator Obama may have just effected his first great change in our American process. And if so, Republicans, watch out.
I would also add that during a 24/7 news cycle and a 15 month campaign during which both candidates seemed at times to be dog tired, Obama seemed to be able to stay steady at the helm. A number of columnists noted this after his Tim Russert interview. Concurrent with that interview, Sen. Clinton was ballistic on ABC threatening to obliterate Iran. It was a start contrast in leadership. Two days later Obama won NC by 14 points and she squeeked by in Indiana. It also doesn't help when a candidate fibs. I also think if you have assess these two by the campaigns they ran, Sen. Clinton was not helped by her handlers and surrogates. The Clinton "line" was so often at odds with the game on the ground that it just reinforced the charge that they represented "politics" as usual, e.g., Richardson as Judas.
I also like Obama's steadiness and consistency. Hillary seems to be a different person every time I see her talk. Sometimes I have wondered if she has multiple personality disorder. She tries to be whatever she thinks whoever she is talking to wants her to be, and it leaves me wondering who she really is. Kind of like, what color is a chameleon, really?
Good Democrats wil not stay home in Nov. but it is possible that they will vote to increase the majorities in the House and Senate and not vote for President so that McCrazy can warm the chair without doing much more damage. I think the Obama supporters need to back off on the name calling and the venomous attacks against other Democrats. Just because someone doesn't support Obama does not automatically make them a neo-con, a troll or a republican. I will say that his campaign and his supporters has brought more divisiveness, racism and just plain nastiness to the Democratic Party than I've ever seen. It seems they have adopted the rules of Rove and the republicans.
Bluesage, some of us supporters may get nasty from time to time--but it is a flat out lie to characterize Obama's campaign as divisive, racist, or nasty. All of those things are exactly characteristic of the Clinton campaign and it's adoptive Republican tactics.
The whole point of the Obama campaign is to reach for more--but it's hard for us to understand how true Democrats would want McCain to win. Would want 100 years of war. Would want women in jail for having abortions. Would want Republican health care and Republican tax policy.
SethBullock - Talking about a 100 year war and overturning Roe v Wade and putting women in jail is fear-mongering at it's worse. There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats will gain huge majorities in Nov. and McCrazy and the pitiful republicans that are left in the Congress will be powerless to do anything. We will, of course, have to finally start demanding that the Democrats in Congress actually start doing their jobs. But, to think that Obama is the great saviour of all things good and holy is naive. The world will not end if Obama is not elected and that is a real possibility considering how fractured the Democratic Party is right now and probably will be to some extent in Nov.
SethBullock - I tried to reply and it was there and then, in true Huff Post fashion, it disappeared. It will probably show up again as it usually does but will be somewhere around page 6. lol
All those things you mentioned, 100 yr war, overturning Roe v Wade, putting women in jail will not happen and it won't be because Obama or any President stops it but because the Congress will stop it with their votes. I'm a lot more excited about taking the Congress back than I am the presidency. I want the Democrat to win in Nov. but I just think that the true power to get things done for the American people lies with the Congress. The republicans need to be sent into the wilderness for many decades to come as it will take that long to repair the damage they have done.
Sage usually implies learnedness... wisdom... except in this case. Once again we see a classic case of projection. I don't understand why people continue to blame Obama for the mudslinging that's been going on, when Clinton herself admitted that her campaign was going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama. To blame him for the Clinton campaign's downward spiral is ridiculous.
Add in the fact - not the accusation, but the fact - that Clinton's supporters are emailing superdelegates attack emails, as reported a few days ago on HP, and that those same superdelegates have said that Obama's supporters are NOT doing the same, underlines Bluesage's refusal to accept the disastrous management and happy demise of the Clinton campaign.
Is that what is meant by a left-handed compliment? LOL
Bluesage - Clinton decided in February to go negative and never let up. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn came up with the wretched idea of attacking not just the opponent - but the opponent's supporters. It wasn't real successful - but it did serve to drive the Democratic party in two and serve the Republicans? But what does Mark Penn care? He's worldwide CEO of Burson Marsteller and there is no regime his firm won't take on.
Hillary's latest statement on "working Americans, white Americans" is the most racist statement I've heard in a political race since the 60s - and I spent 5 years in South Carolina. If you see Obama as racist and divisive - you never would have voted for him anyway.
If you're for McCain - you certainly have a right to be. My brothers are. But then, they don't have to worry about health insurance - like the rest of us do - and I hope you don't either. Because with McCain's plan, if you divorce, leave a job or lose a job - you won't have any. Don;t worry about sending your kids to college either - that's out unless your daddy was a 4-Star General or your wife is worth $100 million or more.
sclucie - Just for the record I have been a Democrat all my adult life and voted Democrat in every election since 1968 (another bad year for Democrats).
I would never even entertain the notion of voting for McCrazy or any other republican. I will also say that I'm not a big fan of Clinton either at this point and to be honest I'm pretty ticked off at the msm and the dnc for thinking this was the year to experiment with our "first". The last 7+ years have been horrifying for this country and the entire world and we have a hell of a lot to clean up. I'm just not sure Obama is the best person for this time.
Mymymy you sound very BITTER.
That is so untrue. Clinton's campaign savaged Obama as "just a speech" while she joined forces with the Right to try to defeat Obama. Nonetheless I would have voted for her in November if McCain sticks to his positions. 99% of Obama supporters- the true supporters who volunteer and make calls and are active on his website don't allow "negative campaigning" even if it's just sending a NY Times article that is not favorable to HRC. Folks who spend the majority of their time here instead of making calls and canvassing and participating in MYBO activites, voter reg drives, etc. are not the die-hard Obama supporters. We don't believe in negative campaigning and do not participate in it. I think the Clinton's have a lot of "haters" out there for various reasons. Just because some of them support Obama has nothing to do with him. People have disliked the Clinton's for decades- you can't blame that on Obama or his supporters.
Perhaps th biggest reason is that America got to know Mrs. Bill Clinton.
SethBullock: Since you and I have become such good friends, I'd like to ask you a question. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed in the following statement?
"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."
hinnis, I think all religion is horseshit. But I believe passionately that people should be allowed to believe in whatever kind of horseshit they choose.
And I know that neither the United Church of Christ, nor Barack Obama, believe in that either.
As do you. So what is your problem with Obama, really. If we assume, for a minute, that you are a real Democrat?
SethBullock: Since you didn't answer the question directly, let me rephrase it. Do you think that the statement is racist?
seth:
White theology refuses to accept that black people are god fearing people
you watch to much TV and believe all that stero type of black people
there are young black people that hate white people you have enslave black people
for over a 100 yrs and they did not get their civil rights until 1968 that is not to long ago
this young generation had to watch time after time on the history channel back during
the civil right protests and see how the white people treated black people beating
woman and kids they used dogs, fire hoses on woman that could have been their grandmother,
uncles aunts,and relatives. only a ignorant racist person would think that black people
will enslave white people and treat you like you treated black people !
I am a native amercian Indian I understand how black people feel do you remember
how you kill off my people took are land and put my people on reservation
and occupy are country My grandmother died 20 yrs ago she was 109 yrs old
and live during that time she was a child she told me she live in tibes there were only
horses and the white man starve them and chase after them until they found their village
and herded them like animals and put them on reservations
Black Theology & White Theology?
What about The "Theology of Jesus Christ"?
You see, here is where the various dominations of Christianity fall apart...
There are NO variations in The Roman Catholic Church!
Just remember that Jesus did not build the Baptist or the Lutheran or any of the Protestant Churches...
His church and mine is The Roman Catholic Church.
If Christ is God himself he has no need to change because he is perfection itself
Only imperfect creatures need to change.
Throughout most fo human histort slavery has been sanctified by the bible and most religions so does it really suprise you to know that maybe a black person would want a god that doesnt condone it?Really?
The problem with Hillary's campaign? Is Hillary!
He's a 21st. Century Democrat and we're damn, damn, damn lucky to have him.
God has smiled on the Democratic Party.
Now, let's put him in the White House.
Viva Barack
Yesterday the Democratic Party called asking for more money. I told the nice young man that i would, "...not give another penny until the Party recognizes Obaba as the nominee".
Then... came another phone call from the Obama campaign asking for more money. I told the nice young man, "Not another penny until Obama assures me my hard-earned money will never line the Clinton deep pockets".
That's funny. I told them the same thing about Hillary, i.e. that I wouldn't give them any money unless she was the nominee. To each his own.
Looks like you'll be keeping your money for a LOOOONG time, hinnis.
You probably never even gave Hillary any money. It's interesting to think about how many people cry and piss all over themselves because Queen Hillary has been de-throned, yet not enough of them will give her any money. So, come on now, how much have you actually donated to Clinton, and how much do you make a year?
I've given Obama $300 and I'm currently unemployed.
Why won't Clinton's supporters give her money, yet they'll threaten to shoot themselves in the foot and have a big, kicking and screaming temper tantrum if she can't overturn the will of the American voters? Please, I'm curious. Why is it that despite all this supposedly die-hard support for Hillary, she's had to loan her own campaign over $11,000,000?
I'd say all the ranting and raving about not voting democrat in November is probably coming from trolls, or people that don't actually like Hillary any more, but are too embarassed to admit that they made the wrong choice. It happens all the time - people talk so much crap to other people and then reality kicks them in the teeth, and somehow they refuse to humbly admit that they screwed the pooch, so they just keep fighting on - sans a couple teeth. Heck, that's what's happening with Hillary. She offered Obama the VP spot on her ticket when she was losing. LOL So, which are you? Are you a troll, or just too embarassed to admit you screwed the pooch?
Mr Creamer call me a sceptic.
A bi-racial candidate out of Chicago is trotted out as the Democrats token Black candidate with a campaign theme of Hope/Change. He is green and untested but nothing strange so far - politicians have been running as the ‘Change’ candidate since the days of Athens.
What is different about this race?
The Axelrodcampaign/MSM discovered that Misogyny trumps race!
The Change candidate could talk about that great ‘communicator’ Reagan and the Republican 'great ideas' of the past ’15 or so years’ and his campaign and the left could brand her an 'opportunist' 'monster' that was 'not likeable,' trash talk the Clinton Presidency and even relish at the chance of branding Bill Clinton a 'racist.'
And the progressives cheer.
My skepticism:
The MSM cheerleaded the bush/neocon/Cheney abuse of 9-11 to invade Iraq and create this nightmare that is our present day America.
What has the MSM up its sleeve?
1. The MSM wants even higher ratings/profits with a Bi-racial candiate for Pres.
2. The MSM wants to knock off Hillary to set up Obama for the standard Republican 'swiftboat' 'Willie Horton' type attacks. Can you say ‘Rezko’ ‘land deal’ and Iraqi billionaire contributor?
3. The MSM does not want Hillary /Bill in office since it knows how her Presidency will go.
4. The MSM believes in Obama and wants him to be our next President.
Be wary - be very, very wary.
Be prepared for the parana. Your comment, which was not adoring of Obama, will be "swiftboated" by the hoards of Obama supporters on this blog.
Hey hinnis,
There is likely to be a community college in your neighborhood which could help you with your spelling. Watch out, though, for the "hoards" of "parana"!!!
Moron.
As opposed to the bigots, right hinnis?
you forgot to post Bin Laden's picture right after " Be wary - be very, very wary ".
This is so laughably wrong, I don't know where to start, but I'll try. The reason the race went on as long as it did is the MSM promulgated the myth that it was a horse-race between Clinton and Obama. In reality, the race was pretty much over the day after Super Tuesday. The media has kept Senator Clinton in the race, to Senator Obama's detriment.
As for him being green and untested, this is pure bunk. He has more experience in elected office than Senator Clinton. As anyone who knows Illinois politics can tell you, serving in the Prairie State's legislature is a test. There are constant battles, not only between Democrats and Republicans, but also between Chicago legislators and their rural downstate counterparts. Senator Obama was able to bridge these divides and get legislation passed. If you know how to google, you can get the details.
Illinois is like a snapshot of the country. It's urban. It's suburban. And it's rural. Just like this country. The fact that Senator Obama was able to navigate the pitfalls of law and politics in this state is extremely strong evidence that he will make a fine president, much like an "inexperienced" Congressman from Illinois became over 140 years ago.
good post, Evo
How about that?. Someone can actually hear, see, read, observe and analyze... somewhat of a rarity in these posts.
Barack Obama is the "presumptive nominee." Much of the written diarrhea here is very boorish.
Great post EvoMan.
Obama voted the party line. His legislative accomplishments were gifts from Emil Jones. His name was put on legislation to create a record upon which to run for the US Senate. He missed many votes due to absenteeism.
He is a likeable guy who is a great speaker. He has never had any interest in being a legislator - in fact - he hasn't had any interest in doing anything he was involved in enough to pursue it as a career. Obama is all about making contacts for the next promotion. If he isn't, than you can forgive my ignorance. His life provides no clue on what he really cares about enough to sacrifice for it. He hasn't stopped anywhere long enough to contribute anything lasting.
Obama's longer experience in elected office is marginal. He has had a high rate of absenteeism in the US Senate - from day one. In addition to elected office, Clinton worked 15 years as an attorney and did trial work and pro bono work. Obama worked three years as an attorney and largely did researh work - almost no trial work. Like Obama, Clinton has been a community organizer.
Clinton's supporters have kept her in the race - not the media. They have contributed funds, they volunteer - she has 49% of the vote. Ronald Reagan took his campaign against Gerald Ford - a sittiing President - in 1976 to the convention floor - noone heaped this type of abuse on him.
Clinton's supporters
"The media has kept Senator Clinton in the race" ???
NO, actually it is Hillary herself who is keeping her in this race, and she has every right to continue campaigning until all states have voted.
I agree with you about the MSM, which is why I am very wary about why the MSM has put so much effort in dismantling Senator Obama's campaign NOW ... BEFORE he can win the nomination, and why they have been so reluctant to discuss Hillary's skeletons and scandals. I can only assume that:
1. The MSM wants Hillary to be the nominee.
2. The GOP, which has led the attacks against Obama through Fox News, wants Hillary to face McCain in the general election because they know they can defeat her.
3. The MSM and the GOP want John McCain to be our next President.
The one thing I disagree with you on is that Senator Obama's campaign branded Hillary as "an opportunist monster that is not likeable ..." Senator Clinton branded herself!
StillIRise, you nailed it. Well said.
Man you are a skeptic.
I don't see the coverage of Obama as cheerleading by any stretch of the imagination. Obama won in spite of the press, not because of it. He was hit with a constant barrage of foolish negative coverage. It's the American people who were too smart to fall for it. Not this time.
And when the MSM tries to force McCain down our throats, the American people won't fall for that, either. Not this time.
Robert, I agree with all of your points. I live in one of the reddest counties in Texas and the hope and inspiration provided by both Democratic candidates brought out a new constituency here. No one has seen such a turnout of Democrats since our local congressman became republican. The republican agenda of divisiveness with it's anti-diplomacy militarization of government, corporate greed, crone capitalism, corruption and incompetence is dead. Even honest republicans around here admit to the bankruptcy of this administration and it's agenda. Permanent war is not a policy. Letting business interests run rampant has killed our economy. Ignoring health care as a legitimate issue is holding us back from progressing as a culture. People hunger for an adult approach, with all of it's attendant complexity, to adult problems, What we have had for 8 years is an adolescent ,amateurish cowboy with a simpleton's intelligence. Barrack Obama is beyond that crap and Hillary is too. Unfortunately she made the mistake of adopting the republicans techniques. God only knows how Barrack will govern. How in the world can you really tell? I tell my friends that campaigning is not governing it is theater. I believe that Hillary wants good things for this country but she has failed to win our hearts in this play we call campaigning. Dogged determination is not enough, we need the hope that Obama has given us. Now my hope is that he can deliver competent and compassionate governance to us, if he wins.
Ok all of you smart little educated Obama supporters who think life-long democrats will rally 'round your boy (oh sorry, didn't mean to sound racist), many of us will not be voting at all in the general election which will probably lead to McCain winning the election. Hillary has been villified by the media and you have bought into it or just gone along with it so that Obama would win this. Maybe Obama will start parading his white relatives around so that he may possibly win a few white voters that had previously been supporters of Hillary's. Not because Hillary's supporters are racist but because they were well aware of her qualities and experience to be President and her love for this country. Nobody has played the race card as much as Obama himself and the blacks. Our country is not as racist as it is sexist and I will no longer support the democratic party. The Kennedys, the Kerrys, Oprah Winfrey, Randi Rhodes, Air America, Bill Maher, CNN, MSNBC, and all others that have turned on Hillary so viciously can all kiss my ass. I'm done.
Hey, exdem, I assume you are not an actual Democrat but rather a Limbaugh troll.
However, let me take you seriously for a moment.
Hillary was lauded and fawned over by the media until she lost 11 elections in a row. Then when she pulled out Ohio and Pennsylvania, she was fawned over again. Voters just don't like her that much.
Not because of her color. Because she is unlikeable, untrustworthy, and unelectable. I doubt she is racist but she's been happy using her supporters and her husband to define her opponent as a racial candidate. By the way, he's won more white voters than she has. And more of every other kind as well.
I'm not sure what qualities of Clinton's you are so enamored of--she's certainly been married to a governor and a president, and been Senator. Does she love America? Well, enough to want to be President. And enough to lie for it. And to slime the future of the Democratic party for it.
If you want Roe v. Wade overturned, 100 years of death and destruction in Iraq, and more tax cuts for the rich--knock yourself out. Vote for McCain.
You know what if all you people have is this threat to stay home then keep your asses home.
awwww.... pity party?
I'm sorry to hear that exdem72, because you'll not only hurt just yourself and your family.
Not one word of your post mentions anything to do with the war, or the economy, or health or any issues that affect us all. That saddens me because the old style of politics of dividing and conquering and causing fear and hatred carries on the Republican tradition.
I have my preference for a democratic candidate but if my "favorite" doesn't get the nomination, I'm sure not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.
My family and I can't survive another term or two of Republicans taking away not only our earnings, our health and our brave fighting men. They are taking away every last bit of freedom that we as Americans have and that just cannot be allowed to happen.
I hope you'll reconsider so that all of us in this country can have a chance to get out of this awful mess that we're in.
Is that the screen door I hear hitting your ass? Now . . . probably you're a troll, but in the event you are not, allow me to point out there's a very, very good chance the small percentage of people who absolutely will not vote for Obama (whatever their reason - hint, hint . . . racism) will more than be negated by the number of new voters who will participate this year. Some, no doubt, for the first time in their lives (and I'm not talking about college students). We'll miss ya exdem72. Can you hear my violin squeaking out that lovely, forlorn melody expressing my sadness and deep sense of loss?
I wonder where was the feminist support for any woman for president when Shirley Chisolm ran for president in 1972?
I know that some of the "feminist" today weren't even born then, but feminism was certainly as vital back then as it is today, and perhaps even more so.
Rise, I would have supported her. I wish I'd been older than 7! But I still remember my Dad telling me what a great candidate she was, and what great speeches she made.
THE POLITICIAN OF “CHANGE”: Chicago Sun-Times—A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: Obama, who runs on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless, first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. Alice Palmer, friend and mentor to Obama, served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat. Obama not only refused to step aside for the woman who was his friend and had recommended him for the seat, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw. Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. “He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.” Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest. All other candidates were disposed of by Obama’s challenges. He then went on to win the election.
http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte
Wow. Reaching much? In the field we have bald-face liars--a woman who takes a stand against the Columbian Free Trade Agreement while her top advisor and her husband have been paid millions to support it. Who lies about being in combat. Whose husband pardoned people for money.
We have an old guy who broke under torture but now supports torture, who was against Bush's tax cuts before he was for them, who is for 100 years of war in Iraq and can't tell Sunni from Shi'ite.
And the best you can come up with was: Obama didn't fold up his campaign when a senior colleague asked him to!!!!!
Ok. Go with it. Let's see what the 527s do with that one!
No, Sethbullock. The story illustrates how Obama will stab his friend and political mentor in the back to get what he wants. But you knew that, didn't you . . .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
