• As an AA myself, I find it really distasteful that Obama's supporters have gone there. But we on the blogs aren't shocked. We saw this coming months ago from Obama fans. It's just getting the light of day now b/c the media wants to focus on race issues in South Carolina. I think a lot of non-AA Democrats and maybe a few AA Democrats like myself who haven't fallen under Obama's spell know the score. You don't abandon loyal friends in exchange for fairweather friends.

    But again, it's wise for HRC to get out of Dodge, I mean South Carolina. Obama supporters will just pick apart everything she says, looking for some type of racial code that she's disparaging Obama. Just like some did today with her MLK remarks where she praised Obama but members of the rally took offense that she called him a young senator. Edwards also said that he was a young senator, but no offense was taken by Edwards' remarks.  

    I wonder if she should just skip the debate tonight, you know. Maybe make the excuse that she's sick or something. Or if she does attend, just let Obama speak and give him the spotlight. Let's hear his Southern accent come into play along with his message to AAs all this week.....  

    I'm sure Clinton not campaigning in South Carolina will piss off people like Clyburn, but given his "neutral" stance, maybe that's all for the best as well. He can just openly campaign for Obama like he's wanted to do all this time anyway.....

  • comment on a post Clinton campaign is bailing on South Carolina? over 6 years ago

    oh good. I was about to write a diary about this new article, but you wrote it ahead of me. Thanks for posting about this.

    I was talking to a friend about this about a week ago and I have to agree with her assessment. Let Obama have his big win this week. Let him devote his resources and get all the media attention to himself. Hillary needs to conserve her resources to the big prize--Super Tuesday. Let Obama win the battle while Hillary wins the war.

    What good is it for HRC to campaign in South Carolina this week when Obama's minions are going to be calling her and Bill a racist?

    This is the best news I've heard about HRC's campaign strategy in a long time....

  • comment on a post Obama Advertising Nationally over 6 years ago

    how can you tell the difference b/w Obama's official advertising and MSNBC's regular programming? It seems like a waste of money for the Obama camp to get their message out on NBC and MSNBC when it's already reinforced 24/7 on that channel anyway.

    Oh, well, if Obama wants to spend his money this way, more power to him. As I recall, he spent more money in Nevada and New Hampshire on ads as well.....

  • Oh, I would agree with you about Michigan and even Florida. These candidates won't campaign, advertise everywhere. They simply can't. They don't have the resources to do it. Michigan was a good test to see how well the candidates would do in an environment where there wasn't that much media attention and little campaign organizing. If there was this big swell of anti-Clintonism, the uncomitteds would have done much better. Truth is unlike the blogs and the media, a lot of Democrats don't hate the Clintons and don't follow the race's ins and outs as we in the blogs do. They just get a snapshot. The focus on the economy rather than foreign policy also helped HRC.

    But I'm still nervous after the Iowa loss and I don't want to take anything for granted. Quiet confidence that HRC will win rather than overconfidence is going to be how I approach this primary process moving forward....

  • Oh, I disagreed with the link's wish list as well. If I could find another link that had the primary vs caucus, open vs closed stats, I would use it. But I still thought the link was valuable in telling us that type of info.

    What really made the difference for BO in Iowa was the large turnout of younger, college-educated voters. Will he be able to duplicate that organizing effort in all of these other states, I doubt it. But I would rather take the position that is most favorable of BO when thinking about the race. HRC still comes out ahead even under Obama's best scenario. BUT, after Iowa, I don't want to get complacent and I hope that the Clinton campaign doesn't get complacent either. I want them to assume that they are down by 10 in all the states and work from there....

  • comment on a post If Obama survives Super Tuesday... over 6 years ago

    An Obama supporter has a nice graph categorizing upcoming primaries as closed and open races. Here's the link:

    http://bp0.blogger.com/_5oq-A3JdJGM/R5QC Cugw0wI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/1iwazqyfJ2Q/s1600-h/ DemDelegateRaceElectoPundit.JPG

    As we know from the races so far, HRC performs better with actual Democrats, while Obama performs better with Independents/Republicans. In other words, Obama has a much better chance in races that are open primaries/caucuses. I also think that Obama has an advantage with caucuses since his voters are younger and wealthier and don't have the same barriers in participating in caucuses that Hillary supporters have.

    I agree with you that Obama should win Alaska. First of all, Alaska will have a caucus system. Secondly, Alaska has more men in their population than women. Obama should have no excuse not to win Alaska. I guess that's why it would make sense that he opened an office there a few months ago.

    I think that Hillary should win Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, New Mexico, New York and Oklahoma since all of those states are closed primaries. I don't know how organized Barack is on the ground in those states, but if he hasn't focused on getting his Indy voters registered in time for the deadlines than he could be in for a world of hurt.

    HRC should win Colorado since it will be a closed caucus system and there is a significant Latino community there. I also would give the edge to Clinton in Kansas which is a closed caucus system but it is in the midwest and Obama won Iowa so who knows.

    California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Utah all have modified primaries, which I think means that Independents can vote in the Democratic primary but not the Republican primary. Obama should perform better in these states rather than the closed primaries. But even with this advantage, Hillary will probably pull California through. I'm not sure about Massachusetts. Obama has a lot of institutional support there. Hillary has an advantage in New Jersey. I think it's unclear how Utah will go.

    The rest of the Super Tuesday states like Illinois, Arkansas and Georgia have either open caucuses or open primaries.

    Going beyond Super Tuesday, I disagree with you that Obama should have an advantage in Louisiana. It will be a closed primary and the racial makeup of that state is a lot different after Katrina. Third, Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and maybe 1996 I believe.

    I think I would be able to make better predictions if I knew what the gender, age and income breakdowns of each state was. Those would be pretty predictive of what's going to happen....

  • comment on a post Nevada Caucus morning over 6 years ago

    I've really appreciated the series of reports on the ground that you've given the past few days. I also appreciate the link for the results. I wasn't sure where to find out what the results were. Thanks again. Your posts have been very helpful....

  • comment on a post Bill Clinton's Final Case For Hillary over 6 years ago

    Thanks for the report. According to C-SPAN's website, C-SPAN will air a HRC campaign event at 11 pm. C-SPAN keeps changing its time. Earlier on the website it appeared that they would air the joint appearance with Bill and Hillary at 11:20 pm LIVE, but I guess that fell through? I don't know. I would have preferred to see the LIVE event from tonight rather than a taped rally. Oh, well, just wanted to give the heads up to HRC fans....

  • I would imagine that Clinton would try to revamp Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiatives, but it would be impossible to do anything to make government processes more efficient etc when it's in such disarray. That will probably have to wait for another 3 years or so.

    Probably another order of business for the next Democratic president is to determine how many government contractors are really needed. We contract out a lot of stuff that probably could be kept in house. I'm not totally against government contracting entirely, but I think the Bush administration has relied entirely too much on government consultants/contractors....

  • ITA with this statement, BDB. As a gov't worker, there's not a day that goes by where someone announces his/her retirement. There have been several retirements OR people leaving the government to go to the private sector. In the agency where I work, there's a lot of low morale among employees. A lot of the political appointees don't know what they're doing and just waste time with public relations and videoconferences about "improving the culture of the agency." It drives the employees who have been in the agency for quite some time up the wall. I was just talking with a few people that work with political appointees a few months ago. They are just waiting for a change in administration b/c these politicos don't know what they're doing.  

    I also know that it's not just my agency, but the same problems exist at the agencies that my friends work for as well. I recall vividly a conversation I had with a complete stranger at Panera Bread a few years ago, where she, a federal employee, just started going off about the problems with her agency. The problems are widespread throughout the government. I figure it will probably take a year, maybe two just to get the government to start functioning on the most basic level.

    One of the reasons why I decided to support Clinton last spring was b/c of her knowledge of the way the Executive Branch is SUPPOSED to work and her "ready on day one" message really resonates with me. I seriously don't think that the government could handle another laissez faire approach to management that we've seen the past 2 terms. We just can't afford it....  

  • comment on a post Obama Wins NV Newspaper Endorsement over 6 years ago

    I know that some Obama supporters were touting this endorsement and who knows maybe some still do. But I think this editorial really wasn't so much about supporting Obama as it was to bash Senator Clinton. I don't think that this endorsement would swing any tried and true undecided Democrats to Obama's side. The decision of the editorial board was not based upon substance but personal vitriole. I wonder if it could create a backlash.....

  • comment on a post Clinton's Victory E-Mail over 6 years ago

    Todd, I think the e-mail was from Patti Solis Doyle, rather than Hilda Solis Doyle.

    Close to 60%, rather than actual 60% isn't bad. I'm happy with it. I'm sure supporters of other candidates will try to make Clinton supporters feel bad that she received less than 60% of the vote. Considering the low turnout, I don't think that is bad....

  • comment on a post Democratic Debate Thread over 6 years ago

    This is absolutely the WORST debate I've ever seen. What's up with all of the process/horserace questions? Do Nevadans actually care about this garbage? I hope not. Let's talk about the economy, foreign policy. At this point, I would even take illegal immigration. Just some substantive topic.

    I hope this is the very LAST debate that MSNBC hosts. Please let it be the last one. I'm sorry but at this point of the debate, I would prefer Fox News to host the debate than MSNBC.

  • comment on a post Romney Looking Good In Early Exit Polls over 6 years ago

    Fox News is reporting that exit polls so far say that the vote between HRC and uncommitted is too close to call....

  • comment on a post Obama in 2008: More Like 1912 Than 1932 over 6 years ago

    thanks for the diary. I enjoy reading theories that provide parallels b/w the past and today. Truthfully I don't know that much about Wilson, so I learned quite a bit from your diary. Thanks again, please continue writing....


Advertise Blogads