Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
WSJ: Barack Obama is the Nominee (Corrected Verison)
From The
Wall Street Journal:
No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.
I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma.
Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans." Make no mistake: Superdelegates with sway took notice.Oh, there's more...
Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see?
The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?
Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing.
But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.
It's amazing what a little doze of real reporting can do for th soul.
And just in case you missed the other article on Rep. James Clyburn, he
is saying, out loud, what many have been thinking since Texas & Ohio:
Hillary is shooting for 2012 at this point:
From Reuters:
House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.
“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.[snip]
Still, Clyburn said “I don’t think she ought to drop out.”
But he added, “There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.”
Comments (34)
WSJ is doing what is otherwise know as "stating the obvious". Hillary needed a big win in PA to even have a glimmer of viability. She didn't get it, now its up to Obama to run out the clock without making any huge mistakes.
April 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This. Her staying in would be great for Obama, if her campaign would stay away from the negatives. We've had extra chances to register new voters and more air time to get Obama's message out. Unfortunately, there's also been more air time (paid for by the Clinton campaign) to get negative ads against Obama out.
April 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly... Clinton can stay in all she wants and wait to see if Obama crashes somehow; but every day that she fights with the tone that she has been fighting is simply more ground that Obama will have to make up in the General.
April 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Over on the Obama site there's a link to the speech he gave yesterday to union regulars in Chi-town.
He was supposed to take the day off.
He really needed to. He's really tired. Check out that speech. He's really tired.
And yes, he definitely does better with the teleprompter.
Y'know. If he can't regain some of his early energy, it's going to be a different race. He needs new ways to say the usual stuff, which he needs to go on saying. But the old phrases are getting to be exhausted of their impact, and he's beginning to sound like he has nothing else to say.
I think it was a mistake for him to give a speech yesterday. He should have had a sit-down type thing with his union supporters in Chicago, lower key so he could be more intimate and accessible.
April 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I also read this piece. The MSM is not covering the response from average Black voters should the primary be given to Clinton. There is simply no question that Black turnout will be much lower than usual. And the historic bond between the dems and their loyal supporters will be broken for decades.
Readers, please recommend this post.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is intereseting is that this op-ed went up on the WSJ site last night, when Huffpo was running a story on "MSM Abandoning Obama" and by today there are opinion pieces all over Huffpo talking about how the PA results were inaccurately reported, that Clinton is distorting her "I won the most votes" argument and etc. Amazing how just one unambiguously worded PIECE OF NEWS can snap other media organizations out of their horserace mentality.
April 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The mere fact that must be "snapped out" of their horse race mentality it so depressing and damaging to our country.
Haven't they learned anything from using the petty to take down a candidate?
Do they not remember it was they who helped install our present Idiot in Chief?
Now that want another (McCain) or worse (someone with a brain AND a thrust for power (Clinton)?
Jeez
April 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you're talking about. Don't you think we should choose our President based on who we would rather have a beer with? Where are your priorities?
April 25, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what happened: in Bush's second term I had to stop drinking. Really. I'm looking more for a cat person, myself.
April 25, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can she expect with her actions in this campaign to have a chance for 2012? She and Bill as well as their cast of characters are destroying the name Clinton. People forgave them in the 90s because everyone had disposable income for their toys and we only had MSM.
Given the choice between her or McCain, I'll vote with my party, but it'll be a vote out of desperation, picking the lesser of two evils.
April 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know! She's think somehow all she did will magically disappear from the minds of most democrats?
Talk about being out of touch.
I can't wait until she's primaried. That's what she'll be dealing with in 2012.
April 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least McCain, (the war-loving, stupid, dodgy angry, myopic, simple-minded, idiot that he is) won fairly. That is more than you can say for what Hillary is willing to do.
April 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Given the choice between her or McCain, I'll vote with my party, but it'll be a vote out of desperation, picking the lesser of two evils."
At this point, I'd need some convincing that Clinton actually is the lesser of two evils. Both McCain and Clinton are seriously disliked by many in their own party, and will depress turnout in the midterm elections.
I would put money that McCain will add more Democrats to the House and Senate in 2010 than Clinton will.
April 25, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary should have headed the "Fierce urgency of now" and run in 2004. She probably would have won since she is a much better politician than John Kerry but she decided to take what appeared to be the easier route to the White House and wait until 2008.
April 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps someone would enlighten me. I see constant refrences to Hillary's campaign being totally negative, to the point that her tactics are anathema to any true Democrat. I'd be curious to know what exactly are the things she's done that are considered so despicable. I have a strong feeling most of the stuff cited will be either total fabrication, wild ass speculation or complete distortions.
April 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's pushed Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, the bitter comment, etc, from her own mouth on multiple occasions. When asked if she thought Obama was a muslim she said "not as far as I know", instead of taking the opportunity to put an end to a specious rumor about a fellow dem.
She has run her campaign like this all along. A lot of people try to equivocate and say both campaigns are getting heated and nasty, but whatever unaffiliated supporters do, the fact is Obama hasn't personally brought up any of the silly distractions associated with her. The most negative he's gone was pointing out that she's a negative campaigner.
Most of the Hillary supporters are calling that "whining" anyway, which really just strengthens the argument that he hasn't gone negative against her.
April 25, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
[big grin]
ahhhhhhh.
April 25, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget one of the biggest doozies: When she implied that only she and McCain were truly qualified enough to be President.
April 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the abortion mailers in N.H. Don't forget she started the mailer attacks too.
Shame on her!
April 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I even smarted a little in his post-ABC debate speech when he stated that she was campaigning negatively. I am a supporter to be sure, but it kind of broke the honeymoon to me for him to even admit she was going negative. He has been doing so well just ignoring all her shit. I guess at a certain point you have to acknowledge it, and even when he did there he did it with good humor and more or less in a dismissive fashion. It was a good speech overall. I was just surprised when he brought up his opponent and her tactics, both of which are, in my opinion, far below the worth of his attention.
April 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She called him an "elitist", the CLASSIC rightwing attack on liberals. Her surrogate said he was lucky to be black -- the race card, another rightwing tactic.
April 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If ya can't tell what tactics she's engaged in that make observers cry Republican, you might want to investigate the arguments she's been making with regard to his elitism, his preacher's "extreme" statements about how American-sponsored violence abroad irritates people enough to make them want to attack America, and her advertising campaign featuring Osama bin Laden.
The last, particularly, is classic. I recall Cheney's threats of another terrorist attack on American soil if Bush was not re-elected in 2004.
April 25, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Far be it from me to ever praise the WSJ, but I appreciate their realism here greatly.
Thanks for the post.
April 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The owners, management, and staff of the WSJ fully well-know that they are wrong on Obama:
If THE MEDIA PUBLISHED the truth about Barack Obama, he will lose his Senate seat and the nomination. Barack Obama has been involved in many dirty and crooked real estate dealings in his past in an effort to build his campaign fund. While Barack claims to be for the little man, his record shows that he panders to big money interest in an effort to obtain the money. This in itself is crooked politics and to lie about the Iraq War and get our nation (I am a US citizen) involved in a much larger war and conflict by his intent and design or total ignorance is criminal and wrong on his part.
I have openly challenged Barack Obama to a nationally televised debate and have never heard from him. Letters written to him in the beginning of his Presidential run indicates or proves that he is not really concerned with the orderly carriage of US foreign policy abroad. Obama lies on Iraq and he knows it.
The people should be told the real truth about Barack Obama!
April 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a secret Muslim, won't pledge allegiance to the flag, doesn't wear a lapel pin and was sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible.
April 25, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus he refused to debate a half-crazed internet troll on national TV. That seals it -- Obama is unfit to be President!
April 25, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I was really looking forward to the Obama-himyaosui debate. What is Barack Obama afraid of?
April 26, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And how about the Larry Sinclair sex scandal, which did occur as Larry Sinclair said and he did pass the lie detector test! .10 that shows deception occurred favors truth more than it does a lie!
The phrase "Obama sucks!" really is appropriate. Obama sets a very poor example for the morals of this nation!
April 25, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
After we negotiated an end to the Iraq War in 1990, over 800 letters were sent out to the media. WSJ included. We so informed Obama's Senate Office about a year ago and they refused to deal with the issue for fear of losing voter support and campaign contributions.
So, if this is how he deals with issues, he should never be our next US President in 2009! Having an honest man like JFK is what I favor.
See my postings on this issue, posted today, April 25, 2008, in the Topix LLC forum "2008 Presidential Election" section.
My profile appears in Topix as well as here at the TMP site.
April 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
furthermore, i hear that barack obama is the leader of the militant faction of a bi-racial terrorist organization. he's using this presidential campaign to cover up the fact that he received training from osama bin laden (ever wonder how barack got his last name?...) in urban warfare, sabotage, and public speaking.
as we see, obama is such a coward that he wouldn't even debate this anonymous poster on tpm over issues that are difficult to understand from his rambling prose and incoherent use of the english language. i think he would make a great candidate for a serious debate with obama.
and i, for one, agree whole-heartedly with "himyaosui" that we need a return to moral and honest presidents. he cites kennedy and, though i would throw my support behind nixon, i must admit that jfk was one of the most honest and moral men to ever inhabit the white house. (except for those extra-marital affairs and the assassination attempts on castro and his involvement in vietnam...)
himyaosui - how old are you? you sound like a sexually-confused fourteen-year-old boy. besides, none of your complaints make any sense. after the way in 1990 you sent 800 letters to the media? wow. about what? why should obama be concerned about how you deal with your sexual frustration? maybe you should challenge pat buchana to a debate - he seems more on your level...
April 25, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, how about going back on point? The point being:
MONEY
My first thought on reading that the Obama campaign and the DNC have created a joint fundraising committee was that the DNC has finally found a cash cow to suckle on (mixed metaphor? youbetcha!).
My second thought was that there's now at least a remote chance that the DNC will see so much as a dollar from me.
If the party's not above cuddling up to Obama because he's a just a fundraising fool, I'm not above using them to get Obama elected. Hopefully those party hacks won't realize how Obama's generation will transform the party until it kicks them in the butt.
April 25, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was referring to the WSJ article about how the money-hungry DNC is slavering over Obama's fundraising talents. Shows how cynical I'm feeling today.
April 25, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness. Such a detailed, in depth article! How could it have omitted Hillary's wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania? It got the part about Hillary's coffin, and the hands of those former presidents reaching out of their graves. And the breathtaking falling away of Hillary supporters. But what about her record breaking $10 million raised in 24 hours? Surely that must have been in the part of the copy righted article that you didn't copy.
April 26, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't raise $10 million. It's a lie. Her win in TX & OH & PA mean nothing since they weren't delegate, game changing BLOWOUTS (20%+).
At the end of the day, it's ONLY about delegates. NO matter how much Cliton stomps her feet and her dead end supporters throw their hate mongering around, it won't change the fact that Obama has already won the delegate count.
Period.
End of story.
That's not wishful thinking, Warm and cuddly Otto, it's the reality based facts you and gotnolife don't seem capable of comprehending.
Unrelated question....
Are you Otto from 9th ave?
April 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment