Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Thursday, July 3, 2008

/Shift

Earlier today in a response to a question by Mike Saul from the NY Daily News on Obama's statement today on withdrawing from Iraq I wrote:

My first thought is that Obama's recent actions and statements won't help him avoid being painted a flip-flopper by the right, but they were going to find a way to do that anyhow. It also won't help Obama much with the "low information" voters for the same reason. I, however, expected this. Obama has always said that how he wants to proceed with Iraq will be determined by the information he has available, and he never ruled out that his thinking might shift. I remember this from either a debate moderated by Tim Russert, or perhaps it was on his MTP appearance. However, the context of those statements seemed to apply more to post-inauguration than while still campaigning. But we can't deny - at least from recent press reports - that things do appear to be changing in Iraq, at least from the point of the Iraqi government trying to at least appear to be acting more independent.

I'm less concerned about what he has to say about Iraq, because lets face it, there's no easy way out of this for anyone. What I am very concerned about is what he says about Iran. Any "tough talk" is going to have a negative affect on me.


On their own, many of the apparent "flip-flops" from Obama lately are anything but. If you've read his books, you'd know that he was for the death penalty for those who would rape and murder a child. He was also fairly pro gun, though he was also for gun control, especially in Chicago, and those positions are not incompatible.

His recent remarks about withdrawing the troops from Iraq are consistent with what he has said all along, but when you put all of these recent positions together and view them out of their original context, you see what appears to be a pattern of Obama shifting away from his progressive values and pandering more to the "center" - wherever the hell that is.

I guess I could be in the center, considering that my positions swing far right in some cases, but far left on most others. What I liked about Obama is that he seemed to embody a similar dynamic, that he could be liberal and libertarian and conservative, without those positions being in conflict. What I liked most about him, however, was that he seemed guided more by principles than by politics, and wasn't afraid to be controversial. I still believe that for the most part, but I cannot compromise on the FISA issue.

Make no mistake. I am holding Obama accountable to his words, not mine. When I say he has lost my support, I mean that I am no longer willing to give him my money, nor give him my time. It's not too late for him to change my mind on that, just as it's not too late to lose my vote as well. I'll be watching Obama with the same critical eye that I have always watched with, even when I walked up and down the San Francisco hills on that cold and rainy February day, even those days in Texas when I walked three precincts, and even when I talked to potential voters on the countless numbers of calls I made.

Not that it really matters all that much, what with me being one person. But then maybe it matters a little more when you factor in all those folks I encountered while volunteering for the campaign, and especially when you factor in all the fence sitters I talked over to Obama's side.

I'm anxious to see what Obama does next.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

OBAMA WINS!!!

UPDATE:
As of 3:30 PM PST, only 11 delegates needed.

As of 2:20 PM PST, Obama has enough superdelegates to win. It is widely expected that Obama will easily capture 15 delegates in the two remaining primaries tonight, possibly 16 or 17. He has the promise of being endorsed by superdelegate Jimmy Carter after the polls close, and the elected leaders of Montana have declared they will support the winner of tonight's primary. Which means...

Barack Obama is the winner of the 2008 Democratic primary!

Unfortunately
, though, the fat lady hasn't sung, and no bells have rung "ding dong, the witch is ..."

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

True Obama

Monday, May 19, 2008

McCain PWNED again!



Obama is making McCant look like the doddering old fool he's become.

Senator Byrd endorses Obama

It would seem to me that in the way it really matters, Obama got the bigger win out of WV.

75,000 Kool-Aid drinkers?

Nope. This is what it looks like when people stand up to take back their country from the corporations and right-wing extremists.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Clinton's big win in WV?

Those looking to make a big deal out of Clinton's 67% to 26% (41%) win in WV should consider that it is not nearly as big as his 74% to 26% (48%) win in KS.

To put this in sharper relief, consider his other biggest wins against her:

AK - Obama +50%
CO - Obama +35%
DC - Obama +52%
GA - Obama +36%
HI - Obama +52%
ID - Obama +62%
MN - Obama +34%
NE - Obama +36%
WA - Obama +37%
Dems Abroad - Obama +33.3%

Obama got 67% or more in AK, CO, DC, GA, HI, ID, KS, NE, and WA.

The best part is that tonight, Clinton actually underperformed expectations set by polling, and even by their own metrics.

Really, this should be embarrassing to have one of the biggest names in politics and to consistently perform so badly overall against a relative no-name.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Clinton's math problem

Well, it should be obvious to just about anyone, including those uneducated hard working, white Americans. Clinton has already lost.

Delegates:

Magic number - 2,025

Obama - 1883.5 to date, 141.5 needed to win
Clinton - 1716 to date, 306 needed to win

Total remaining delegates: 430.5

So, do the math. It's not that hard.

But for those who are mathematically challenged, click here.

Monday, May 12, 2008

And the winner is...

MoveOn's winning "Obama in 30 Seconds" ad

Friday, May 9, 2008

Old v. New: p1

This comment from jsarets on HuffPo has some great metaphors for the difference between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, and the future of politics:

The tragedy of Clintonism is that they package the kind of policies we need in the kind of politics we most certainly don't. The "Third Way" is really just a hybrid of Democratic policy and Republican politics, and the inevitable result is that Democrats have to run the right on policy in order to beat the Republicans at their brand of politics.

The Republicans and Clintons sell politics like IBM sells computers, through an arcane network of distribution channels accumulated over time: the MSM, lobbyists, think tanks, PACs, patronage, etc. This paradigm works well to the extent that politics (and computers) can be sold from the top down.

But Obama has arrived with a direct model that brings to politics what Dell brought to the computer industry. In his style of politics, Obama controls his relationship with the electorate by providing direct access through a centralized communications hub. His plan is to coopt the burgeoning sea of online political communities with one of his own, where he can deliver -- and the American people can receive -- his message unfiltered.

It's all part of Obama's "take back your government" agenda. Americans like to feel important, and the direct model extends this sensation to those who aren't really important enough to have their own IBM sales rep or K Street lobbyist, but who have a Constitutional right to participate in our democracy. He's won't just "work" for us, he'll listen to us.


Nice use of metaphor, and is a great retort to anyone who still stupidly says "Obama can't change Washington any more than Bill Clinton could." Bullshit. The main difference between Barack and Bill is that Bill promised change, but he tried to do it top down by trying to get the players to play the game differently. Barack is getting the fans tuned into a different game altogether, making the old game irrelevant, causing the older players to join in or get out, and hopefully bringing in a bunch of new players.

Matt Stoller has a bit more detailed analysis on this topic of how Obama is changing Washington, with our help. Read it.

At the end of the day, what we're talking about is accountability. When our leaders are accountable to the people, and not just interest groups and lobbyists, that means something. Every person who has given $5 or more to the Obama campaign has a voice now. When other politicians learn what that kind of accountability means, we the people will have that much more power in our government.

Meanwhile, at Camp McCain, we don't have to guess who he's accountable to.

Edwards voted for Obama...

...and will, by his own words, endorse him.

Of course, I'm assuming this based on what it sounds like I heard from his appearance on Morning Joe. But you can jump to 9:45 and gauge for yourselves.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

"I love this country too much..."

"...to see it divided and distracted at this critical moment in history.

"I believe in our ability to perfect this nation, because it's the only reason I am standing here today. I know the promise of America because I've lived it!"



Barack's words - and deeds - are infinitely more patriotic than any flag pin.

Friday, May 2, 2008

This is exactly why Obama MUST be our next president

Because he talks to us like we're adults (to quote Jon Stewart), instead of pandering to us like we're children. Apparently, Clinton and McCain think we need to be pacified, but they keep trying to get us to suck on all these bad and rotten things. Barack, on the other hand, tells it like it is!

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Sidney Blumenthal is an enemy of the Progressive Movement

The "man" that is credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy," also a rabid Clinton supporter, has aligned himself - as Clinton has - with members of said VRWC in attacking Obama. We all know the Clinton campaign will "say anything, do anything" to win, and they know no shame whatsoever, but in aligning themselves with their former enemies, they have themselves become that very enemy.

Progressives must know that Hillary Clinton and her supporters are not friends of the progressive movement, they are the enemy.

Anyone reading this who is also a Salon reader, should contact the editors and publishers at Salon and tell them it is time to stop sleeping with the enemy. Blumenthal's articles can no longer be read without suspicion, and as an enemy of progressives, his writings must be viewed with skepticism.

To see just how low Blumenthal and the Clinton campaign have sunk, read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

It's shocking, even for the Clintons.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Kerry kicks ass

Can we handle the truth?

Yes we can. At least Obama supporters can. Too bad McCant and Hillrod supporters cannot.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Keepin' Hope Alive!

Thanks, Andrew, for this refreshing perspective:

Obama is still in this; and the Wright fiasco gives him a chance to remove this cloud and address it again. He has the most votes, the most states, the most money, the most new voters and the most delegates and the most Senators on his side. This is no time for a failure of nerve - on the part of the Obama team or his supporters.


It wasn't the outcome of PA that has been bringing me down - I expected exactly what happened, even while quietly hoping for something better. But I have been incredibly surprised at the degree to which the media has taken what was expected by most and turned into something far more than it's worth. Clinton's win in PA was just another bump on her molehill, and the media is trying to make a mountain out of it.

But I also sense what is seeming like a coordinated attack by the media players to not only destroy Obama's candidacy, but also to help bolster McCain's. Normally, I tend to think of the media and most so-called journalists as money-grubbing whores, whose only agenda is to create controversy where there is none in order to feed the beast. But this latest article from the AP that TPM's Josh Marshall dissects looks like clear evidence of deliberate bias to him, and to me.

But back to keepin' hope alive:

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Losing by Winning

As I posted earlier, she cannot win. She did not reach the 12 point threshold she needed to keep her candidacy viable. She might have won the primary in PA, but she lost the primary. As Robert Creamer writes:

The Pennsylvania Primary was Hillary Clinton's last chance to deliver a game changing blow to Obama's campaign for the nomination. She failed to deliver.

Pennsylvania provided her with her final real opportunity to knock the wheels off the Obama campaign. She needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural -- Hillary's voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin -- which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2% -- fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination.

...

All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities for her own campaign to be shut down. If she loses Indiana and North Carolina it will be extremely hard for her to continue. But there is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.

Clinton's may have won last night, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama's march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton's Waterloo.


Read Robert's full post.

Dylan Loewe has this to say:

Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory against Barack Obama in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary. But underlying the numbers, there is a new kind of inevitability on the horizon. Certainly her campaign will use the night's victory to propel the race forward into Indiana and North Carolina, hoping against hope that few noticed what actually transpired. But with her luck running as perilously low as her campaign war chest, it would seem improbable that the media would provide her cover yet again.

After tonight, despite an apparent ten point victory in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton is no longer electable in a general election.



All there is for Obama supporters to do now is to ignore the Main Stream Media as is struggles, stumbles, and falls all over itself, and then climbs up its own collective ass to spin some sort of blathering bullshit that serves no other purpose than to creative some sort of false and useless narrative about this campaign in order to sell more advertising to be shoved down the throats of all those who are unfortunate enough to not see past their true intent.

Actually, one more thing Obama supporters can do is to support the Obama campaign. Donate a few dollars to the campaign, or make some phone calls to North Carolina or Indiana, or send nice emails to the precinct captains and volunteers in those states (here, here).

Whoabama!

Our friend Kristina sent us this earlier this morning:

"Your boy gave a great speech last night. I have to say, hers was better than usual too except I thought it was cheesy to ask for money in the middle of a victory speech ("thanks for voting for me, now send more money"). Sophia gets excited whenever she sees Obama on TV and yells his name and tells us he's on. Yesterday morning she explained to me that 'Woahbama might be our next king. Bush is our king now but we don't really like him.' Apparently she was watching the news with Eric Monday night while I was at my auction meeting. She reminded me that Woahbama was doing that thing today (yesterday) where we might make him our next king (the primary). Very cute."

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The truth is never negative, it is only the truth

Obama has been pretty good so far about keeping his attacks as defensive maneuvers, but he could be better. He's done well at responding to Clinton's attacks, and has kept his "negative blows" to those that parry her attacks. But as every trained fighter knows, you can't always just play defense, and being aggressive is not the same as being negative. As long as Obama speaks truth to Hillary's so-called power, he's in the clear. A strong and successful fighting strategy is to meet every blow with two of your own. If someone punches you, you punch back twice. If they kick you hard, you kick back harder, twice.

Obama has been gentlemanly so far, but the time has long past for this to stop. To win, he doesn't need to praise her campaign, or show admiration for her tenacity, or anything else. She has squandered her right to any respect for her campaign tactics beyond all but those who admire Karl Rove. Obama should not reward her campaign with praise, he should constantly call it out for what it is, but instead should do his best to connect it to the Siegelman case in Alabama, which could prove to be the nail in Rove's coffin, and by extension Clinton's. It will brim as an example of the death of old-school politics.

Any doubters should know that the truth is never negative, it is only the truth.