MyDD :: Why Obama is losing

Why Obama is losing

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST

Obama and Axelrod are complaining, after Obama lost his third in a row... about the candidates spouse? So Obama doesn't like campaigning against both Clinton's-- what's he think they should do, each tie one arm behind their back?

Let's look and see why Obama is really losing, ever since Iowa.

The reason why Obama lost in Nevada was because he was unable to turn out the youth vote, he lost liberal support, and he lost the last week of the campaign.

In IA, Obama did all three of those and more.

Notice the trend with the youth vote:

IA 17-29 (22%)
NH 18-29 (18%)
NV 18-29 (13%)

It's going down. Why?

Notice the trend among those who identify themselves as very liberal supporting Clinton and Obama:

         Very Liberal(Obama)      Very Liberal(Clinton)  

IA       40%                      24%               
NH       38%                      38%
NV       36%                      52%

Obama's support among liberals is going down while Clinton's is surging. Why?

And finally, notice the trend on closing the deal, among those voters who decided the last day of voting:

         Today(Obama)             Today(Clinton)  

IA       31%                      20%               
NH       36%                      39%
NV       36%                      48%

Now, I believe that the reason why Obama lost Nevada is because of his unqualified adoration of Ronald Reagan while he was pandering before a rightwing editorial board in Las Vegas. The week before the election, Obama was taking the poll lead, as the entrance polling confirms. Matt Stoller wondered the same thing:

In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton by 16 points among those who consider themselves as 'very liberal'. In New Hampshire, they were even. And now in Nevada, Clinton simply destroyed Obama within that block by 16 points. In other words, while it's not entirely clear who 'won' Nevada, whatever that means, had Obama run even with Clinton among those who describe themselves as 'very liberal', he would have soundly defeated her at the caucuses outright instead of having to play delegate games.

Maybe the no-show among the youth for Obama in Nevada, and the fall off of Obama's support the last week, match up with this? Obama, just like the days leading up to NH, went soft and out-of-touch in Nevada, which is why I flipped from predicting he'd win, to saying Clinton would.

In the last few days, Obama was attacked by both Clintons and Edwards for his contradictory statements on what he called "special interest groups" in Iowa, but was seen as hypocritically silent with those groups working on his behalf to attack Clinton in Nevada; Obama was silent when the Clinton's created expectations; Obama had all week to clarify his praise of Reagan, and offered none.

Obama's praise of Reagan has been played again and again, with the egging on of both the Edwards and the Clintons (2 on 1 again), bloggers and more... because no one who is a real progressive will agree with a positive frame of Reagan. Period.

As Krugman asks:

...where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

...Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about?

...why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Perhaps the silence from Obama turned the very liberal voters to Clinton in Nevada. Whether it's also why new, young voters didn't catch an answer from Obama, we don't know; but they didn't show up to caucus for him in Nevada.

Obama has to win South Carolina; but even a win there isn't going to address the emerging problems shown above. As Natasha shows below, Obama might already have an indication of the Reagan problem he created for himself; but in the face of the polling trend lines above, liberal Democrats, next up in Florida and Feb 5th, are trending heavily to Clinton.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 207 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

Obama turned out a good number of his base but the caucus system is slightly unpredictable + it just worked out that this time Obama lost.

South Carolina will be a win.

by Trey Rentz on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

I think the union pressure actually hurt a little bit and frankly I think the Unions helping Hillary were beter organized than the ones helping Obama. They used Grassroots, the other union used strongarm and grassroots won. Obama needs to return to this approach and avoid the strong arm.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

from what I read (2.00 / 1)

Obama had a strong organization in NH as well--lots of field offices, canvassing every weekend for months on end. I don't think he lost NH for lack of organization.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Grassroots (none / 0)

I think Obama was at a disadvantage in NH, just not a huge one. From what I heard, and keep in mind this was from the lower-level Clinton campaign folks working the neighborhoods, Clinton was able to rely a lot more on grassroots organizers, folks who were long-time residents of the area. Certainly she had out-of-staters, too. But she had a built-in network of in-state supporters from 1992 and from her own efforts (the in-state GOTV organizer in my area had been working for the campaign for something like six months).

I'd like to hear from the Obama campaign, but the impression his local office gave off was that it was dominated by college students (although certainly there were some older folks around). Those folks clearly did a good job for him on campuses, but I think struggled to make connections in the broader NH community.

Although, again, that was just my impression, I'd love to hear from any Obama folks if it's right or not.

by BDB on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the ground in NH (none / 0)

I canvassed for John Edwards in Nashua, NH in early December, and again to GOTV. From what I saw, Obama had a very good ground game there.

by Swamp Cat on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by accusing the clinton camp of racism (2.00 / 1)

obama has solidifid black support up to the level of jesse jackson who won up to 79% of the black vote in the primaries.

I fully expect Obama to win SC and other states with a dominant AA electorate.

But that will never get him to the nomination. There will be a backlash to such low tactics and with the numbers of latino voters coming to Hillary, you can clearly see how this will play out.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: by accusing the clinton camp of racism (2.00 / 1)

Jerome is saying that he's starting to lose white voters. Which is the predictable outcome of the way he's running now.

by killjoy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

look at the polls (none / 0)

look at the latest endorsements.

look at the returns from NV and MI

Wake up and Get a Clue.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: by accusing the clinton camp of racism (none / 0)

BaRockStar was always a media creation - propped up by the Corporate Owned Media and DC establishment - to knock out Edwards message exposing the Truth about Washington lobbyists and Corporate Greed that keeps the working poor poor and the middle class struggling.

The Corporate Owned Media is one of the largest and most influential lobbyists in DC - and those Dems in Congress loves them some lobbyist donations!

Only a fool would believe Obama's "unity" would change SOP in DC.
So what if we're all holding hands?
"Unity" doesn't pay for milk and bread.

The REAL problem in DC is Corporate greed - and only one candidate had the COURAGE to expose the Truth about the Economy!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what if they do? (none / 0)

No one is assuming.

The numbers suggest voters are voting along certain lines (race, gender, age, education).

These trends favor Obama in SC and some southern states while favoring Clinton in other states.

by kristoph on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wasting your breath (none / 0)

"the fac that he was never supposed to win or come as close as he did"
Except for, you know, the weeks between Iowa and Nevada, barring the final couple days.

by frankies on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what a (none / 0)

fake and snide comment.

no on is forcing you to be here you know.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is lucky to be where he is (2.00 / 2)

If he had not won the media primary he'd be on the verge of collaspe right now.

That being said, Obama is tanking now because voters are paying attention, and low and behold, those of us who said all along there was no "movement" where right.

Obama's movement was a cynical creation of his campaign. They hoped that if they built it voters would come after back to back wins in IA and NH. Clinton didn't play along. The one two punch and the freight train of momentum that would have followed vanished.

Now voters in the rest of states are left to decide on relatively short notice. They take a quick look and vote. Obama doesn't have 9 months to drop $15 million on them and send supporters knocking on each door 10 times.

More voters are making solid, sound choices based on real issues and real experience, and not going for hype or hope or a roll of the dice.

His attacks on Clinton's are not helping either. Voters over 35 remember the Clinton years, we lived through them. Many of us have a great deal of respect for the Clinton's despite some faults on their part.

Also, I think his comments about not being good at running a beauracracy and wanting to do more of the vision thing while delagating may have hurt him more than the Reagan thing (a double whammy none the less). After 7 years of Bush being absent and delagating to Cheney, I think some voters said WTF when they heard that.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST

Obama is not losing (none / 0)

he has gained in every poll. a month ago he was behind by 25 points in Nevada and NH - he came close to winning. In the national polls he is within striking distance.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not losing (2.00 / 2)

You have to pay attention. Obama is losing LIBERALS big time. He is losing DEMOCRATS big time. He is losing HISPANICS big time, and he is losing WOMEN big time. He can't craft constituencies together to combat his shortcomings, which is why he is losing overall. His path to the nomination is becoming smaller and smaller, that's for sure.

by georgep on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you say it enough times... (2.00 / 1)

code blue, you sound like my neighbor. He never could stand her, but he now grudgingly says that he thinks she will do a damn good job of repairing most of Bush's damage, and that's the important thing.

Dragging the country back from the brink is the most important thing right now, and a good preacher and motivator isn't going to cut it, we need a relentless workhorse for that. That's what she is.

by WMCB on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got the horse part right (none / 0)

Hillary has been solid as a rock standing for core Democratic principles, and voting for them as well.

by WMCB on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You got the horse part right (none / 0)

What were Bill Clinton's legislative accomplishments? Name one other than NAFTA

*Gingrich-Clinton Welfare Reform
*Clinton Assault Weapon Ban
*Gingrich-Clinton Capital Gains Tax Cut

See, there were lots of Clinton legislative accomplishments.

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters have never understood (2.00 / 1)

That to win Obama needs more than good media, a rousing speech, and a fine suit, he needs to actually get more votes.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you say it enough times... (none / 0)

I wish I understood what you are talking about. SO FAR Clinton is quite obviously winning the women vote, quite obviously winning the registered Democrats' vote, quite obviously won the Hispanic vote. Obama clearly has an edge with the AA vote and a reasonable advantage overall with the youth vote. What here is unclear to you?

Now, for Obama to win he must obviously change the dynamics and eat into Clinton's advantage with women. And, or into her advantage with Hispanics, etc.

Where what I stated gives you reason to write about some Hillary-hate you have overcome is a mystery. Why not just comment on the points in my post, which do not give an irrational opinion on a candidate (as hating someone usually brings with it) but are mere statement of facts.

by georgep on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not losing (none / 0)

Not really. CBS News polled him head-to-head against Clinton among Democratic primary voters, and he loses 44-53. Basically, it's only a 5-8% margin for Clinton because Edwards is still in.

by killjoy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yikes! (none / 0)

Says who?

By then Obama will be trailing McCain or Romney by ten points in head-to-head pollings. You think people are going to want him on the General ballot then?

by killjoy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More so than Hillary (none / 0)

Everyone should be more electable then Clinton because Clinton has been a Republican target for over a decade.

Clinton may be polling worse then Obama against McCain now but there is very little the Republicans can say to bring down her numbers (what don't we know about Clinton after all these years).

If Obama were nominated the Republicans would hit him on Rezko, on the association between his church and Farrakhan, on national defense, on race, on experience, on his lack of management skill (in the midst of an economic downturn). It would be a bloodbath.

Honestly the whole 'Obama is more electable' argument is nothing but wishful thinking.

by kristoph on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He didn't gain in every poll in Nevada (none / 0)

According to pollster.com, in the first two Nevada polls after New Hampshire, Clinton led by 3 in one poll and Obama led by 2 in the other. With the momentum Obama had enjoyed up to that point, plus the fact that he got the endorsement of what was supposedly the state's most politically powerful union, most observers expected Obama to win Nevada at that point.

Instead, Hillary made mincemeat of the idea that Obama automatically picked up support in any state where both candidates were spending a lot of time. She blunted his momentum and grabbed a few more points of support to solidify her win.

by Trickster on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

first you accuse people here of being racists (none / 0)

now we are freepers, whats next?

oh how i love obamacrats...they love republicans and indies, but they do seem to loathe democrats.

any wonder Obamas numbers are dropping?

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not losing (none / 0)

Oh yay, the Calvinball begins.

by killjoy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Moonwood: four real polls Clinton 3, Obama 1 (none / 0)

Any questions?

by ottovbvs on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not losing (none / 0)

That's the Iowa effect. The "Obama was 25 points behind" is good spin, countered only by the fact that he has overwhelmingly positive media coverage in the last two months and the fact that he was actually ahead in a few polls in the run-up to the Nevada caucus. Not to mention the support of the union leadership of the culinary workers.

I think that the biggest story out of Nevada is that Clinton won a fairly outsized victory. The second biggest story is the repudiation of the leadership of the culinary workers union by its membership. After all, Hillary Clinton won seven of the nine at large precincts on the strip.

by arkansasdemocrat on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THEY KNEW (none / 0)

While gas and food prices were rising last summer - John Edwards was on a Poverty Tour - and throughout the year in rallies all over the country - cited alarming statistics about the economy - the 37M Americans who go to bed hungry, the 47M without health care, the 200K homesless vets, the rise in mortgage foreclosures, the significant increase in the poverty rate, stagnant wages for workers while CEO salaries soar, massive credit card debt, decrease in personal savings, etc.
Edwards offered comprehensive plans and solutions that called for URGENCY and BOLD CHANGES!

But the Corporate Owned Media focused on candidates offering "hope" and "inevitability" - no drastic statistics about the economy from the 2 frontrunners promoted by the Corporate Owned Media.

Corporate Owned Media pundits and supporters of other candidates even chimed in - denouncing Edwards "poverty" theme by declaring MOST Americans couldn't identify with poverty - and it didn't affect them directly.

Only one candidate dared exposed the Truth about the Economy - and its devastating effectS on the working poor and middle class - the first to feel the pain of the looming economic crisis concealed by the Corporate Owned Media.

Edwards was the FIRST candidate to release an economic stimulus plan in mid-December - and was ignored by the Corporate Owned Media spewing Bush's "strong economy" mantra - right through the Corporate Christmas season.

Just last week - Bush assured us the economy was STRONG.
A few days later - Bush proposed an economic stimulus plan!!

It's ludicrous to think Congress, the White House, the Corporate Owned Media, etc. - couldn't see this economic disaster on the horizon.

And equally ludicrous to think Hillary and Obama couldn't see it.
THEY KNEW. But chose to hide it - while raking in the moolah from Washington lobbyists and Corporate America.

Only John Edwards dared expose the Truth - and he was ignored for doing so.

No doubt - the Corporate Owned Media is ROFL at the "informed" left blogosphere.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THEY KNEW (none / 0)

But the Corporate Owned Media focused on candidates offering "hope" and "inevitability" - no drastic statistics about the economy from the 2 frontrunners promoted by the Corporate Owned Media.

Just last week - Bush assured us the economy was STRONG.
A few days later - Bush proposed an economic stimulus plan!!

It's ludicrous to think Congress, the White House, the Corporate Owned Media, etc. - couldn't see this economic disaster on the horizon.

And equally ludicrous to think Hillary and Obama couldn't see it.
THEY KNEW. But chose to hide it - while raking in the moolah from Washington lobbyists and Corporate America.

Only John Edwards dared expose the Truth - and he was ignored for doing so.

No doubt - the Corporate Owned Media is ROFL at the "informed" left blogosphere.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ann even Lou Dobbs gave a shout out (none / 0)

Dobbs is no CLinton fan and he gave her a shout out in the fall when he came out with her plan to help stave off the mortgage crisis, and in turn, help bolster the sinking economy.

Dobbs noted that she didn't just recently start talking about the problem but had been advocating for something to be done since early in the year (07).

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ann even Lou Dobbs gave a shout out (none / 0)

Edwards was first to release a plan to "stave off the mortgage crisis."
But here again - the media didn't focus on Edwards' or Hillary's plans - but instead kept the focus on "inevitability" and "hope" - lots of hope.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is lucky to be where he is (none / 0)

Hillary and Obama have been promoted by the media 24/7.
As president - either one will OWE the Corporate Owned Media.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

I think he is going to come out firing at the debate which might change the dynamic.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

He Obama or He Edwards?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

I agree- he knows he is on the "ropes" so he is going to be very aggressive. Hopefully, Hillary is prepared.

by reasonwarrior on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 3)

On the arms being tied.

WHile I know that Obama and his supporters will never complain about the near free ride they are getting in the press, Democrats should be troubled.

The media has weighed in on this race. We see it in tv and print.

Matthews, Carlson, Brazile (yes media member), Robinson, Alter, Norris, Rich, the list is a mile long, of elite, establishment reporters, pundits and columnists who have jumped into this race and worked hard on Obama's behalf. It is disgusting to see them work to influence and outcome.

The media really wants Clinton to run a nice and friendly campaign and let Obama win -- but make it look good, like she tried. Everytime she or Bill try to fight and try to win the media jumps and down and screams how unfair it all is.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:55:18 AM EST

There is a reason (none / 0)

everyone likes Obama - hes a man of integrity who will lead us to victory.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a reason (2.00 / 1)

Latinos do not like him, Asians do not like him, Jews do not like him, working class whites do not like him.

Yeah, those drive-media of course like this loser.

by prisonbreak on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget Catholics (none / 0)

He doesn't do well with them either.

Some movement he has there there.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speak for yourself. (none / 0)

I also belong to one of the above categories and I won't support him in primary, or general election.

His race baiting stuff has turned me off big time.

We are all individuals, of course it does not matter whether you or I like him or not. What matters is the collective voice... poll after poll has shown he's doing terribly among other minority groups etc, even worse than among whites.

If he is the nominee, the democratic party can kiss goodbye to the white house.

by prisonbreak on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a reason (2.00 / 1)

Despite the media punditry liking Obama, that is not the case for the PEOPLE, us DEMOCRATS. I like him ok, but he would be a poor choice for us (IMHO) and I am heartened that Democrats and particularly liberals are seeing things the same way. Pundits no longer have the type of influence and kingmaker-ability they once have. That makes them very mad, but the people aren't being deceived. Look at the trashy way Tweety has behaved, forcing him to actually apologize the other day. The punditry is not REAL PEOPLE, which is why this nomination process is playing out the way it is.

by georgep on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Everyone liked McGovern too (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a reason (2.00 / 1)

I do think Obama is a good and decent man.

I just don't happen to think he is an experienced politician, campaigner and (by his own admission) manager.

I mean, just today he is still rambling on about his Iraq record (no longer a campaign issue) and how he thinks the Clintons are treating him unfairly. (It' politics, fair has nothing to do with it.) Seriously, if he can't handle the Clintons how is he going to handle the Republican attack machine.

No, Obama will not lead you to victory.

by kristoph on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he samme list that slimed Gore (2.00 / 1)

except for Brazile who has turned into such village-pundit wannabe it makes one kinda ill.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 3)

One very pragmatic reason I think the youth vote is gradually disappearing is because it takes a lot of work to make this demographic turn out. Obama did an incredible job in Iowa, but he had the benefit of six months of organizing in that state and an eight-figure expenditure number.

It was an impressive achievement, particularly given how many politicians have gone by the wayside because of supposedly massive youth support that never showed up. But after Iowa, I had to caution a number of people that they shouldn't necessarily assume Obama had rewritten the book on American politics based upon a single data point.

Meanwhile, Hillary has a big edge among the older voters who show up for every election and don't need to be reminded. How dreadfully boring - and effective.

Super Tuesday will be the acid test for Obama's ability to turn out the youth vote, because obviously there's no time to put together anything like the Iowa GOTV model in all those states. I think the smart money is on expecting things to work the way they've always worked, but I'm at least willing to have my thesis tested by empirical results.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

You may very well be right. Obama's positive numbers among both women and the most liberal voters in Iowa were a function of the youth vote. I'm not sure that Obama's numbers among older voters has really changed since Iowa, he just hasn't brought in the new voters since then.

As an Obama supporter, I'm not sure how he changes the dynamics of the race at this point. Which worries me.

by HSTruman on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

Obama was 20-25 points behind Clinton in every poll just a month ago. Now even in Feb 5th states like California he is within striking distance. I think as people listen to the real debate and not the distractions on race and gender more people will come on board - it remains to be seen though.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

You never know. If nothing else, the last few weeks have taught us that. I just tend to think that if the election is about who runs a better traditional campaign Hillary is almost assuredly going to win. The challenge, as I see it, is therefore to figure out a way to shake-up the underlying dynamics.

But what do I know -- I was sure Obama was going to win NH.

by HSTruman on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you beat me to that point (2.00 / 0)

I think that more than six months of hard organizational work and campaigning in Iowa helped Obama immeasurably, not just with the youth vote and liberals, but also with women.

It's going to be hard to replicate that in states where he has just a few days to campaign.

I've always felt that Obama's Iowa staff were top-quality, but that he gets some bad advice from his national campaign strategists.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you beat me to that point (2.00 / 2)

I totally agree.

Time hurt him in Nevada, too. One of the points Jon Ralston has made about the 226 endorsement is that it came too late to help Obama. According to a report I read in the Sun, a lot of the members leaned strongly towards Clinton. The union might've been able to change their minds by educating them more about Obama or explaining why the union should stick together. But they didn't have time to do that and so their efforts to win over their membership came across as more bullying than they probably would've been had they had a one or two months instead of ten days.

The article mentioned that one union officer who went and canvassed to try to win members over to Obama spent something like 2 hours at 3 homes. They needed time and didn't have it.

The 226 membership had a lot of women and hispanics, two groups who probably have a natural affinity for Clinton. That doesn't mean Obama couldn't win them over, but I do think it would take a lot of time and effort.

He had the time and resources in Iowa to work on youth turnout and women voters, but he hasn't had nearly as much elsewhere and that problem is getting worse for him, not better.

by BDB on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

which just goes to show (2.00 / 1)

that the union should have made an endorsement months ago, based on who would be the best candidate for unions, or stayed out of it.

Waiting to follow Iowa's lead just made the union look foolish and ineffective.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yup and yup. (none / 0)

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a great point (2.00 / 1)

Obama essentailly re-wrote the rules of the Iowa Caucus to win.

It is much harder to do this in the primaries.

by fladem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

off-topic to fladem (none / 0)

Could you e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com? I have a few questions for you (based on what you saw in Iowa during the final days of the campaign).

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you beat me to that point (none / 0)

Remember though the big stories about how Obama was deploying his Iowa leadership to Nevada to work their same magic. I guess lighting didn't strike again.

by rcipw on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another important factor (none / 0)

Another important factor is geographical. As someone who grew up on the west coast, went to college in the midwest, and has worked in DC, I think its worth noting that there's political ideology/political involvement is very different in certain parts of the country.

West coast democrats (including South West,Pacific Northwest,etc) tend to be more moderate than the grassroots activists in places like Iowa and certain college towns in NH. Even those who identify as liberals are not as far left, not said in a bad way, as the liberals Obama has been winning thus far.

by world dictator on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another important factor (2.00 / 1)

I view terms such as "liberal", "moderate", and "conservative" in polling and exit polling as essentially meaningless. Just throw-away categories that fit the media's simple-minded narratives, but that don't really represent anything meaningful about why Democrats vote the way they vote in a Democratic primary.

by hwc on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another important factor (2.00 / 1)

agreed. It's like the whole "voters want candidates who talk about morality" exit poll in 2004. You know what I think is moral? Progressive values.

by world dictator on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

I agree to a point. He had just as much time, knowing that NV would be in the first 4 states. This is nearly a 50 percent drop-off, I think there's more to it.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 2)

I think it is interesting to look back for a minute. For a long time many people tried to explain Clinton's strong appeal among working class voters by saying that is because they are "low information" voters, whereas Obama's lead among high-income/educated voters was because they had access to more and "better" information.

Is it possible that all these "high information voters" actually just bought the media spin on who Obama was and what his platform was all about? Is it possible the "low information" voters actually understood a core element of Hillary Clinton's background was a progressive/working-class approach and empathy?

I think a lot of this drop off Jerome is due to the fact that Obama is not running as a progressive and has not been running as one for a long time. The more scrutiny and information that comes out and the more voters cut through the spin coming from Obama's camp and the MSM, the more they are starting to see that he is more Lieberman type Dem than an Edwards type populist.

by rcipw on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

That's what I think pretty much too.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since NH, analysts, IMO, have been wrong (2.00 / 1)

Part of it, I think, is due to Edwards giving a head fake at the NH debate, saying he and Obama were the candidates of change. In the minds of a lot of analysts, Edwards and Obama seemed grouped together by that remark. But if you look at the NH voting demographics, Clinton consistently gets the vote of what might be called the hard-core Democratic base--as does Edwards! The blogosphere analysts, in particular, have been looking at the anti-Hillary vote and thinking that it's comprised of Edwards and Obama. In fact, they should be looking at the anti-Obama vote, because Hillary and Edwards are splitting the traditional Democratic base, except that Hillary is getting the votes of more older women. The only area where Obama and Edwards are splitting the vote is higher educated/more affluent. Bottom line: if you want to win an election running as a Democrat, you need to appeal to the Democratic base. Obama thinks he can win by creating his own coalition. The problem with that approach is that most Democrats are not independents or closet Republicans--they really are Democrats, and they tend to support someone who backs the typical Democratic agenda.

by grayslady on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

This is the problem with depending on the youth vote. Apparently it only works when you have lots of time to round them up and make sure that they go vote. Every candidate I remember who has been dependent on the youth vote to win has eventually lost. You have to expand your voting base.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

Depending on the youth vote, while ticking off the old farts is not a IMO good political strategy.

by MOBlue on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're missing the story (2.00 / 2)

The story isn't Ronald Reagan, it's Bill Clinton.

The notion that Nevada caucus goers cared about Obama's "Reagan" statements is preposterous, it's blogger puffery.

The Clinton strategy is to suck the media oxygen out of Obama's sails with the only tool at their disposal, Bill Clinton. If the voters can't hear Obama's message of hope and change, they won't vote for him.

That's the real story of the totals you're referring to.

And, yes, Barack Obama is losing primaries because

a) he is off his message of hope and change
b) the media oxygen is going to Bill

There's a reason that the Clinton's attacked Obama's message and belittled it. Obama's message works.

When was the last time you read a story that the 2008 election was about change? Well, that's because the 2008 election has now become about Bill Clinton.

That strategy has real perils for Senator Clinton.

a) because it opens her up, early in the primaries, to the potential for "Party Elder Revolt" against the Clinton Wing...

and

b) it is setting Senator Clinton up for some very, very, very nasty and persuasive attacks in the general. This election WILL BE about Bill Clinton. You're either sanguine about that or not.

But, no, thinking that Obama's misquoted and misconstrued comments about Reagan meant anything to anyone outside the thin slice of Democrats who worry over this stuff on blogs is missing the real story.

There's one story in the Democratic Primary right now, and it's all about Bill Clinton.

k/o: politics and local blogs

by kid oakland on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST

Re: You're missing the story (2.00 / 2)

You tell me, KO, your theory for why the entrance polls in Nevada showed Hillary with a huge margin among "very liberal" attendees, compared to her much more modest advantages among other ideological groups.

Here in blog-land, as I think we all know, the "very liberal" types are the ones who think that Bill Clinton was a pandering corporatist sellout, and that Hillary Clinton is a soulless warmonger.

I agree with the basic idea that we shouldn't assume the vote moves in huge numbers based upon whatever the latest blog kerfuffle happens to be. But what do you suppose accounts for Hillary winning the "very liberal" vote by huge margins?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because very liberal people (none / 0)

need to hear Obama's message of hope and change too, and they didn't hear it in Nevada.

That's why Hillary won.

Hillary wins anytime Obama's message of hope and change does not get throught...by default.

A friend told me a story of an academic dinner party the other night that was all about what Clinton will do and how having Bill there will help her do it.

That's the Clinton message.

They are winning with it. But it has real perils.

We're talking about Ronnie when we should be talking about Bill.

k/o: politics and local blogs

by kid oakland on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent analysis (none / 0)

I agree with you. Hillary will eventually have to pay the price for running on Bills coattails - She needs to step up and inspire people to vote for her because of who she is - she has yet to do that.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (none / 0)

Members of the LGBT community are not pleased with Obama's involvement with McClurkin and Caldwell.

by truthteller2007 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (none / 0)

The Reagan comments weren't so thrilling to hear, either.

by reasonwarrior on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (2.00 / 1)

Did people not hear Obama's message in NH? Because last time I saw, the NH media was blanketed with Obama is God coverage.

As for Nevada specifically, whats your proof that "people didn't hear Obama's message." because I don't think you have any. But even if your claim was not true, thats the Obama's campaign's fault for not getting their message through. That's how campaigns work. I try to make my message louder and clearer than yours. If Obama gets so easily distracted then he needs to drop out because he has no change against the right wing noise machine in november.

by world dictator on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (2.00 / 3)

Obama, spent more, by far, broadcasting his message far and wide. To say people didn't hear Obama is wishful thinking.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (2.00 / 1)

What do you feel Obama will do to get his message of hope and change out in other states, that he didn't do in Nevada?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (none / 0)

Here where I am, where it's pretty liberal, people think Obama is too ideologically compromised to be effective.

And we've seen a lot of the same game with Deval Patrick, though to a somewhat different end. Thing is, our state doesn't much need a governor and almost all its major issues were resolved prior to his running for office.

Clinton wins whenever she shows that the problems are real and painful. Obama wins on protest/escapisms and claiming that change is soft and comfortable.

by killjoy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he said, (none / 0)

"we should be talking about Bill."

who he just said, "sucked up all the oxygen"

what he meant was, '"we should be going AFTER Bill"

which n order to impress his pals in the med village, team obama seems ready to do.

oh please, please, please do....ooops, scratch that...

i meant dont...please dont, please dont go after Bill, please dont throw Bill in that briar patch, please don't...

remember his heart...

get popcorn ready, this is gonna be fun to watch!!

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because very liberal people (none / 0)

Or, it could be that voters who are not "kids" like you are are not so naive that they will give their vote for president to a guy whose chief qualifications are: (1) that he looks good in a suit, (2) that uses the words "hope" and "change" a million times in a single speech, and (3) that some bimbo in a tight shirt put a video on Youtube saying that she had the hots for him.

You don't like that the conversation is about Ronnie? Then maybe your golden boy shouldn't have bent over for him in that interview. You want the conversation to be about Bill? I don't think so. President Clinton is very popular with Democratic voters and people in general. Also, a guy looks good when stands up for his wife. People (both men and women) like that. And, anyway, why is it OK for a non-entity, corporate lawyer like Michelle Obama to campaign for her husband, but not OK for Bill to campaign for Hillary?

I guess any tactic that puts "the one" at a disadvantage is "unfair," right? Go peddle your garbage at Daily Kos.

by freemansfarm on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

peddle my garbage? (none / 0)

Before MyDD turned into a site where it was commonplace to tell people to "go peddle their garbage elsewhere"...it was a site where I posted diaries on issues relating to the netroots, grassroots campaigns, the 50-State strategy and local blogging.

Jerome and Jonathan and Todd are all well aware of this.

Maybe someday MyDD will return to that role in the netroots.

Or maybe not.

k/o: politics and local blogs

by kid oakland on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the story (none / 0)

I would say that Very Liberal is a subjective label.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the story (2.00 / 2)

Elder party voter revolt seems to be going against Obama and not Clinton. Not to mention that he has lost some of his liberal voter support. The average voter is not going to parse Obama's statements about Reagan or the Republicans The Party Of Ideas like some blogs are doing. They are going to react to them at a gut level and not like these comments at all.

by MOBlue on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the story (2.00 / 2)

People didn't HEAR the message of HOPE? I listen to Obama's speeches, and what is striking is the lack of substance. It is ALL about HOPE for its own sakes, no meat, no substantive discussion what that hope is in real terms, as it pertains to actual policies, people's lives. I don't see how Obama can fix that, because messages like that only work when there is a substantive "there" there, and for most of us that is simply not part of the Obama phenomenon.

by georgep on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton (2.00 / 1)

As far as I can tell the Clinton campaign is eager to have the election be a referendum on the Clinton administration. Hillary's message is clearly that she will build on Bill's legacy, that she believes that the Democratic party was the party of ideas in the '90s and that we are the party of ideas now.

As for the general election of course the Republicans will try to smear Bill Clinton again, but that just gives him the opportunity to contrast his administration with the Bush administration, and for Hillary Clinton to talk about the demonstrable and enormous change from the disastrous Republican Bush administration that a Democratic administration would be. As long as the Republicans are talking about Bill Clinton they aren't talking about their candidate. No doubt the Republican attacks would be very, very nasty, but any campaign where the Republicans are rehashing their errors from the past while the Democrats are talking about change for the future is a win for us.

I'm curious what form you think a "Party Elder Revolt" would take. It is extremely unlikely that Al Gore would interfere with Hillary Clinton's campaign, and even less likely that Jimmy Carter would. They are each far more concerned with the good they are doing outside of electoral politics. Teddy Kennedy would never say anything publicly because he is loyal to the party first and because the attempt would show the limits of his power. Every other 'elder' who might be inclined to speak out has already endorsed Obama and is speaking out.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton (2.00 / 1)

One more thing, there is no way a Hillary Clinton campaign would not draw Republican attacks on Bill Clinton so realistically she must embrace his legacy. One criticism of the Gore campaign was that there was no way he could escape the Clinton legacy, so he would have been better off making the case for it rather than running from his record.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think this is right (2.00 / 0)

There is no market for an anti-Clinton (and I mean Bill) message among Democrats. There is one for independents and liberals, but this group is not big enough to win.

You have to make this election about the future, not the past.

by fladem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hil fightson Bill record McCfights on Bush record (none / 0)

That's an argument Democrats are going to win. It's always been part of Hillary's path to victory.

by ottovbvs on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama: "The Clintons Are Big Meanies!" (2.00 / 1)

So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton's are being too mean to him?

Pass the smelling salts!

Someone needs to inform the Obama's that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.

All of the candidates have spouses who are strongly advocating for their respective spouses. Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.

Further, whatever the media thinks about Bill Clinton is irrelevant. Ultimately, it's for the voters to decide.

And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem support the conclusion that Bill Clinton knows what he's doing.

by BigBoyBlue on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:01:14 PM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

Seriously, Jerome, you are becoming a joke with these posts. I am an Edwards supporter and never much listened to all of your critics whenever you would write a post criticizing Obama. But it has just been too much now. Every other day you write a post criticizing Obama, which, in and of itself is fine. However, where are your posts criticizing Clinton? It's not like there is nothing to criticize.

So, I join with Obama supporters in calling bullshit. How anyone can read a post anymore about Obama by you and take it seriously is beyond me.

by JAmbro on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

Which facts don't you like?

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

haha. God I love your snarky responses. They're funny and to the point.

by world dictator on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

Jerome,

write a post here and there about clinton, last time i checked she wasn't picture perfect.

hell, write a post about edwards. its hard to take you seriously anymore when all you do is write these posts with obama as the target and not the other 2.

Like I said, I had brushed off this criticism about you for a while, not caring because i was an edwards supporter. Now, all I see is you criticizing Obama, which is fine, yet why not Hillary? Do you think she is running the most absolute greatest campaign ever or something?

by JAmbro on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

Your ''fact'' that Obama is losing ,first off.

In elected delegates..Obama is winning. Look at your own tally sheet.

Just the daily hit job by Jerome on the African American candidate...hey, its MLK day..why not?

Is it fair to paint Jerome as a closet racist?
Absolutely not..but when he has an unbroken string of hit diaries about the most progressive voting candidate on a progressive site...it would be easy to say something else is happening.

How many hit jobs on Obama by Armstrong now? 100?
Whatever... Armstrong embraces the DLC and Bill Clinton now...hmmmm. Or, Bill Clinton should be able to lie all he wants about Obama but Obama better never say one thing back,right? Give ME a break.

by hawkjt on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

I call bullshit on this post. Obama is losing primaries and caucuses, and some important demographics are turning away from him. That is a substantial issue and deserves to be discussed, especially on a progressive/liberal blog, given that Hillary won the "very liberal" demogroup by a large margin.

Had Clinton lost NV by 6%, we would be discussing what went wrong, which Demogroups turned their backs on her, etc.

by georgep on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

His tolerance of anti-gay sentiment on the campaign trail is likely another reason his support is waning among true progressives. Talking about lessening the power of homophobia in the church while campaigning with virulently anti-gay religious leaders in those same churches is appalling and LGBT Americans and their allies have noticed. If you haven't noticed, please read http://homophobama.blogspot.com/ for a good overview of the Obama campaign's homophobia problem.

by lgbtvoter on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM EST

pure demagoguery (none / 0)

Now are we going to move to homophobe bating. wonderful

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pure demagoguery (2.00 / 1)

Um, no. If anything I would be gay baiting. Senator Obama and his campaign are the one's doing the homophobe baiting to stir up support from anti-gay voters. Am I trying to stir up concern among LGBT voters and their allies? Hell yes. If that's gay baiting, then I'm going fishing.

by lgbtvoter on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pure demagoguery (none / 0)

As you should, for Obama explicitly with McClurkin in SC for the Christocentric homophobia vote.

by truthteller2007 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

Simple: Obama won the youth vote by a high margin in Iowa because of the high percentage of resident students of Illinois who temporarily registered for the Iowa Caucus to vote for Obama. Obama tried to repeat this in Nevada by asking folks to register as democrats for a day just to vote for him but Bill Clinton realized this and call him out.

The proportion of youth vote in Iowa was therefore an outlier which is not likely to be repeated.

by meliou2 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST

Re: Why Obama is losing (none / 0)

The polling data would strongly disagree with you.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama is losing (2.00 / 1)

Well I don't think Obama's campaign helped itself with the whole, Reagan was great, Bill not so much narrative in NV. He had merely hinted of this in the past, when he said that the problems in Washington were there before GWB, meaning the Clintons and 90s. It also didn't help that they tried to paint Bill as a racist who was calling Obama's entire campaign a fairytale vs. his record on the war. He certainly has Bill Clinton's attention now, and Bill may be a past Pres, but he still commands the mic, Obama's campaign made a mistake in taking him on. I have no problem with this as long as Bill Clinton continues to get Hillary's message out.

by Kingstongirl on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST

Bill is not running (none / 0)

Hillary has to inspire people to vote for her because of who she is. She has yet to do that. I think Bill is a temporary band aid for a personal deficit.

Mean while people are being inspired by Obama and his message - you may not like it but its happening.
He has closed the gap in the polls and the more people hear him the more they like him.

Hillary has to do more than ride as the establishment Dem with experience.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill is not running (2.00 / 1)

She has yet to do that??????????????
Are you nuts?????????????

CHeck out the turnout of women in NH and NV compared with 2004.

Stop smoking that crack!

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]