Agreed. This is clearly aimed at swing voters and Reagan Democrats by pushing against the worst Democratic stereotypes (committed to welfare queens, unpatriotic, lacks values etc.) and introducing himself to general election voters who might not have been quite as tuned in during the primary.
Todd says, "I suspect this thing will only end when Senator Clinton says it does."
That's overstating Clinton's power. This thing will end when super delegates want in to end, not when Clinton drops out, which she herself tacitly acknowledged by saying she's going to run "until there's a nominee."
The party didnt disenfranchise Michigan and Florida, those states disenfranchised themselves when, against all warnings, they refused to play by the rules and moved their calendars up.
Secondly, I think its laughable to say that the party knew at the time that booting Michigan and Florida would help Barack Obama.
I dont see how its disingenuous of Obama if he voted for this legislation before, saw that it didnt work, and now opposes it. But of course, in Jerome's biased world, this is somehow another indictment on Obama. Hit man strikes again!
Absolutely right on. We cant abandon Alaska on the Presidential level and then hope for any success from the downballot races. If Obama can even keep Alaska competitive, it gives Begich and Berkowtiz a much, much better chance at winning here.
Begich will bag more than 78% of Democrats when its all said and done, so if he can maintain that whopping lead with independents, he'll win.
I've always felt good about the race because Stevens is SO ridiculously out of touch and corrupt. Also, Begich is a great candidate, and if we have Obama atop the ticket actually competing in Alaska, everything will look even better.
The Clinton supporters have nothing left to resort to but spin. Its obvious that she's going to end the primary race behind in the popular vote and way behind with pledged delegates. Therefore, if Obama doesnt win PA... then Clinton should win? That's so inane its almost not worth disputing. Clinton has lost in almost every metric. Its arbitrary to make the case that one state should be so influential... except that is not arbitrary, its a deliberate attempt to find some HOW some WAY to put Clinton back on the map to winning this race. Its pathetic, and it pretty well exemplifies the state of the campaign. There is no path to the nomination. Each side will be trading states, which is not good for the team that's behind by three scores with about 4 minutes to go.
Remember, Montana and Alaska are cheap states in terms of advertising. It will take hardly any money at all to get on the air there, so it will be well worth it to make a run at those states. Also, if you visit those states two or three times, that's probably enough; there's so few people, it doesnt demand going 15 or 20 times like say a Michigan.
I think Donnelly's district should be an interesting battleground. South Bend is the typical blue collar area that Clinton has been carrying, but if Obama can do well there, that might be enough to pull out the victory. Remember, the majority of the state's democrats are in Northwest Indiana and Indianapolis, so its not as big a deal if Clinton carries IN-8, 9 etc.
Another superdelegate too!
I'd imagine this will help Obama in two ways. One, it helps him right the ship after a tough couple week. Along with the race speech, the narrative should be about Obama bouncing back.
Secondly, it obviously helps with his primary long problem in courting Hispanic voters. Of course, this would have been a lot more salient before Texas. Still, better late than never.
Oh for the love of god, "D-Punjab" is not a slur. It was a silly statement, but not a SLUR. What about that statement makes it a slur, the campaign was just making a silly, dumb statement? Dont try to stir controversy if you dont know what you're talking about.
Full disclosure: I am a 100% full blood Punjabi.