And the smell of Unity continues to permeate throughout.......
Good grief.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at August 27, 2008 11:59 AMunity does not mean ignoring the ugliness. we are united in wanting to elect obama. his team is pursuing a smart strategy to do that. good for them.
Posted by Turkana at August 27, 2008 12:00 PMAnd the smell of Unity continues to permeate throughout.......
So sad. This affliction you have.
Posted by at August 27, 2008 12:13 PMAnd the smell of Unity continues to permeate throughout.......
So sad. This affliction you have.
Sorry. Didn't realize I hadn't left a name.
If you ask me, and you haven't, I'd say the strategy his campaign has been following this summer has been just awful. So far this convention's message has been confusing. And by the looks of the staging for Thursday's event...ancient...bad. That stage for the 75,000 looks worthy of some old guy...John McCain maybe. Where's the crisp new look of "change"? Something looking out of Roman or Greek times is so old fashioned.
So much for the 50 state plan...back to the same race Kerry and Gore ran.
Posted by peter at August 27, 2008 12:52 PMWhat the heck is wrong with this post Mr. Opus that you leave your sarcastic flippant commentary here. Sorry if you don't think that many many left blogs lost a ton of credibility and respect because of how they reacted and then how they steamrolled and treated people during the primaries...you know fellow democrats who grew sick and tired of the disrepectful mocking, and arrogant commentary like your own if they didn't support or agree with you 100% in regards to all things pro Obama or anti Clinton. Thanks for once again proving one of turkana's point made here....because when your not knocking Clinton you apparently still feel the need to do it to her former lukewarm supporters. Please...just stop.... get over it already.
Will it ever end.
Posted by emal at August 27, 2008 12:57 PM"If you ask me, and you haven't" - nor will we.
Posted by T2 at August 27, 2008 01:24 PM"John McCain represents the past." Yet Barry Obama is using the ancient look for his appearance Thursday night. You be the judge who looks "old".
Posted by peter at August 27, 2008 01:27 PMObama's brilliant strategy of gaming the caucuses, using his DNC lackeys to not count the votes in FL and MI and race baiting the Clintons and their supporters is exactly what is going to lose the GE for him.
Lifelong Democrats, like myself, are leaving the party. We won't be back until Democrats stand up and purge the leadership of Obamabots.
This November for the first time in my political life and that goes back to 1972 I will vote for a Republican. I don't like McCain. I don't think he'll be a good president. But he'll be better than the fraud the Democrats are nominating.
Posted by Johnny at August 27, 2008 01:45 PMsay pants pissing pete..when did you get your lobotomy? before or after the chimp stole the election? please ..trolls without serious mental health issues....
Posted by headxray at August 27, 2008 01:47 PM...I will vote for a Republican. I don't like McCain. I don't think he'll be a good president.
Gonna vote for a guy who you think won't be a good president?
[shaking head]
Posted by snark at August 27, 2008 01:55 PMUmmm... doesn't it make sense to have different strategies for a race with proportional allocation of delegates (the primary) and winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes (the general)? Obama built organization everywhere in the primary, and has broadened the playing field for the general. 18 states is alot more than the number Kerry and Gore contested.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 27, 2008 01:57 PM"Obama built organization everywhere in the primary, and has broadened the playing field for the general." Are you sure? Really sure? Many offices closed after each states votes. Take Arkansas, no office opened there right now. The Party has an office, not Obama.
Posted by peter at August 27, 2008 02:02 PMWell, I guess that makes Johnny a 'puke, dunnit? Why does he hate America?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 27, 2008 02:02 PMJohnny, you do realize how painfully obvious your mobyism is, don't you?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 27, 2008 02:03 PMCAPJ,
So would it be fair to say that Barack Obama thinks the people of the states he has no chance of winning don't matter?
Posted by snark at August 27, 2008 02:07 PMHillary was wrong.
It IS all about you...
Yes, Johnny, many former Dems feel as you do, and are now Independent.
Posted by Sharon at August 27, 2008 02:32 PMSo would it be fair to say that Barack Obama thinks the people of the states he has no chance of winning don't matter? - snark
In the primaries, every voter matters because of proportional allocation of delegates. Because of the #$%&ing electoral college, tens of millions of voters literally don't matter in terms of political strategy in the general. Alot more matter this year (VA, NC, CO, MT, ND, GA, AK, IN) because of Obama expanding the field of competitive states.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 27, 2008 02:38 PMCAPJ,
You didn't answer my question. Because Barack Obama has chosen to contest only 18 states is it fair to say that he thinks the people of the other 32 don't matter?
Something looking out of Roman or Greek times is so old fashioned.
Especially since bu$h used them for his convention in 2004!
So would it be fair to say that Barack Obama thinks the people of the states he has no chance of winning don't matter? - snark
No. The electoral college says they don't matter.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 27, 2008 03:18 PMThe Electoral College says that some states of the union don't matter? How? They all hold elections that count towards determining who the winner is, don't they?
Posted by snark at August 27, 2008 03:38 PMwell, I can sincerely say I dont want anybody to leave the party. I dont want Obama suporters to leave because unlike the typical online version, the young ones I have met in real life are very sincere. Not experienced yet, but hey - gotta start somewhere. I like them and hope they stick around even if their guys goes down - which i hope doesnt happen.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 27, 2008 04:20 PM
snark, you should ask your question to a liberal in Oklahoma.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 27, 2008 05:14 PMunity does not mean ignoring the ugliness.
Nor does it mean exploiting it, Turkana.
And although Ambinder caught that little nugget, I'm slightly skeptical of such nuggets without full context. My volunteering efforts in my state of Kansas and what I've seen on the ground so far in helping Obama win Kansas have been anything but shuned from the Obama campaign (not to mention the efforts and assistance in helping Jim Slattery and Nancy Boyda in my own district).
Now I am assuming you are lumping in the Obama supporters in with the media when you are referring to the "shrillosphere", If that is indeed the case, the incessant crying of "FOUL!" of "Hillary-bashing" is what my continual beef is with you and Eriposte right now, because the same charges have been brought up against Obama, err I mean "My Precious". The bashing was reciprocated, and you very well know that as we've argued this into the ground before. It's one thing for the Obama campaign to know and realize that many states in the South are unattainable and to divert more efforts to the more reachable swing states. That's still a far cry to the triangulation strategy that was employed by the DNC and adopted by the Clintons that has unfortunately given us loss after loss in both the POTUS and Congressional races.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at August 27, 2008 05:58 PMI see that the troll infestation at TLC has gotten much worse over the past month. Sad. It almost makes the threads unreadable.
Had Clinton been nominated, and had her campaign manager made such a statement, the shrillosphere would once again be flooded with derision about her team considering 32 states to be irrelevant.
You know, I see why on the surface this sounds like the same comments that came out of the Clinton camp. But they really are tremendously different. Keep in mind that the reporter said these quotes were based on his notes and may not be fully accurate (look for a transcript soon). I think the full context will be very helpful here.
However, even with what is in that article you can see there are some major distinctions that you aren't reflecting in your post, Turkana:
1) There is a big difference between primaries, where every state comes into play, and the general, where some states are just too far to one side or the other to matter. Clinton's team chose to ignore states where there were Democratic delegates available because the vote totals were small, and Obama cleaned up in those places.
2) A big reason this issue got a lot of blogosphere attention in the spring was the anecdote about Mark Penn being under the delusion that Democratic delegates were winner-take-all by state -- and that he didn't change his strategy when he found he was wrong.
3) Another factor coming into play is that this issue was tied to the general fight between Howard Dean and the DLC/Emmanual/Clinton faction over the 50 state strategy. It wasn't just that the DLC gang wasn't actively campaigning in non-competitive states during the Presidential election -- it's that the DLC gang was permanently ceding all but about 45% of the House districts and about 40% of the US Senate positions to the Republicans. There was no serious contention, no attempt to build a long-term base in those districts, no attempt to force the Republicans to spend money and effort defending those districts, and those few candidates who the DLC wing did support in the "red" districts were right-of-center, hence unlikely to help Democrats much if they won. Obama's strategy dovetails nicely with the Dean strategy of building a permanent, nation-wide party.
4) Plouffe didn't say they Obama's team isn't campaigning outside the 18 states or that they are not building a ground game there. Obama's team most certainly is -- in fact Obama is likely to be the first candidate since Dole to visit all 50 states during the general campaign. The Obama team is doing everything they can to build national Democratic energy -- they are trying to win seats in the national and state legislatures as well as the presidency.
When Plouffe said "all we care about is these 18 states" the context was purely with regard to polling. Which makes sense. Why should they worry that, for example, Armpit, Oklahoma residents aren't excited about Obama or that SF Bay residents are? They should be focused on what residents of the close states are thinking and how they are reacting to the messages.
Furthermore, when Armbinder says Obama's team uses this data to determine "where to invest money and resources" I don't think they meant what Armbinder thinks. I don't think (at this stage, anyway), that by "where" the campaign means "which state" to invest in, but rather which voter segments to focus on -- which parts of the message to emphasize, etc. At this point ALL battleground states are in play. What the Obama team is doing is closely monitoring the mood and attitude of the undecideds and planning accordingly.
Honestly I don't know if the Obama plan is going to work. Clearly they have a plan -- a very well thought out and detailed one. Clearly their team is extremely well organized and efficient. This gives me hope -- they aren't making it up as they go like most campaigns do after having gotten this far. But, the plan may be fatally flawed -- we'll know in November.
One thing for sure, though, I am much more confident in Obama's team than I would be with Hillary's team. Nevermind their differents as candidates or in terms of policy. Hillary's team had every advantage possible, yet somehow they blew it.
Posted by Anonny at August 27, 2008 06:18 PMWhat the heck is wrong with this post Mr. Opus that you leave your sarcastic flippant commentary here.
Because I'm trying to make a point in doing so?
Is that a trick question?
Sorry if you don't think that many many left blogs lost a ton of credibility and respect because of how they reacted and then how they steamrolled and treated people during the primaries...you know fellow democrats who grew sick and tired of the disrepectful mocking, and arrogant commentary like your own if they didn't support or agree with you 100% in regards to all things pro Obama or anti Clinton.
You know, it would really serve you better to not make assumptions on what I think or don't think.
The disrespect ran from both sides, emal, and I'm sick as shit listening to your side as if you guys were the only victims here. It's tiresome and way beyond old at this stage in the game.
Thanks for once again proving one of turkana's point made here....because when your not knocking Clinton you apparently still feel the need to do it to her former lukewarm supporters. Please...just stop.... get over it already.
"Get over it already."
I honestly couldn't have said it better myself towards the Hillary supporters who won't give up the freakin' ghost and take every chance they can to knock Obama and/or his supporters, even now 2 months after Hillary has conceded.
Again, the victim card was overplayed long ago.
Will it ever end.
You tell me?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at August 27, 2008 08:26 PMHillary's "mistake" was in running a primary campaign that would not only guarantee victory in November, but make it possible for her to govern as effectively as possible. She kept her "eyes on the prize" while Team Obama stole the ball right out from under her.
Team Obama had no general election strategy -- there is a clear sense of (bad) improvisation about the Obama campaign once they became the "presumptive" nominee. And nothing demonstrates this more clearly than Obama's failure to take advantage of the long primary as a means of defining himself for the general election. (Not to mention the fact that openly ignoring voters in states like VA and KY sent a very bad message --- not just to Clinton supporters, but to all voters to whom Clinton was appealing.)
The big difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton has been "thinking" about being president for a very long time, while Obama has been "dreaming" about it. A couple of years ago, Obama knew that he wouldn't be ready this year -- what changed is that when presented with a blueprint on how the nomination could be gotten in a year where a ham sandwich could beat the GOP nominee, he decided readiness was less important than seizing an opportunity.
Posted by p.lukasiak at August 28, 2008 05:17 AMShe kept her "eyes on the prize" while Team Obama stole the ball right out from under her.
So you admit he played a better game. Usually, people who do that, win. And Obama won.
Team Obama had no general election strategy
Since the GE hasn't really started yet, how do you know? Seems he's sticking tight to his own strategy. It's helped him get this far. You're making a lot of assumptions about what's in Obama's head based on your inability to get over Hillary's loss. She's moved on; I supported her and I've moved on, why can't you?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 28, 2008 05:37 AMSince the GE hasn't really started yet, how do you know? Seems he's sticking tight to his own strategy.
the only thing more frightening than the idea that this is all being improvised is the idea that this was the plan all along.
So you admit he played a better game. Usually, people who do that, win. And Obama won.
I guess I don't see it as a "game", rather I see it as a process.
Basically, the "game" perspective is a Republican mindset -- "He who has the most toys when he dies wins". The "game" mindset divorces elections from governance, and reduces support for Parties to the level of rooting for the home team.
I'm not bitter about Hillary losing -- I started out as "anyone-but-Hillary", and only decided to support her after Edwards dropped out because it was obvious that she was ready to be President... and Obama was a big fat question mark.
What I'm bitter about is once again believing in something (that the on-line progressive movement meant something) only to once again be forced to retreat into cynicism.
What I'm bitter about is that "principles" have been completely eclipsed by "gamesmanship".
And your smugness about winning "the game" resembles nothing so much as what we saw from right wingers when the Supreme Court stopped votes from being counted in Florida in 2000. They won -- and the fact that in doing so they violated every principle on which this nation was founded was irrelevant.
Posted by p.lukasiak at August 28, 2008 06:25 AMWhat I'm bitter about is once again believing in something (that the on-line progressive movement meant something) only to once again be forced to retreat into cynicism.
Your still not explaining how the outcome would be diffirent for Progresives with Hillary as the nominee.
I'm certain she would be tracking towards the center as much as Obama.
What I'm bitter about is that "principles" have been completely eclipsed by "gamesmanship".
It's been said many times here, Dems have to win the election for Progressive policy to have a chance.
And since the GOP has a cutthroat philosophy it can be compared to a "game" and all "principles" are thrown out the window.
I think you'll find that Obama will be a much more Liberal leader than you think.
Hillary's "mistake" was in running a primary campaign that would not only guarantee victory in November, but make it possible for her to govern as effectively as possible.
Hillary's mistake was looking past the primary, hiring Mark "disaster" Penn and thinking she had it in the bag already (I think it's called arrogance!).
Better get back to thinking how we can win the GE. Then we can have a forum for Progressive policies.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 28, 2008 07:45 AMthe only thing more frightening than the idea that this is all being improvised is the idea that this was the plan all along.
I guess you scare easy.
I guess I don't see it as a "game", rather I see it as a process.
Hey, you're the one who said "Team Obama stole the ball right out from under her." I was just following your lead, so you're the one using Republican frames, not I. And I didn't say anything about your being bitter, you volunteered that yourself. I'm sorry the blogosphere didn't live up to your expectations, but then things rarely do live up to expectations, wouldn't you agree? Some people can live with it, some can't. Apparently, you're in the latter group.
What I'm bitter about is that "principles" have been completely eclipsed by "gamesmanship".
And yet you begin your "argument" with a game metaphor.
And your smugness about winning "the game" resembles nothing so much as what we saw from right wingers when the Supreme Court stopped votes from being counted in Florida in 2000.
So, pointing out an irrefutable fact, that Obama won the primary and the nomination, makes me smug, and akin to the wingnuts in 2000? Wow. I've been seeing people all over the 'nets mourning your decline into madness over the primary, and it's really sad to see it in action here. I didn't comment much at Corrente during the primary, but I spent a lot of time there as a Hillary supporter. Your work on polls was thorough and interesting, but as time went by, you became more and more unhinged, ignoring any fact that ran counter to your wild assumptions. I was having a hard time getting over my anger, too, but watching the direction you, lambert, riverdaughter, and most heinously, Larry Johnson go off the deep end to the point of fantasizing about creating an alternate internet convinced me to hang up my hurt pride and accept the inevitable. You guys have become such a national joke that even the Daily Show is making fun of you. It's sad, Paul. Seek therapy.
Your still not explaining how the outcome would be diffirent for Progresives with Hillary as the nominee.
I'm certain she would be tracking towards the center as much as Obama.
Since you haven't asked why I think the "outcomes would be different for Progressives", I'm not sure why I 'still haven't' done anything.
But that's an easy one to answer -- Hillary Clinton is committed to universal health care, and a host of child welfare related issues. We know this because she has a very strong record of working on these issues AND has made them a central part of her candidacy. They are "signature" issues for her that represent progressive values.
Barack Obama has no "signature" issues, no concern or set of concerns that one can identify as being part of the progressive agenda. Where he has taken progressive positions (transparency in government, for instance), his actions (the FISA vote) raise serious questions with regard to those "good" positions being part of a progressive agenda. There is nothing, other than rhetoric, that tells us that Obama is a progressive -- and this is especially true because Obama will say things and does things that are intended to appear "progressive" which he will later "parse" into meaninglessness. (again, see the FISA debacle.)
As for Hillary 'tacking to the center' -- she doesn't have to. She's spent the last eight years positioning herself to be able to run a "seamless" campaign on her own terms, and rather than "move to the center" in the GE, she'd just continue to do what she did during the primaries --- project an image that sucessfully defies expectations of her based on 16 years of CDS by the GOP and the media.
And yet you begin your "argument" with a game metaphor.
I used a metaphor to explain something, you embraced the metaphor to justify it. Big difference.
Posted by p.lukasiak at August 28, 2008 09:06 AMMister Opus,
I started and deleted many responses to you...not really certain what approach to take or how to respond at this point. So hang in here with me. Once again.....please listen..you appear to me to be very sensitive and defensive and I did not mean to do that..please put down the anger...put down the antagonism.
Just please...and I'm being very serious here please, remember I am not the enemy...and neither is turkana and many others here....that said, I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
regards in victimhood, (oops sorry trying to be disarmingly funny-hopefully successfully?)
Best of luck. Peace.
emal
Posted by emal at August 28, 2008 09:24 AMI used a metaphor to explain something, you embraced the metaphor to justify it. Big difference.
Responding in kind is "embracing?" Using the same metaphor you used is a big difference? And please, what "it" am I justifying? You're the one making baseless assumptions, contradictory statements, and heinous comparisons of me to the wingnuts in 2000. Again, seek help; your damaged thought processes might be indicative of a larger, possibly dangerous, health issue.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 28, 2008 10:03 AMWe know this because she has a very strong record of working on these issues AND has made them a central part of her candidacy.
Yes, 35 years... right? And she on the board at Wal-Mart... not this shit again!
Obama could have gone to Wall St. but instead helped out on Chicago's south side. That's not a "signature issue" or part of a progressive cause?
As for Hillary 'tacking to the center' -- she doesn't have to.
Kinda like when the license for illegal immigrants issue came up? Yet, Obama stood firm with Richardson on that issue. Another part of a progressive agenda.
Yes, Obama fucked up with his FISA vote. He did say he is willing to revisit it. What will McPOW do?
Paul, really, we have to move on to the GE. I'm a Progressive as well but we will not see the light of day by continuing the argument over Hillary not winning. Drop it, move on support Obama... we will have more opportunities with him as President than McCryptkeeper.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 28, 2008 10:04 AMI used a metaphor to explain something, you embraced the metaphor to justify it. Big difference.
Oh, that's rich!
Posted by snark at August 28, 2008 10:05 AMemal,
You and Turkana are the last group of people I want as enemies. I just want us all to move on together, and I admit my rashness at times is not the best method for that to happen. I get the fact that it's very difficult to do that for some of the Hillary supporters, and that there's still a heavy amount of bitterness from some of the most ardent supporters. But I can't help but reiterate the fact that the mud was thrown from both sides (as is always the case with elections and primaries), and that this has to be acknowledged, accepted in some sort of way, and understood that despite the past, we all have to move on together to help stop a Bush 3rd term by every means possible. Both Hillary and Bill were unequivocal in their support for Obama and the Democratic party in their speeches, and I hope that is apparent to their supporters as well.
I stepped away from here for a couple of months to see if things had changed to some extent (also to help focus on my PT Board exam, which I passed thank goodness). And I guess I'm just a little surprised that so much bitterness remains at this point. Granted, maybe not so much from Turkana which in his post here I was more or less contending with his 18 state strategy difference from Clinton, but certainly from Eriposte earlier as well as the comments that I've read while lurking here over the past week or so.
In any case, I appreciate your reply, and peace to you as well.
It is with some irony I note that the Gallup national tracking poll for today shows a sudden jump for Obama. Two days ago McCain led 46-44. Now Obama leads 48-42. That's an 8 point swing.
Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations suffered from misogyny and from CDS in both the corporate media and its mirror, the all new shrillosphere.
"shrillosphere"=websites run by intemperate jerks with whom I happen to disagree
"reality-based community"=websites run by intemperate jerks whose prose and opinions I like
But it suffered most from the ineptitude of her campaign "strategists." Their worst mistake was their complete misunderstanding of how the nominating process works.
Yes, perhaps that had more to do with the outcome than Koolaid and glassy-eyed cultists. Just perhaps.
Posted by at August 28, 2008 02:25 PM