Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
TPM's criticisms of Obama
I have been a loyal TPM reader for many months now. I read
it everyday, checking it frequently. I believe Josh Marshall has put together a
site that has been peerless in reporting on Washington events. Rarely have I
read anything I thought unnecessary, or biased.
Until this past week.
I have been frustrated with the idea, repeated several times, that Obama is taking a beating, or being bitch-slapped or whatever other pithy phrases have been posted. It’s almost as if there is no campaign on, and Obama’s role and his campaign role is to swat at the pesky flies of the fading Clinton campaign.
I don’t care what Mark Penn says. I don’t care what Clinton says about Obama’s ability to be commander in chief, nor whether she says he’s not ready for the 3:00 am phone call, nor whether she calls for Powers’ resignation, nor whether the Clinton campaign makes the ludicrous claim that Obama won’t take big states like NY or CA in the general because he couldn’t in the primaries, nor whether the Clinton campaign this is up for the super delegates to decide, nor whether the Clintons are telling us how wonderful it would be for Obama to be VP, nor whether the Clinton campaign and the press are making such a foolishly big deal over their 4-delegate win Tuesday, less than Obama picked up in Alaska.
Obama has been busy doing what he needs to do, and does best, building a national campaign that will be victorious in November. He has been campaigning in Mississippi. He found time to create a commercial for Foster. According to Kos, he found time to send hundreds of volunteers to ensure Foster’s victory. When I visit his web site and see all the events being planned for the remaining contests, I recognize just what a juggernaut he continues to build, day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month. He is taking his skills as a community organizer and developing a true grassroots nation-wide community organizing behemoth that not only will steamroll hapless republicans this fall, but will be positioned to help him with his difficult legislative agenda including ending the Iraq war, addressing global warming, and providing “national” health care.
Looking towards the future, it is likely, come June 3rd, that he will have won 35 state contests to Hillary’s 17. (Counting PR and DC.) He will have amassed a lead of 170-180 pledged delegates. Also, he will likely be tied or ahead in super delegates, and most important, he will have won the popular vote.
His coat-tails going into November are looking increasinging awe-inspiring. His ability to attract first time voters, independents, and even republicans is truly remarkable. There are a lot of reasons that democrats continue to make record turnouts in primaries and caucuses. But it is undeniable that the Obama candidacy is a major factor. The democratic success in 2006 is looking more and more like just a warm up to a looming blow-out for democrats in state houses, governships, representatives and senators.
Whatever metric you choose, whether it be new voters, total voters, new contributors or total money raised, Barack Obama is knocking down records. His momentum is unstoppable. Yes Hillary will likely win PA, WV, KY and PR, and maybe squeek out another state or two. She is a tough competitor, and she’s not going to roll over for Obama until there is no hope for her campaign. And she apparently has no compunction about going really negative hoping something might stick.
But Obama has made it clear he is running a different campaign, and his strategy has worked. His campaign is hardly reeling from Hillary’s win in Ohio and Rhode Island. As Kos points out this afternoon, this “week from hell” for Obama has him 15 delegates compared to one week ago. Obama is not suffering. He’s winning, and winning big.
So why must this site paint this ridiculous portrait of an Obama on the ropes, taking blow after blow with no response? TPM is painting a picture of an Obama in free fall, being bitch-slapped by the Clinton campaign. Why are these last gasps of the dying Clinton campaign represented as something Obama has to worry about? Why does he have to prove himself to this site that he will let no slur go unchallenged, or else he paints himself as weak, not in command, unable to assert himself?
Obama’s doing just fine, thank you. If the Clinton campaign wants to wade around in the mud, it’s not slowing him down. He’s picking up another state tomorrow, and another pile of delegates, quite likely more than Clinton won in her all-important firewall contest a week ago. There’s no rush for him to soil himself. There’s going to be plenty of negative campaigning from the republicans, and for now Obama serves himself and the country by avoiding the muck. To many, it makes him appear Presidential.
Comments (53)
I agree. I recently discovered TPM and it quickly has become a favorite. It is user-friendly, but I hope it doesn't become Wolf Blitzer and CNN.
March 10, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's pure genius? Gaining superdelegates in your column by helping to elect new Dems to Congress.
March 10, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delicious Genius
March 11, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, can't wait to see how destor trolls this thread...
I agree, Obama has had a PR problem as of late. But, if he can learn now how to deal with this sort of thing, he'll be all the better for it in November. Part of me wonders if this isn't actually a coordinated effort between the Clinton and Obama campaigns to keep McCain in the shadows, and that some backroom deal has already been made...
March 10, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for pointing out how well he is handling his campaign. Winning is hard to argue with but some seem blind to it. Obama Is Winning!
March 10, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree whole-heartedly, Patrick.
What's with all the criticism that Obama's not fighting back enough? He doesn't have to, so why should he?
As you point out, he's ahead. He's still winning delegates, increasing his lead, and he's on track to continue. The next big contest is, what, five weeks away? There will be plenty of time to pick apart the Clinton campaign's maneuverings in the media.
I picture Obama as Bugs Bunny, and Hillary and Bill as Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam. They'll make a lot of noise, generate a lot of bluster, and eventually do themselves in. Obama can remain cool and, a couple of weeks from now, say "what's up, doc?"
Keep these words in mind when you think of the Clintons' wacky media spin of late: Clinton fatigue.
March 11, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Splendid analogy!
March 11, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
its nice that youre all happy for Obama, and im a recently converted Obama supporter from the Hillary side (her recent non-vote on telecom immunity was the last straw) but i think youre all in for a very rude awakening. the fact is that neither one of them can get enough delegates to avoid it being decided at the convention, and she's got the party "wired" a little better than he does. if she wins strongly in PA and it stays close he's going to have to settle for veep or walk away, just wait and see. this could be very demoralizing, but she's already shown that she's willing to hand it to the republicans rather than graciously accept defeat. i voted for bill twice and have been a fan of the clintons for a long time, but i have to say in light of her recent decisions that i like her less and less every day.
but watch how the clintons use their muscle on dean and the rest in the coming weeks. if Obama cant win or at least come very close in PA theres no way the party's gonna give it to him based on his ability to come up with winning caucus strategies in republican states. watch.
March 11, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The remaining superdelegates will break in favor of whoever has the most pledged delegates (and that will be Obama). Obama is winning.
http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
March 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will finish with a pledged delegate lead bigger than he has today (think North Carolina), and if the Superdelegates were so gung-ho about Hillary Clinton, they would have all jumped in for her back in December when she had a thirty point national lead.
Remember also that 10% of the Supers are add-ons, chosen by groups that usually mirror the state contests, and Obama has about 12-15 more delegates net out of that.
March 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
peaceMF,
Welcome to the pool--the water's great. However--I don't think Barack is going to be faced with accepting #2. More likely risk: he'll have to hold his nose and offer Senator Clinton the Vice-Presidency.
He only needs 46% of all remaining delegates to hit the 2025--and even if he doesn't get all 2025, he's going to have way more than Clinton does.
March 11, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are 'inside' an experiment. There's no way that we can see the 'whole'. We do know how things were done in the past (I've called it elsewhere the Clash of the Titans). In this presidential contest, there are no Titans. Well, Clinton is acting as though she is one. And then there is the "Obama Campaign AND its supporters". There is no symmetry to begin with. To complicate matters, the lack of symmetry does not end there. It is also evident in the candidates themselves.
I think that TPM's reaction decried by Patrick is to be expected. It is the contest viewed through past experiences. And Patrick's reaction to TPM is also to be expected. They are both part of the experiment in my view.
What will be the end result? Can it be foreseen? I just don't know.
March 11, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, he has put his muddy waders on, and gotten in the same boat of mud slinging and has been. He accomplishes his mudsling in a different manner, but he is attempting to play politics, as for him winning, its not as simple as all that .. look at your remaining delegates and what the possibilities are.. no clear or decisive winner. As for the super delegates, i hope they vote how their constituency votes other wise who are they speaking for? Obama and Clinton both point fingers, there is no innocent in this matter. Be realistic about politics and the arena it is being played in. If you and he cant run with the big dogs, then you need to get back on the porch with the puppies where it is safe.
March 11, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's over when it's over.
March 11, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mustn't forget, though, that superdelegates - and the rest of us, too - can count on a large number of Clinton supporters to cast their votes for Obama in the general election should she lose the primary nomination. Do you honestly think California, New York and New Jersey (home to liberal-as-hell Jon Corzine) are going to be voting John McCain? Hardly. It's not like Obama ONLY gets his OWN votes in these close-match states with Hillary. He picks up hers, too. The fact that he was as close as he was in those so-called "Hillary" states is also a great sign for him in the general. She'd also get his voters were the tables turned, but his wins around the country - and the political infrastructure he's built while running this 50-state campaign - make him look a whole lot more electable.
March 11, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those that comment here that the Clinton campaign is going to pick up all these super delegates, the math is just not with her.
Since Super Tuesday, barely a month ago, there have been over 100 super delegate commitments. Obama's won over 80%. I think it is a safe assumption that the same will happen again by June 3rd.
If that happens, and assuming Obama picks up 15 PDs net in the remaining contests, Clinton would have to win over 75% of the remaining delegates.
I just don't see Obama winning 75+% from super Tuesday until June 3rd, and then Clinton suddenly winning 75% of the remaining. Obama is running even in representatives, senators and governers. That leaves DNC members where Hillary currently has her 35 super delegate lead. Assuming that Barack ties or wins in reps, sens and govs, that means that Clinton would win be a seachange of DNC members this summer.
You can say all you want, I can't predict the future and on and on, but that just ain't gonna happen.
-PatrickBradish
March 11, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what an especially sweet victory it was: Dennny Hastert's seat. The bigger story, of course, is Obama's commitment to building a Democratic majority and not dismissing "red" states or districts. We can build this one district at a time. It is the way Reagan did it (that's what Obama meant about Reagan's political ideas).
The Clintons have been notoriously cheap with their time and money in building the party. They will reward extreme loyalists and help get them elected; but they are known for having precious little to do with actually building the party. Which is why it was so offensive that the party had to come to his and Hillary's defense, time and time again. Sometimes it was Republican hit jobs; other times they brought the wrath of Republicans upon themselves. But they expect -- demand -- that the party bail them out.
Hillary could have won her last Senate campaign in her bathrobe. But she amassed tons of cash, ran an expensively lavish campaign when she was running against her own "Alan Keyes". She could have used her time and money to help build a democratic majority. But it really is always about the Clintons, all the time.
Obama has a different vision for building the party and a working majority to pass progressive legislation. He put his money, time and heart into the Foster election. He has a deeper, more effective understanding of what it takes to succeed. This is what he means by "change". It is not the meaningless line all politicians use.
Change we can substantiate. The Foster win was evidence of this.
March 11, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some disturbing posts today: at this site -- The Texas Cover-up. And DailyKos had a thread about her efforts to switch caucus delegates in Colorado that has tied up the delegate count. It was an eye opener, and very disturbing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/05659/3925/970/471945
I'm assuming our guys are on top of this. But the Texas Cover-up was especially disturbing: they took their caucus sheets home and we're expected to believe these votes when they come in?
CW has been to project the 56-42 spread for Obama. If this is happening, a light needs to be shined right now.
March 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the "TPM is pro-Clinton" posts. Josh has been accused of being both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama over the course of this election. Truth is, he's probably both since he's pro-Democrat first. But anyone who thinks that Obama is getting a particularly rough shake here at TPM just isn't paying attention.
March 11, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreement from an Obama supporter.
March 11, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think that Greg was biased against Obama, but I;ve changed my mind.
As long as TPM keeps honest on both sides, that's what I like.
March 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
you are delusional. if you honestly think this website is "honest to both sides," you must be nuts.
they should just rename is "talking obama memo!"
speaking of obama, heard he was mentioned at the rezko trial today..."change" and "hope" indeed!
March 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary was mentioned in news stories about Spitzer's whoremongering today. BFD.
March 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
And here all along I thought he was getting effusive praise from TPM in defense against you rabid racist trolls. :-)
Hey, guy, we don't agree on much lately but if you are saying that TPM is trying to play it neutral I agree.
It has always been my feeling Josh is well to right of center though undoubtedly a Democrat.
Whatever the case I appreciate that this site is open to varied opinions unlike some other "progressive" sites that brook no opposition to prevailing sentiment.
Glad you are here even though you are, of course, dead wrong. :-)
Best, Terry
March 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break! This is one of the most pro Obama sites that I have come across!
March 11, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always nice to see you here and wrong about everything too, Terry.
After the convention it'll be just like the old days and we'll be on the same side.
March 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dana39,
"... and the political infrastructure he's built while running this 50-state campaign - make him look a whole lot more electable."
The most notable strength in structure that the Obama people have shown is the ability to do well in caucus states. On the ground work, along with online networking to get people excited about voting for their candidate. It has worked well during the primary but there will not be any caucuses in the general election. So I don't know if Obama's "infrastructure" makes him more electable in the GE.
March 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can not wait for TPM post election, to me this is where they really shine!
March 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody please help me understand the numbers game.
Why does the Clinton camp make such a big deal about Hillary's wins in the big blue states?
I've always assumed that the big, reliably blue states would go for whomever the Democrat is - either Clinton or Obama. Is that assumption wrong?
I've also always thought that our ability to win hinges on our ability to win a few swing states - we can't count on winning with just the big blues.
Which states are projected to be the key swing states to watch this year?
Which candidate has the best chance to increase our capture of those swing states?
Much has been written about record turnout in the primaries so far - how does the GE swing state turnout in 2004 compare with primary turnout in the swing states so far this year?
Does anyone venture to guess what the turnout will be in November, and how that will affect our potential for success in winning some of those swing states?
Considering this year's primary turnout numbers: IF Obama got the nomination, and assuming a percentage of prime Dem Clinton voters might go for McCain instead of Obama, can we make any reasonable conclusions about Obama's potential to win those swing states?
What are our chances to win those swing states if Hillary is the nominee?
Seems to me the big blue states are a given with either Hillary or Obama, so we really need the candidate who can draw record turnout in the swing states.
March 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody please help me understand the numbers game.
Why does the Clinton camp make such a big deal about Hillary's wins in the big blue states?
I've always assumed that the big, reliably blue states would go for whomever the Democrat is - either Clinton or Obama. Is that assumption wrong?
I've also always thought that our ability to win hinges on our ability to win a few swing states - we can't count on winning with just the big blues.
Which states are projected to be the key swing states to watch this year?
Which candidate has the best chance to increase our capture of those swing states?
Much has been written about record turnout in the primaries so far - how does the GE swing state turnout in 2004 compare with primary turnout in the swing states so far this year?
Does anyone venture to guess what the turnout will be in November, and how that will affect our potential for success in winning some of those swing states?
Considering this year's primary turnout numbers: IF Obama got the nomination, and assuming a percentage of prime Dem Clinton voters might go for McCain instead of Obama, can we make any reasonable conclusions about Obama's potential to win those swing states?
What are our chances to win those swing states if Hillary is the nominee?
Seems to me the big blue states are a given with either Hillary or Obama, so we really need the candidate who can draw record turnout in the swing states.
March 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why don't we talk about something else.
March 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one.
But to vote, you need to care enough to show up.
I don't see how his organization is caucus only -- when you phone bank, and canvas, you are reaching VOTERS. Period. And we create not just greater participation, but greater quality of participation. More information and analysis, less reliance on MSM spoonfed soundbites. And maybe we don't get bullied into bad wars so easily in the future.
Anyone who has ever done any grassroots organizing can tell you what a difference even a few committed people can make... Now imagine we number in the millions and elect the kind of leaders we want to see represent us... We need zero emissions, an end to the war, fixing NAFTA and WTO, universal health care, education fixed, and for what passes as MSM news and punditry to die a Nielsen death.
March 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about logic or reality, it's about keeping the race alive. The Clinton's and their supporters have no other rationale for saying she should be the nominee based on the reults so far.
Actual logic doesn't have much to do with perception. The party isn't going to give the nomination to Hillary unless there is that critical blow to Obama. They've made the case to the super's and the media that there is still a election going on, and people buy it. By parsing their language and making unsubstantiated claims, that the media parrots, they survive. And if they can keep the media buying it (and their ratings love a race, so they will keep buying it) they force the super-delegates to stay their hand, because Gore/Pelosi/Dean/Carter/etc. don't want to be seen as taking the nomination away from Hillay anymore than they want to take it away from Obama.
In the end, the argument works because the only people who don't want it to work are either Obama supporters or people who don't have a voice or stake in the race.
The Clintons want to beleive they can win and need others to believe it also.
The media wants ratings, and prolonged dem fight that could lead to train wreck is a much better story than a decided nomination.
The Republican's want the carnage to increase and are hoping for the train wreck this thing could turn into.
And the Democrats are chickens without real leadership.
March 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to further define what I mean by being "honest."
Being honest does not mean repeating two sides of the story with no analysis. That's being dishonest to the reader, and I don't need TPM to gather AP reports and post them here.
What I look for in TPM is a intelligent look at the news, culling through the chaff for the wheat. I want, in short, to cut through the BS. (to mix metaphors)
Actually, I do agree TPM could do a better job of calling BS when either Hillary or Obama say something stupid.
March 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh plays it down the middle (except of course when he refers to the Clinton Machine vs. the Obama Organization) but the comment section is downright nasty against anyone who is not supporting Senator Obama. Just look at the Post headlines, anything to grab someones attention including "it is time to call her a B**ch" and worse. Shameful.
I have been a reader of this blog from the first day of its existence, going back to the recount in 2000 and I have never met a nastier group of posters than those who are on here now. I have been called a racist and more because I support Senator Clinton.
I have worked with the Gore campaign, the Dean campaign, the Kerry campaign and now with the Clinton campaign. If Senator Obama is the nominee, I will work with his campaign. I agree with Destor, if you think Josh is pro clinton you need to read the posts AND the comments.
March 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank for your telling it like it is! i couldn't agree with you more.
~gabe
a proud clinton supporter.
March 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
rwomalley, I've been reading this point from a number of posters. I certainly agree with you that the majority of TPM posters are Obama supporters, but that doesn't make Josh pro-Obama. But while there are plenty of nasty Obama supporters, and I deplore the accusations of racism, the nastiness seems very two-sided to me. I'm sure that I'm influenced by my own bias, but I see a lot of nastiness from Clinton supporters which seem to me to make up a higher proportion of pro-Clinton posts, if not a higher volume.
Consider this thread. appalchian_blue condescendingly calls us "newbies" and "naive", and I'm not sure what to do with the "playas" comment. MP tells us to drink the "kook aid". And TUSK81 calls us "delusional". And these posts are very tame compared to what I've seen (e.g. "morons", "idiots", "assholes", etc.) On the polite side are you, airwon, and Terry (I take it that he was joking about "rabid racist trolls".)
In contrast, I don't see any insults coming from the Obama side at the time that I'm writing this post. Of course, it's not a representative sample, and most of the Obama posters on this thread represent the "thoughtful" wing of the Obama side.
I know that the accusations of racism are out of line, but on threads that don't address race, I've been much more conscious of nastiness from the Clinton side. Again, I'm sure that my bias is causing me to pay more attention to the negativity from Clinton supporters, so I'm open to hearing your side.
March 11, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heyyyyyy.... whaddaya mean "(Counting PR and DC)" all in parentheses-like.
I live in DC, and I count... err at least I think I do. I mean, we don't caucus after all. ;)
March 11, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the sign of doing a good job is when people on both sides accuse you of bias. I appreciate the evenhandedness. That said, I think sometimes the site--like so much of the MSM--moves onto the next thing very quickly. So David hit Obama for not responding to King's comments and used it to express concern about his candidacy, but when Obama responded, I think it would be responsible to post the comments and evaluate how effective the response is. Since he raised the question, I do think he should engage with the answer.
March 11, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not saying your Bugs Bunny = Obama analogy is not original, but check out Jeff Greefield in Slate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185720/
March 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the elephant in the room is that the "juggernaut" is made up of people who haven't given a good damn about the Democratic Party nor about their country ... and still don't.
Suppose Obama gets the nomination and "juggernauts" to victory? Then what? Why, the jugheads will disperse like rain in the desert, high-five each other for having elected the "First Black President" (the only reason most of them voted), and go back to their couches and HD TV.
People who give a damn don't wait for an election to get to work. People who give a damn don't tell everyone who will listen that they'll vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination. People who give a damn don't rely on a single charismatic individual to present salvation on a platter.
There is no Obama "movement," no righteous rising up of "the people" to "take back America." You people treat him like a reborn MLK, when in fact he has led a life of privilege and sacrificed nothing to get where he is today. (I take it back -- he gave up smoking. What an heroic sacrifice.) No jail time, no beatings, no public humiliation has ever been endured the leader of this "movement." No children lost, no family in danger. Nor do I believe for a minute that he would ever put himself through any kind of misery to lead the charge to "take back America."
It's ironic, people always holding up his "community organizing" as some kind of badge of authenticity. Hillary Clinton has done twice as much of that kind of work as he has. She was doing it when she was 14 y/o. I guess it's just not "authentic" if you're a 60 y/o white woman.
Mighty tasty, that kook-aid. Have another swig.
Thanks.
mp
March 11, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't tell me why I am voting for Obama. It has nothing to do with any of the reasons you cite. And if you are so big on experience, I assume you've come from Dodd or Biden? And will then vote for McCain in the general over Hillary?
March 11, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to tell you all newbies to the great american experience called national politics
as a democratic candidate for the big job
if you don't win OHio and Pa and appeal to the hispanic vote in south texas and across the
nation...
and...when you lose 84 out of 88 counties
by an average of 68 %...
in Ohio...
you will not win by winning wyoming, idaho
and DC and vermont...or even wisconsin
it doesn't work that way guys
I wish the world of american politics were different
but you would have to be either FDR or JFK
...[maybe even the ronald raygun himself...the guy who put more blacks down in the ghetto but whom obama loves to USED to mention...ronald "i brought crack to your neighborhoods" reagon..
sorry guys...
Hillary for all your considered wisdom and talk of delegate counts and "majority of states"
your simple naivete' of serious presidential american politics is....quite
lets put it nicely
showing...
go back to presidential politics 101
and learn why HIllary was able to win
84 out of 88 counties in Ohio
and WIN EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPING EXCEPT AFRICAN AMERICANS HERE
and when she does the SME THING IN PA
in five weeks
the race will be....literally
over...
[florida and michigan will be icing on the cake...literally for her
and don't forget all those favorable
Obamanoics in ...say...
West Virginia...
ought to be a hoot...just to see this
"national winning strategy" trying to spin
itself out of its own deep too deep
canyon of a rut...
soranara' Obama!
and NO VEEP FOR YOU EITHER
long live
appalachia blue baby!!!!
March 11, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone's interested, I had some more pointed words about what I perceive as TPM's pro-Hillary bias (from Saturday):
http://tinyurl.com/28gae5
Yes, there is certainly a bias here, but at least Kos and HuffPo come out and say who they are supporting.
TPM is trading in its Polk Award capital pretty quick, and many of us do not believe the "objectivity" exists.
Right NOW there is a one line blog entry about "Ferraro 2.0" but there is no other official commentary about or even acknowledgment of the race-baiting bullsh*t.
Sorry, TPM, YOU can ignore it, but others won't.
March 11, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think TPM was very early on the race-baiting before South Carolina, actually.
March 11, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
adding one more thing
just to key in on something
"the swing states"...just fyi...
are NOT wyoming, idaho, south dakato
or south carolina...
these are NOT the swing states ...fyi
Ohio pa michigan.....
these are the states that turn a national election
florida can too
but dc, virginia, vermont connecticut
wyoming, idaho, nebraska, mississippi
and all those too small too really count
caucus states
just dont' really matter AT ALL
its simple national november math that counts
and no real sober minder super delegate
[or even a ted kennedy...[or John "remember Ohio" Kerry]
can miss what happen here just less than a week ago...
as we say...as goes Ohio
so goes
it all....right here..from the 'heart of it all'
its our state motto
and all you "playas" better take this to the
bank
March 11, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patrick, it's a message that's awful hard to keep one's greedy little fingers out of. In the absence of other news besides race-baiting and gender-bias soundbites, and a long time to go until Pennsylvania, it's about the only criticism you can level at him right now.
I agree with you, though; I think Obama's campaign is working out the kinks on fighting back while maintaining the dignity that's been winning people over. Hopefully he can stop exhorting people to add their sums correctly and get back to why he's ahead in the polls and why that's because he'd be a better president, because he not only has to have more pledged delegates; public opionion has to swing the mass of supers around before the convention.
I've only been hanging around here for four months, but I've yet to see the kind of journalistic approach you seem to expect. Is there a TPM of Christmas Past I missed out on?
March 11, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM has favored Obama overall. A quick look at the front page headlines over the last month will show that. I think Josh has tried to be impartial but hasn't succeeded mostly because of an ideological bent that is tuned to the seemingly fresh progressive outsider persona of the Obama camp and, like many of us, hardened by the years of Hillary demonizing. Part of it is that they still have to follow the MSM (TPM ain’t Reuters) and the press has been decidedly anti-Hillary and soft on Obama (though his media-darlingness is wearing off).
The Obama camp and the loyal legions out here in blogland have effectively neutralized the Clinton camp by playing the above-it-all victims of Clinton’s calculating below-the-belt destructive politics. This is not to say Clinton hasn’t been playing hardball but every political strategy or criticism or sound-bite is turned into an outrageous racial slur or some dirty-tricks mugging. That’s politics, I guess. What I don’t get is how the self-defined victims can then cry foul when TPM reports that Clinton is beating up on Obama.
March 11, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, there it is. (New commentary about Ferraro just posted by Josh.)
Thank you once again, Josh for renewing my faith in TPM, at least somewhat.
I still stand by my earlier post about what I feel to be bias, but I'm glad it's not completely over-the-top.
OH, BY THE WAY!
Ferraro said the same thing in 1988!!!
Check it out.
http://tinyurl.com/2dljo8
EEEdiot!
March 11, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments.
A few points.
First, I am not criticizing TPM for being against Obama or for Clinton. Rather I take issue with the pettiness of the criticism. I come to TPM to escape the incredible pettiness of the MSM in discussing virtually all aspects of this and previous elections. But when I read on TPM that Obama is getting bitch-slapped, it makes me check the link to make sure I am not reading a Chris Matthews comment.
My complaint also centers around TPM’s need to offer a candidate advice as to how to counter negative campaigning. I do not come to TPM to read about advice to candidates. That’s what I expect when I read Broder or Brooks. They’re filled with advice, pretty much all of it worthless.
The main point of my post is that it is up to Obama to chose where and when to respond to statements from the Clinton campaign. TPM stated that Obama was suffering because of his lack of response. And TPM has started down the slippery slope of the MSM, which believes itself to have an oracle’s ability to deduce what’s gone on in the minds of voters in Ohio or Texas, and link their thoughts, and their votes back to the two campaigns’ recent public posturing. When TPM does this, I have to check to see that I am not reading Tim Russert, or Wolf Blitzer, who both drone on endlessly about how the most minute “controversy-du-jour” is affecting voters.
When I discussed the numbers, I am only reciting the CW. RealClearPolitics.com currently has Obama up 129 delegates, not counting Mississippi, and the balance of the Texas caucus delegates. In Clinton’s big win last Tuesday, she picked up 6 delegates. How many delegates will she pick up in PA? 10. How many in WV, KY and PR? 25? Those would be great wins, but considering Obama’s likely to pick up 10 to 15 in OR, MT, ND, IN, and NC, he still comes out 100+ delegates ahead at the end. And if the past 4 weeks are any guide, Obama is likely to pick up more super delegates than Clinton by June 3rd.
All this means that the Obama campaign, being ahead, gets to pick and chose when and how to respond to the Clinton campaign. It has made a very public decision to try and keep the campaign on a positive message. And since they are winning, they have much more flexibility, and more options in deciding how to respond to Clinton's criticisms.
If they were losing, and slipping further and further behind, where the opponent’s criticism was going unchallenged, and it looked as if the campaign was about to fold, I can understand TPM giving the Obama campaign advice on how to respond.
But that’s just not the case here. Obama has all the advantages of holding the winning hand. And as a result, it just looks foolish (MSM-style foolish) for this Polk award winning site, to saying he’s getting bitch-slapped by the losing campaign.
PatrickBradish
March 11, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalachin Blue,
You claim: “No real sober minder super delegate can miss what happen here just less than a week ago...”
And that’s a fact. What no real sober minded super delegate can miss is that in the firewall state of Ohio, where Clinton desperately needed a big win, in a state where she was beating Obama by 20 points two weeks before the primary, she came away with all of 9 pledged delegates. And in that other big firewall state, Texas, where she also was leading Obama by 20 points three weeks ago, Obama came away with about 8 delegates. If it weren’t for the 5 that Clinton picked up in Rhode Island, she would be up just one delegate for the evening.
That was her firewall night, her chance to finally reverse Obama’s lead of 150+ pledged delegates. She picked up a whopping 6 delegates.
That’s what the super delegates are seeing, and that is why in the past month Obama has picked up 82, to Clinton’s 31, and in his 82 are 5 or 6 that moved from Clinton to Obama, while Clinton has not picked up any Obama super delegates in the past several months.
You imply that because Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio, or Michigan or may lose to Clinton in PA, that he can’t win these states in November. Ohio is certainly a swing state, but do you really believe that because Hillary wins these states, that McCain will win them if Obama is the candidate. Do you really believe that McCain has a any chance to pick up PA or MI?
A loss in the primary does not equate to a loss in the general. And that is something the super delegates are quite sure of.
PatrickBradish
March 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
...patrick
you need to go back to the 04 elecction...
i was w/ john kerry on election eve...
and bruce springsteen and bon jovi
in his last week's
at every event, kerry had a 100,000 [not 5 or 6 or 7 ] thousand people show up...
and bush trounced kerry here...
..and who became president?
its the same in pa...and i 'm afraid...
you just don't understand what's at stake...
thank god the super delegates will and should...
[by the way...the delegate count even in ohio
is a false read...
as i said..to real politico's they watch and see how the county vote totals are taken...
and obama lost every single county in ohio except the urban vote..and YES these counties
Just like in PA and other sections of the country they will vote NOT for obama..
not because the dems will try to elect a dem
its about electability
and by the way...obama can NOT win most of the state's his campaign is has claimed to win so far
simply will not happen..not even georgia, alabama, mississippi and nebraska or kansas or
missouri or wyoming or idaho or...or or or
that's why hilary's HUGE win in popular vote in OHio....DOES MATTER and it will MATTER IN PA
and her rural and south TEXAS vote matters very very much...its "says" something about how the nation is splitting this race ...now...
not like in iowa..where some one drank kool aid
but...in real states that matter
and believe me patrick...if you were as seasoned at this game as i...it will matter
by the way..one final aspect of all this
i read in professional blogs and serious political blogs prior to texas...
obama was not only "winning in texas" and he was "picking up republicans who stated they were only going to vote for him now because they were not going to vote in dem primary"
this was very well known...just how many of those independent republicans in virginia and wyoming and elsewhere..are going to remain in teh blue columm in the fall?
i know this much is true...
appalachia blue will make Hillary's claim to the presidency true
just like it did ...less than two weeks ago
its over folks....rural, senior, and the working poor mainly white folks of this nation
coupled with the blue collar of youngstown and toledo and most rust belt towns in the north
are going to have a president who KNOWS who eletcted her...
and it ain't going to be rich young liberals mixing it up w/ students and the urban hip hop folks...[and this isn't racist, its just the truth...i mean HE COULD HAVE VISITED US ONCE IN THE 4 weeks since the elections started ...just once but he knew one thing according to insiders
he did not have to because the delegate proportioning does not have to make him work...
how fascinating and honest is this?
if the dems race were a winner take all...like mccain's was...
the race would indeed be over..and it would be
Hillary's by a landslide because of the large
blue swing states...
[adding one more thing..why do all of you obama ites..believe so easily that california and new york and the other large swing states will vote for obama so readily?
zogby usa HAD him winning california by 5 % points ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION as per the FRONT PAGE OF THE USA TODAY
yet he lost by over 15 %
same in new hampshire...or dont you remember that media fiasco and hilary blowout
it was HILLARY WHO HAD LOST THE MOMENTEUM GOING INTO TEXAS AND OHIO AND ALL THE MEDIA HAD HER COUNTED OUT
and that was because of mainly two extra campaign 'facts"
the media' blitzing hillary and favoring the "phenomena" and "movement" of obama ...that ohio proved that wasn't...
and
the fact the florida's large state tally was never counted and fully credited..even as proportionate as it was...
florida DOES MATTER TO THE DEMS
WAY MORE THAN EVERY WESTERN BULLSHIT STATE WHERE AS BILL CLINTON SAYS
"YOU CAN DROP ME NEXT TO THE NEAREST MOOSE IN IDAHO AND WYOMING AND YOU CAN GET AN APPLAUSE LINE THERE IF YOU BRING SOME ISSUES FAVORABLE TO THOSE FOLKS>>>"
what was he really saying..."wyoming and idaho and so many other western states including colorado...
[do you really believe colorado will go obama in the fall..come on now...have you ever met a true racist? all of them live in colorado...really]
don't simply hold a candle to Ohio Florida, Texas or pa or new york..
remember..and we on hillary's side will keep it very very simple
obama has the black urban and black southern vote...and SOME liberal wealth rich voters who claim they are educated...
hillary has the rest ...and she's SO STUCK WITH US...
and she has a few of those 'greasy'but very catholic mexicans...and ALL OF THOSE OLD WHITE CATHOLIC WOMEN WHO LOVE HER IN RH AND OHIO AND PA AND NEW YORK AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET GO OF HER I"M AFRAID AND NO>>I'M NOT SO SURE THEY WILL VOTE FOR A PERSON THEY DON'T FULLY TRUST...
so...as 'real politick' as it is patrick
one cannot change somethings about american
presidential realities...Ohio..as i said
like some other majors, even florida
will make ALL the difference in the fall
and if i were a super delegate...
i would want the candidate
that ACTUALLY OVERWHELMINGLY WON THE COUNTIES OF OHIO AND FLORIDA AND WESTERN AND SOUTH TEXAS
AND SOUTH LA>>>THAT IS THE LATINO SOUTH LA VOTE
she's actually a real experienced person by the way patrick..and she really is very very intelligent and she has been 'fully vetted' as the media KNOWS SO WELL...
and whenever you wake up from that "no blue state, no red state" stupor....
and realize...it ain't just so...that there really really are "red states and they don't vote blue in november AT ALL AND NEVER WILL ....
the win for Hillary' will be all that more imminent...
...& what a PROBLEM FOR HER...
AND WHAT A COMBINATION TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE
IN THE FALL
March 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
appalachian, are you deliberately formatting your posts to discourage us from reading them? If so, you're succeeding. I think I agree with you, but keep being blinded by all the weird visual breaks.
March 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment