Too early to tell. The issue for both candidates is the narrative of the election is being written without their full attention on it.
Where President Clinton was so successful in 1996 despite a somewhat abysmal first term, was that he was the nominee early, and spent a lot of money bashing Senator Dole so that Dole had no opportunity to craft even the slightest bit of bsing his way.
It really is a bsing contest. Who can bs the most, the earliest and the most effectively wins at all levels.
I just happen to think Senator Obama has a few ideas for us small guys and that he'll deliver on his Iraq promise.
I don't think this site plays both sides. In the sense that you might be thinking - that both sides have a couple of people with front page posting privileges that shill for either side, yes, both sides are equally represented.
But MyDD partakes in the same, lame back and forth character assassination dialogue off the front page. And that's not equal representation because this site is overwhelmingly Pro-Clinton. And sometimes on the front page even, like the subtle dig in this post that misrepresents the reality that both campaign's strategies are easy to read when listening to even the lowliest campaign staffer.
There's nothing wrong with that, however. Like there is nothing, fundamentally wrong about HillaryIs44.com. That's their right and so too, is it yours. Where I think people get angsty and melodramatic over - is the inherent lie told when someone says "this site is for both candidates". I think Obama people need to wake up; this site isn't for them, really and the membership has made that outrageously clear.
I like to be a bit tenacious and post here anyway in an attempt to keep even 1 or 2 voters from not deciding to pull for the Democratic nominee this election cycle but I have no illusions that this is a fair and balanced site, just like DailyKos isn't.
The only difference is, DailyKos doesn't lie. It is a site for progressives and Senator Obama has been de-rided as the most liberal senator, has been voted the most liberal senator and their nomination of him has even the front page covered with Obama voting.
I appreciate the equal opportunity on the front page but it's still not an equally divided site.
Don't know if I made a whole bunch of sense - just my feeling.
I have no bad feelings about this arrangement; I realize I'm in someone else's home so to speak and I try to follow the rules but just my take on it.
And either way, he erases any gain, if there is one, in Pennsylvania.
Which was the point of the debate. To show that winning Pennsylvania is meaningless in the nominating process.
If he wins Pennsylvania, I imagine he'll try to "be gracious", and say he'll seat the Michigan and Florida delegations if he can get the uncommitted delegates.
If he doesn't win Pennsylvania, I believe President Clinton will back off the notion that North Carolina decides the nomination, and they spin hard to make Indiana "Decide the Nomination". In reality, either of them have to poach a state that's "theirs" to win.
And that won't really change, regardless of the posts that get made here, at DailyKos or on RedState for that matter.
try to strategically blunt the ludicrous notion that Pennsylvania means more than North Carolina or Indiana or any other state that awards delegates :P.
I mean - c'mon. Both are in it to win it. And yes, it is often that a campaign's "strategery" as you call it, is called out. There are six or seven, if not more shows that invite campaign strategists on, in which they are easy to read and understand.
If you haven't, try a few videos of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Senator John Kerry, former Senator Tom Daschle or any time Mr. Penn opens his mouth.
I'd say the Senator Clinton camp has been more overt and reckless in displaying their tactics to win the nomination and Senator Obama's camp has been more subtle; and they've spinned the narrative successfully to show that it seems like Senator Clinton is the bad person in the media.
While we have the Freedom of Speech, she can go peddle it to a demographic that is hopefully, slowly dwindling in this country of ours.
The demographic she spoke to - the Progressives - is not the demographic of sexists, racists or those who revel or partake in squashing others rights through rhetoric better suited to the Fox News Channel or white Aryan resistance sites.
I know we have sexists and racists amongst us. I see it in our language and some of us do it not to be mean or bitter but because it is so ingrained in us. But I believe that is a minority. And while it may be prudent and politically expedient to say Senator Obama is a sexist or that Senator Clinton is a racist, neither are true.
Thank goodness she was suspended; better would it be she fired and that we continue the barrage of e-mails and complaints that likely got this accomplished.
To do this. This is the same thing that drums up passion and support. You begin by labeling people as "Anti-Democratic", "Disenfranchisers" or some such nonsense, when in reality, people are just as passionate and as supportive as you.
And let's be clear. Let us be perfectly clear. I would willingly bet most of my fortune that, if the positions were reversed, we would be doing the exact same thing to one another. We'd be crying this, crying that - and you'd be sitting on the lead.
The truth of the matter is that neither candidate is right, neither candidate is wrong and there's a good chance, hearts will be broken, regardless of the outcome.
Try to understand the stance of the Obama campaign - they agreed to abide by the rules, took their name off the ballot in Michigan, didn't campaign in Florida and lost both states.
Do you think those states would have mattered if Senator Clinton had wrapped this nomination up on February 5th? Do you think Senator Clinton would be sternly accusing her opponent of Anti-Democratic values?
You may not think it's much but, all the evidence suggests that Senator Obama gains votes when he campaigns in a state. It's not democratic to count votes in an election that wasn't sanctioned, wasn't approved of and which was decided upon, in advance, wouldn't count.
Let's cut to the bone of that argument. Can you imagine 500,000 of us saying - you know what - the General Election doesn't happen in November. So on September 6th, we pay for everything and hold a vote.
Do you honestly think because people voted, they have a right to the results when they weren't sanctioned by the body that controls voting?
While this is a Democracy, we don't vote every day, we don't vote on palm pilots on every relevant issue and we aren't entitled to our opinions counting for anything outside of what the Constitution provides us.
There's no disenfranchisement. I feel terribly for the people of Florida and Michigan but the Obama perspective is - this disenfranchises us. Senator Obama did not have name recognition, did not get to campaign and went up against the most accomplished Democratic name in 50 years.
There's unfairness in this, no matter which way you slice it.
As for Senator Clinton's position - she played a game of politics, a game Senator Obama played as well, in wanting to appeal to Iowa and New Hampshire voters. She said I'll sign that pledge and even say this'll be wrapped up by February 5th.
She gambled and that gamble didn't pan out like she thought it would. She didn't even realize it was a gamble at the time.
Now she has every right to ask for them to count - let's face it. Those are two big states that are her constituency all the way. And let's not be disingenuous - Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate we have in winning Florida. She appeals strongly to crossovers in that state and has the support of New Yorkers who moved there.
That may be depleting but she puts that state in play like no one else.
But this is politics, at its worst. Senator Clinton would be doing the exact same thing to Senator Obama if he had won these states, and she sat on a 130 delegate lead. And lets face it: Senator Obama would be forced out and this issue would be "these are the rules; it's over".
That's not unfair. The old UNC basketball coach said Freshmen ride the bench and they damn well stay on the bench until they've learned. Rookies don't get the perks like a Clinton, a Kennedy or a Bush do.
So it's dishonest to use rhetoric like that for such a complex issue. There are no winners in this. There is no disenfranchisement. I'm not anti-democratic.
Votes must be sanctioned; they are then sacred and then to throw them out is disenfranchisement. But, as we all must realize - we are not, individually, owners of the Democratic Party. We together, comprise a bloc of the Democratic Party that has power - but the Democratic Party is a house.
As I've said - if one doesn't agree, they stop being Democrats.
I think this issue can be resolved in a way that will satisfy both candidates. I think it will be.
True. I give credit to Mr. Dobbs for his tirades against trade deregulation, shipping jobs overseas and general hatred of the Bush Administration.
What I don't give him a pass on is immigration and xenophobia and racism.
Furthermore, he's had it in for Senator Obama since Senator Obama said Lou was wrong in a stump speech. Had a fit, said "this is the last straw" and has been railing against him in every manner he sees fit.
I'm for seating Michigan and Florida and re-voting, really but Dobbs comes at it from an angle that's so disingenuous to one side. Senator Obama has every reason to oppose a Michigan and Florida revote or seating, just as Senator Clinton has every reason to approve of it.
They're well within the rules to seek either, and Senator Obama is well within the rules to sit on it. Rules are rules. If Senator Clinton gets them seated, she played by the rules to do so. If Senator Obama doesn't get the seated until the convention, he played by the rules to do so.
To say the Democratic party is disenfranchising voters is a ridiculous claim aimed to stir up emotions and passions. Empty rhetoric from people who profit from a good narrative. The Democratic Party is an entity of its own; it establishes its rules and if voters are turned off by its enforcing of the rules, they have every right to cast a statement vote in November.
I think it's realistic to say that the African American community would be very angry if the nomination was settled in a way that comes off unfair to them.
One of those ways would be the superdelegates voting for Senator Clinton. They'd believe that was breaking the rules or putting the black candidate down.
We're both doing it - and let's face it, both camps care deeply for their respective candidate. It may seem easy for the other side to give it up and come vote for the Democrat in November but right now, there's nothing but your candidate winning.
I've been there. I've said if Senator Clinton wins, I'm done with the DNC, the Dems and the whole kit-n-caboodle. But as I've said - I've moved to a more moderate approach and hope to reconcile with even the most ardent, most fervor supporters out there.
I want people in my camp to vote for Senator Clinton - and there are many who say they will not. 20%, last I checked. And I want people in Senator Clinton's camp to vote for Senator Obama. If their candidate loses. That's 29%, according to the recent polls.
I think that number will fall quickly as we get closer to the nomination wrapping up. And hopefully be very manageable by the convention. But it will be up to both Senators Clinton and Obama to appeal to those who feel disenfranchised.
This isn't just simply one side. It's both. We do a disservice to our compatriots by continually saying it's over, it's impossible - jumping on each new relevant news article that favors Senator Obama and slamming Senator Clinton for it.
It just doesn't help. I prefer a more calmer, more amicable approach to introducing those facts. We all need to adopt this, not only on the blogosphere, but in real life. Every single vote counts - every single one of them. 2000 taught us that much.
And we can't afford to lose the backbone of our party over feelings that have been lost in translation. We all want some of the same things; we all have been slandered; both of our candidates have partaken in being petty; both have stooped to some Rovian tactics.
That will be politics. But as we go through this, we need to realize, on the other side of "those tubes", there's a person whose got a stake in this. And they're not crazy, moronic, a Reagan Dem, a Latte-Sipping Elitist or a jackass. They're not even a marmoset or a howler monkey.
But tempers are flared right now; passions are high. While this is a Democratic site focused on electing Democrats, we've coalesced into a Civil War. We don't see that each side does some pretty mean sniping of one another - sniping I've taken part of on occasion.
But I've realized I need to take a more moderate approach, addressing what really is important to me. The Iraqi War issue. And so, for me, it's easy.
For other people, there is an issue. There are some people who strongly believe Senator Obama represents a sexist front. There are some folks who believe Senator Obama is playing the Race Card and vice versa. There are even more who think they differ so greatly, that Senator McCain can fill the gap for them.
Or perhaps will serve for them as a statement vote come November.
But it isn't November. It's April. And it's our objective as Democrats to not belittle one another, but to consistently speak to one another in amicable terms.
Lets save the sniping for the Republicans. Just lay out what our respective candidates believe, let's let them run the PR, the Spin and their campaigns unless we're volunteers or getting paid to do it, and sit down and see if we can't reconcile a few of our differences.
Also, love the signature. I'm such a Muslim-enthusiast. It's a weird stereotype but I majored in biomedical engineering, I do lectures and have so many Muslim students XD.
It's depressing, because outside the campus and in regular life, they get the fucking shaft for a few loony-bins half way across the world.
I'm an Arizona boy and I used to think Senator McCain was a decent person; someone I could vote for in 2000. But along the way, he really, really surprised me.
I hadn't known about the Keating five scandal or his sort of weird affair with his soon-to-be second wife and the various problems the family's faced. And most of that, I'd get over with, pretty quickly. But then came the Reagan Revolution bit and all the bullshit that came along with it.
And let's not forget his economic experience: "I'll surround myself with Jack Kemp, Random Name, Random Name, Random Name" - yeah, that'll keep us from Great Depression Redux.
This Senator's bordering on insane and because of his war stance, I'll vote for a bottle of Dr. Pepper to lead us for four years before I vote for him.
Little Green Footballs is eager to tear into Senator Obama over this - it slightly concerns me; I hope the Media doesn't play this in the nightmarish way I think they could.
It just so easily feeds into the "Will Jews like Senator Obama?" - but the reality is, he's split the Jewish vote in Israel with Senator Clinton in polling there and most Israelis don't care for most of the politics their administration is pulling off.
They want to sit down with the PLO and Hamas if Hamas recognizes Israel as a state and that it has a right to exist; even more, most citizens wouldn't be disinclined to giving Eastern Jerusalem back to create a Palestinian capital.
I think Senator Obama does appeal to the Middle East, and I know this is bad, but because he is of color and because he has a name that connects with them. It's as simple as two people of German background, or two people who meet in Arizona who came from Kansas families, connecting. It's that step in the door that helps appeal to them.
I just have a funny feeling about the wingnuts. I think Senator Obama is a very adept politician however and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he could overcome any disaster that arises from perceived "Anti-Israeli feelings" or "Muslim support".
The irony of it all is somehow, he's Muslim and a Christian Bigot to the same swath of morons. You'd think they'd help cancel one another out but, heh, we do live in a country where the most malfeasant and incompetent President in a great while gets away with tap dancing on the front lawn and making his cronies rich.
I think that's unfair and while life isn't necessarily fair, this can be.
We too often engage in guilt by association, and make no mistake, both camps do it. This was an unfortunate incident, but the reality of the situation is, no one in Senator Obama's camp said those words.
And at the end of the day, DailyKos, MyDD, CNN, ABC, NPR and MSNBC don't represent thoughts, actions or motives of either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. We as citizens really have to parse through the bullshit that is the media narrative to understand we are all more closely aligned than they would have us believe.
My mother supports Senator Clinton, my fiancé and myself support Senator Obama. Two half-brother support Senator Clinton, one half-brother supports Senator Obama and a half-sister supports Senator McCain.
We still manage to get together and have a bite to eat and bet on March Madness games. Now, I must say, my half-sister used to think Senator Obama was racist and just impossible to elect but I gave her a few words over the phone. Mostly like "Whatchu talkin bout Willis?" - yeah, lame.
But anyway, we're in the heat of the moment. Passions are to be understood but don't disparage. You come off as if you've already lost and the election's only 3/4ths the way done.
Let's let things play out, try to take a more civil tone and stop thinking that just because John Q. Public thinks a certain way, doesn't mean I do.
I take great pride in Senator Obama but I won't call Mrs. Clinton a whore. I've come close to calling her a misogynous name a few times when I've thought she's wronged my candidate but I just chew on my tongue and think of more pleasanter things, like the Kansas Jayhawks kicking North Carolina's ass this upcoming weekend :).
And if things don't work out, don't vote for Senator Obama. It'll be a statement vote. I don't agree with it. But that's your right. I think you just need to be a bit more even-tempered about it.