I agree that Wright will always, the GOP isn't dropping it no matter what, drag Democratic candidates down. This, however, doesn't not backwardly imply that Obama had a chance to "potential down-ballot impact." This question was not investigated enough and therefore, it is, at best, your belief and not a fact.
So far, it seems that Obama will drag the Democrats down on all fronts; not a happy note.
Posted by Koshembos at April 29, 2008 04:21 PMi never really understood where the notion that senator obama would have an impact on the election of democrats running for state offices came from.
why should that be the case? or not?
what does obama have to offer that would add votes to democrats running for state offices?
is this a
- "he'll get lots of independents to vote for him" argument?
or a
- "he'll get republicans to vote for him" argument?
if so, what is the factual basis of that belief?
or is it just a "received wisdom " corollary of the assumption that senator obama will be a "transformational" figure in american politics?
and why would senator clinton not confer the same advantages on democrats running for state offices?
i am not convinced that senator obama could not have a "downticket" effect, but the argument has the feel of self-promotion, unexamined closely by journalists - in short, free advertising.
Posted by orionATL at April 29, 2008 04:41 PMIt occurs to me that Obama had his own "Sista Soulja" moment today with white America. As soon as Al Sharpton and other AA ministers begin to denounce his comments about the Rev this controversy will become a strength.
It also accurs to me that the good Rev just got 72 hours of free coverage to introduce himself as Black America's new spiritual leader,
As a career move for both men it's brilliant, at least in terms of the ultimate Nixonian cynicism such a master stroke of political gamesmanship represents... It's beautiful. Man, even the big dog has to smile at the chutzpah.
Neither man is owned by the other..
Obama has plausible deny ability having renounced the good Rev, the good Rev proves his street cred by being denounced by Obama. They hug in December but part ways officially. Each becomes a foil to the other. Beautiful.
Or, maybe not...
Posted by jb64 at April 29, 2008 04:56 PMTypical silliness and wishful conjecture.
Obama is committed to a '50-state strategy' unlike the last Democratic president. Unlike Sen. Clinton, he has the best grassroots organization and fundraising approach by far.
Basically either candidate is going to take the 'blue' states. Real politicians know that indies and republicans will flock to Mccain if Hillary tops our ticket.
Obama's down-ticket appeal is strong which is why he has narrowed Mrs. Clinton's superdelegate advantage from 100 to 20. His support now exceeds that of Hillary among senators and governors.
I think that nervousness of a single Mississippi candidate and a handful of first-term 'blue dogs' who are nervous about committing at this point does not change the math or dynamic of Obama's nomination.
Posted by tfitznc at April 29, 2008 05:01 PMIt took us all one day to figure out that Wright is a nut.
What the hell is wrong with Obama that it took him 20 years?
Posted by JoeCHI at April 29, 2008 05:02 PMtfitznc, your claim that:
Real politicians know that indies and republicans will flock to Mccain if Hillary tops our ticket.
no longer holds water, after yesterday's AP/Ipsos poll.
and tfitz- if you've bothered to look at the polling, obama puts very few red states into play, while losing or possibly losing some key purple states. as always, your analysis is short on analysis.
Posted by Turkana at April 29, 2008 05:29 PMJoeCHI:
Sadly, the answer to your question has to be: Obama DOESN'T think that Wright is a nut. He pretends to today out of political expediency. That's all.
Posted by at April 29, 2008 05:57 PMtfitznc: It's Senator Clinton, not Mrs. Clinton.
Posted by hal at April 29, 2008 06:01 PMturkana says:
"your analysis is short on analysis."
unfair use warning:
i like that line. i am going to steal it someday.
Posted by orionATL at April 29, 2008 06:09 PMjoeCHI -
i've read two really funny comments today:
yours
1) "It took us all one day to figure out that Wright is a nut.
What the hell is wrong with Obama that it took him 20 years?"
Posted by JoeCHI at April 29, 2008 05:02 PM
and this,
from "no quarter"
[ By Larry Johnson...
Based on Barack’s triple back flip today, if you are part of the “black community” or Barack’s white granny you got to be nervous. Please reconcile Barack’s statement today to the press with what he said in Philadelphia about Jeremiah Wright:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Yes he can and yes he did. Run Grandma, run. ]
Posted by at April 29, 2008 06:22 PMThis is funny - like Childers would be seen with Hillary Clinton or the Republican wouldn't user her in campaign commercials if she were the nominee? He's running in a deep red district in Mississippi, which means running away from a Democratic president or presidential candidate. Still, a 50-state campaign like the one Obama has been running would benefit candidates like Childers who might publicly dissociate themselves from the nominee. A 50-state campaign identifies friendly voters and gets them to the polls, helping all our candidates.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 29, 2008 06:34 PMI wonder if Wright has handed the nomination to Hillary Clinton by no fault of his own. Reverend Wright is a very angry African American and that is not what Obama is about and I spoke of that fact in my post on Papamoka Straight Talk today.
You have to wonder in your heart if you are responsible for the comments of your parish priest, pastor, rabbi or one of many religious propagators at the pulpit of your church. If you are responsible for their comments then we all need to look at our faith just a little closer and maybe that is the lesson here. Separation of oneself from our church teachings is what Kennedy did and it was a wise move for Obama.
Posted by Papamoka at April 29, 2008 06:45 PMJeremiah Wright is pissed that Obama used his church as a power base in Chicago and now has the audacity to disrespect him. I'll bet he knows plenty. Look for him to start dropping little stink bombs on his new meal ticket as we await the publication of the Wright Manifesto--sometime in late October.
Was it Axelrod or Obama who decided against dumping the Reverend last year? Sorry, gentlemen--no mulligans in politics.
Posted by at April 29, 2008 06:52 PMNo way Obama has denownes wright after these statements Then he lies about it in this statement and if thats not enough then he admits these lies in this statement.
So he lied that he knew, then he admits he lied, then he defends Wright, now he acts like the aids comments, Farrakkan, 9/11, etc..............are just NOW news to him???????????
This is about JUDGEMENT!!!!!! The core of his campaign. How can we elect a man who jumps from one side to the other when it helps his polls???
Posted by John C. at April 29, 2008 07:31 PMSteve says:
"tfitznc, your claim that:
'Real politicians know that indies and republicans will flock to Mccain if Hillary tops our ticket'.
no longer holds water, after yesterday's AP/Ipsos poll".
I find your comment uncharacteristically naive.
First ,you cite one poll as your counterargument to my assessment of what "politicians know". You of course can agree or disagree wuith my assessment, but your poll does not de facto disprove it.
Second, these type of polls are 'beauty contests' or as the pollers say "hypothetical match-ups" at one point in time. Like Gallup, they will fluctuate between competitive candidates.
Let's see what the real polls say after the primary. I admit that Hillary (Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Clinton; in deference to Hal's stated concern) has had a good couple of weeks due to PA and the return of Rev. Wright, but it will not change the outcome particularly after NC.
Turkana says:
"as always, your analysis is short on analysis".
Typical insult and dismissal from Turkana or eriposte.
You see my name, identify me as an "obamabot", "idiot", "dimwit", etc. (your words) and never read my posts. I have spent a lot of time, as have others, presenting reasoned, alternative opinions to your reflexive and often one dimensional 'arguments' in defense of your candidate.
I'm really sick of your attitude and BS.
That's my analysis.
Schadenfreude, baby! This is the wll-deserved karma for a campaign that consciously nd purposefully "swift-baited" Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists.
If you think the media is over-the-top now that Obama is the perceived frontrunner, just wait until the verdict is rendered in Tony Rezko's corruption trial in Chicago sometime in June.
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at April 29, 2008 07:45 PMDonald,
The Clintons speak for themselves in words and actions. I certainly don't think the media is 'over the top' in favor of a particular Dem. candidate. They just want to sell their 'product' at the lowest common denominator.
I agree with the CW that Hillary has been very helpful in training and toughening up Obama for the GE. Agreed, Obama's 'dirty laundry' is new; Clinton's is old. The potency of Clinton's dirty laundry is reflected in her rising negatives.
Not sure how you realistically expect Rezko's verdict to lastingly reflect on Obama unless there is a new shoe to drop. In any event, the nomination will be effectively decided by June.
It is difficult now, but the majority of activist/progressive Dems. will support whichever nominee wins the primary. Odds are, we will win the election.
Posted by tfitznc at April 29, 2008 07:59 PM"majority of dems will support whichever nominee wins the primary" Don't bet on it. The left wing of the democratic party has shredded my candidate - Air America, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, countless talking heads have ripped her apart (ignoring Obama's Republican health care plan, his Reagan economic advisors, his advisors who were caught saying don't listen to what he says - it's campaign talk.)
If the Democratic party is stupid enough to put up another John Kerry, a weak candidate that Joe six-pack and his wife won't vote for - I quit. After working long and hard for the Dem party and putting tons of $$$ into the party if O is the nominee I'm sitting this one out.
Posted by jmac at April 29, 2008 09:05 PMThe Clintons most assuredly speak for themselves in their words and actions ... which Axelrove in particular and Obama supporters in general misinterpret, distort, and manufacture into attacks on Senator Clinton and her husband. The things that make Obama look bad come from Wright, Rezko, Ayres, and Obama's attempts to explain them away. "Joe Sixpack and his wife" aren't buying it any more.
Posted by jwrjr at April 29, 2008 10:04 PMATTENTION! OBAMA IS RUNNING A 50 STATE CAMPAIGN!
(offer may not apply in MI and Fl)
Wright will soon go the way of "Is Obama black enough." Or maybe you can debate that question. Whatever.
Posted by phidipides at April 29, 2008 11:11 PMI started to feel sorry for Obama yesterday with all the negative media coverage. Then I remembered how he and his campaign have smeared the Clintons as racists and set back race relations 50 years in this country. No longer felt sorry.
Posted by at April 30, 2008 04:25 AMjmac,
This is what your candidate SEN. CLINTON said yesterday [via The Page]:
"Clinton tells The Indianapolis Star it would be “the height of political foolishness” for Democrats to back a Republican, or not vote, if they’re disappointed by the nomination.
Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other,” she said."
It's one thing to be disappointed; its another to elect Bush III!
Posted by tfitznc at April 30, 2008 04:57 AM