Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

Interesting article about that very phenomenon on Gothamist.com today:

Does Obama Have a NYC Grassroots Edge?

So . . . how 'bout that NYPost endorsement of Obama?
:shock: :shock: :shock:

pitu wrote: So . . . how 'bout that NYPost endorsement of Obama?
:shock: :shock: :shock:

That wasn't a real endorsement. It was a chance for them to dig at both him and Clinton.

Fucking Rupert Murdoch.

the nyt has the text of the debate, as well as the video, if, like me, you prefer to read than to watch:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/01/31/us/politics/20080131_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video

Carnivore wrote: [quote=pitu]So . . . how 'bout that NYPost endorsement of Obama?
:shock: :shock: :shock:

That wasn't a real endorsement. It was a chance for them to dig at both him and Clinton.

F****g Rupert Murdoch.

My wife and I were out to dinner a few years back and were seated at a table close to Rupert Murdoch and his wife. My wife said something like, "Hey, I think thats Rupert Murdoch..." to which I instinctively and quite loudly replied, "F*** HIM!. Ol' Rupe definitely heard me, the question is whether he heard her or not...needless to say, she cut me off.

Interesting article about what counts as an "issue."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Clinton is just such a divisive figure (mostly through no fault of her own). For example, I actually like her health care plan better than Obama's. But I don't think there's any way she'd ever get it through Congress. Republicans score big points with their base by opposing her. Refusing to cooperate with Obama wouldn't play that well. His leadership and charisma are really important in terms of actually implementing the policies that for the most part he and Clinton agree on.

Watching the debate last night, it was hard not to want to see them on the ticket together. Plus, that was the best dressed and lit I've seen them --I love a Hollywood debate!
Look! Alfre Woodard!
I too prefer HRC's healthplan, and hope she learned a lot last time (and as a Senator) about how that could actually happen instead of just being inspirational. I think that the Republicans that hate Mrs. Clinton like that would also hate a Black man, flat out. F*ck them. Clinton/Obama '08!

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org has endorsed the Big O, which is a pretty big deal for him. Those are motivated primary voters, not just registered possibles. Of course, only 280,000 of them, and perhaps a million or so others on MoveOn's mailing list.

MoveOn.org wrote: VOTE RESULTS
Obama:197,444 70.4%
Clinton: 83,084 29.6%

pitu wrote: Watching the debate last night, it was hard not to want to see them on the ticket together. Plus, that was the best dressed and lit I've seen them --I love a Hollywood debate!
Look! Alfre Woodard!
I too prefer HRC's healthplan, and hope she learned a lot last time (and as a Senator) about how that could actually happen instead of just being inspirational. I think that the Republicans that hate Mrs. Clinton like that would also hate a Black man, flat out. F*ck them. Clinton/Obama '08!

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org has endorsed the Big O, which is a pretty big deal for him. Those are motivated primary voters, not just registered possibles. Of course, only 280,000 of them, and perhaps a million or so others on MoveOn's mailing list.

[quote=MoveOn.org]VOTE RESULTS
Obama:197,444 70.4%
Clinton: 83,084 29.6%

I voted for MoveOn's endorsement!

I'd like to believe that not all the Republicans who hate Clinton necessarily hate her because she's a woman or that they're all bigoted. There is definitely an element out there that feels she rode Bill to her current position, that she never actually accomplished anything on her own and resents her for that. I don't agree with it, I'm just saying that perception is out there. For whatever reason, a lot of Republicans seem to hate Clinton in a really personal way, in a way that they don't seem to hate Obama.

I'd like to believe that not all the Republicans who hate Clinton necessarily hate her because she's a woman or that they're all bigoted.

Good luck with that. I think our national stage is that crude.
I think Obama has not become a real threat to them yet -- wait until the general election. The He's A Muslim campaign will really get swinging.
If he gets in, he better have the best secret service crew ever, because the crazies are going to try to kill him. (Yes, I am very afraid of racism in America.)

Speaking broadly, Mrs. Clinton they hate because
+ Bill 2-for-the-price-of-one Clinton ended the Reagan years by making a one term prez out of Bush Sr.
+ Mr. Clinton was a wildly popular and economically successful 8 year prez whose only big downfall was a sex life.
+ Mrs Clinton came in with a lot more juice than your average junior senator, and represents plenty of progressive ideals that they hate and fear (even when she is looking middle of the road to plenty of us.)

I think the misogyny thing could be seen as a side issue, just good fun for them. But they do love to hate a woman.

Great endorsement from the L.A. Times

wow - that's about as cool and moving as it gets. I want to vote today!

Things don't look too great here based on the latest Gallup poll from 1/29.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104020/Gauging-Clintons-Strengths-Weaknesses-California-New-York.aspx
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NY.html

Of course, you never know. And unlike the NY Republican delegates, the NY Democratic delegates are allocated proportionately, not winner-take-all. So Obama is definitely going to pick up a lot of delegates here even if he loses.

Livetotravel wrote: wow - that's about as cool and moving as it gets. I want to vote today!

Yeah, unfortunately, inspiring videos have failed to win the day in the past. Remember this one from 2004?



Of course, the tone of this campaign is totally different- more optimistic and positive. And Obama could not be more different than Kerry.

Susan Eisenhower endorses Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html?nav=hcmodule

In other bizarre crossover news, Ann Coulter says she'd back Clinton over McCain:

:shock: with friends like that, who needs enemies...
(/shudder)

The pollsters are working hard...what will it all mean?

Ny Daily News February 2, 2008
WNBC/Marist Poll: Clinton Breaks 50%, McCain Way Out In Front

Today's WNBC/Marist poll finds both Hillary Clinton and John McCain with double-digit leads over their opponents in the Feb. 5 New York primaries.

Clinton crossed the 50 percent mark, with 54 percent of likely Democratic voters, including leaners, saying they will vote for her. Barack Obama gets 398 percent, and 8 percent are undecided.

Seventy-eight percent of Democrats said they strongly support their candidate, and 79 percent of Clinton's backers are strongly committed to her, compared to 76 of Obama's supporters.

One-third of Democrats polled said they are more likely to back Obama due to his Kennedy endorsements - including one-in-five Clinton supporters. But almost as many say those endorsements made them less likely to support Obama and it makes no difference to another 37 percent.

The Times continues to hold sway over New York Democrats, with 43 percent saying they're more likely to back Clinton because she got the paper's nod.

On the Bill Clinton helped-or-hurt question, 48 percent said he helped, 40 percent think he hurt, including the majority of Obama backers.

On the GOP side, John McCain is leading Mitt Romney among Republicans likely to vote Tuesday, including leaners, 61-24. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are in the single digits.

A majority of New York Republicans, 51 percent, think Rudy Giuliani's endorsement of McCain helps the Arizona senator. Three in 10 said they don't care that The Times has endorsed McCain, but 42 percent said the paper's backing makes them less likely to support him.

pitu wrote:

Ny Daily News February 2, 2008
[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/supertuesday/2008/02/The Times continues to hold sway over New York Democrats, with 43 percent saying they're more likely to back Clinton because she got the paper's nod.

Timesleemings :roll:

Carnivore wrote:

triple fabulous video - who made that thing? dang!
Hope people take a little bit of that energy and Do Something in addition to Super Duper Voting

Livetotravel wrote: [quote=pitu]

Ny Daily News February 2, 2008
[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/supertuesday/2008/02/The Times continues to hold sway over New York Democrats, with 43 percent saying they're more likely to back Clinton because she got the paper's nod.

Timesleemings :roll:

yeah, that's a pretty interesting number
although I wouldn't hold reading the NYT against anyone

My totally unqualified unscientific prediction: the race will be decided by the Hispanic vote especially in NY and CA, and Clinton has the edge.

doctorj wrote: My totally unqualified unscientific prediction: the race will be decided by the Hispanic vote especially in NY and CA, and Clinton has the edge.

That's the conventional wisdom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-pearce/hillarys-looming-electab_b_84549.html

Carnivore wrote: [quote=doctorj]My totally unqualified unscientific prediction: the race will be decided by the Hispanic vote especially in NY and CA, and Clinton has the edge.

That's the conventional wisdom.

Damn. Yet again, I fail to have an original thought.

Carnivore wrote: Interesting article about what counts as an "issue."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Clinton is just such a divisive figure (mostly through no fault of her own). For example, I actually like her health care plan better than Obama's. But I don't think there's any way she'd ever get it through Congress. Republicans score big points with their base by opposing her. Refusing to cooperate with Obama wouldn't play that well. His leadership and charisma are really important in terms of actually implementing the policies that for the most part he and Clinton agree on.

The one thing I like about this article is that it articulates in a way I've been unable to exactly WHY I don't like Clinton.

About the healthcare policies . . . Krugman gives us a handy explanation of the differences between Clinton and Obama

Paul Krugman in the NYT wrote: Clinton, Obama, Insurance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2008

The difference between the health care plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage and falling far short.

Republicans for Obama



And in other news, it looks like Obama has actually opened up a lead in California!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0345866120080204

100 New York feminist leaders also supporting Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/feminist-leaders-oppose-h_b_84715.html

Carnivore wrote:

And in other news, it looks like Obama has actually opened up a lead in California!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0345866120080204

Is this the same lead he opened up in New Hampshire?
"In California, Obama gained two points on Clinton overnight to lead 46 percent to 40 percent, with a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points."

pitu wrote: About the healthcare policies . . . Krugman gives us a handy explanation of the differences between Clinton and Obama
[quote=Paul Krugman in the NYT]Clinton, Obama, Insurance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2008

The difference between the health care plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage and falling far short.

Even Hillary's plan is backwards in my opinion; she's only trying to make it mandatory for people not otherwise covered. The trick with true universal health coverage is to make it truly universal and single-payer from the outset, so that everyone has a stake in it. Start by covering 100% of citizens and residents for the basics, then add carrots and sticks to get people to take private coverage if they or their employers can afford it.

doctorj wrote: [quote=Carnivore]

And in other news, it looks like Obama has actually opened up a lead in California!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0345866120080204

Is this the same lead he opened up in New Hampshire?
"In California, Obama gained two points on Clinton overnight to lead 46 percent to 40 percent, with a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points."
Regardless, a short time ago he was 20 points behind.