By SN
Saturday May 31, 2008
|
Associated Press – May 30, 2008:
Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.
Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama’s staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.
|
Obama’s campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage — money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.
“Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. “They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not.”
What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and ’80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.
The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.
|
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
The topic has been raised before and I’m certainly not taking anything away from Obama’s achievements however it should be mentioned again that more than a few voters cast ballots to break the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle.
As well, I suspect analytical people realized the Clinton brand was past its ‘sell-by’ date. Bill’s BJ did more to besmirch Hillary’s chances with his disrespect for both her and the office than many Democrats are comfortable discussing. It wasn’t the dalliance so much as the inherent stupidity of trying to deny it. Handing Repugs that red meat likely assured Al Gore’s defeat as much as all of Karl Rove’s machinations.
Obama is clearly not ready for the position he is applying. However their are far too many white-guilt types eager to vote for him just to show everyone how opened minded they are and as an attempt to relieve some demented racial guilt they carry around.
It doesn’t seem to matter that Obama is a racist and a man who will stick it to these same people as soon as he gets the power to do so.
So Obama has not outsmarted Hillary, he is simply being chosen for no other reason than another feel-good liberal social program.
Be careful what you ask for because the kind of change Obama has in mind is not the change you expect.
>> Did Obama out campaign Hillary or simply out smart her?
Both.
I give credit to Hillary for her tenacity and I like her policies but Obama has simply beat her fair-and-square.
@Dr. Dodd
You must be a republican. You offer nothing but fear, uncertainty and doubt. As an old Reagan republican I do plan on voting for Obama in November. The republicans had their chance for over a decade and blew it spectacularly. Bush may have single handedly destroyed the party.
Obama had far more competent and hungrier staff.
Hillary campaign was staffed by loyalists, not the best and the brightest.
It helped that Obama was willing to work hard and that the campaign made an effort in every state up through the Indiana/North Carolina primaries.
(I would have worried about him getting assassinated in West Virginia, seriously. Especially with Hillary’s “hard working white people support me” race-baiting).
Obama is a little light for a presidential candidate, but he has a strong likability factor in his favor.
But without his superior staff and the support of the MoveOn.org machinery, he wouldn’t have got far at all.
I don’t particularly align myself with *any* of the presidential candidates I have seen this year and certainly not with the Democratic or Republican offerings. I wish this country were not ruled by a two part system, I really do. But it is. There will be two choices for president in November, McCain and Obama. Given a choice between McCain’s “Fear and Doubt” campaign vs Obama’s “Hope and Change”, what do you think most Americans are going to pick?
We’re doomed. Period.
#4 Improbus
Fear… maybe you should be afraid of Obama and his like-mined associates. Remember that we are not only electing Obama but his “friends” as well. Who do you think will be filling all of those high government positions?
I don’t know about you but I’ve seen his friends and they have made it extremely clear where they stand. Is this really the kind of hope and change you want?
One clear indication of whether Obama is controlled by the Democrat machine will be his running mate. If he choses Hillary, then he’s probably the machine’s bitch. If he choses someone else, then I think the current Democrats will be as worried as the Republicans.
Obama outsmarted her so far. I’m not sure I’d say he outcampaigned her given how many big states he lost.
As far as using the rules, he did that well,then turned around and had his team claiming it would be stealing if Hillary got the superdelegates to vote her way, ie only the parts he wins should count.
Even with an Obama win, they have been neck-and-neck for the entire race.
Is it too much to suggest they both ran great campaigns, but only one could be the nominee?
And after this is done, lest we forget, nobody has won anything. It really is all about winning against McCain.
Simply put Obama has the for now advantage of being a relative unknown. Lets be honest both Hillary and McCain have pretty long records. You tend to know where they stand, and what they are about. Obama, does not.
In the short term, that means he can say things like “hope and change”, without really telling anyone what that “hope and change” is. Its really a great racket when you get down to it, but I am not sure its going to be able to hold up all the way into November. The Primary debates were by and large between people that share the same beliefs, not only that the very people that Clinton needed to win, were the same people that are fainting at Obama ralleys. As dems have showed in the past, its hard to argue with someone who is that emotional.
The General election will be different. Both sides will need to appeal to more than their base, and both sides will be going after that middle 10% that really wins the election, and both sides will be coming at it from completely different point of view. And Obama will not be able to count on the fainting masses to propel him though it. He is going to have to actually argue the issues, take positions that are going to upset one group or the other, something that he has shown in the past thats he’s not very good at.
No matter what it should be interesting.
#12 you nailed it. This will be the first election in my 72 years that I will sit out. I do not want to say I helped elect that person a year from now, no matter who wins.
hillary is losing because she is a woman. period. we are fighting a war in iraq for oil. period. why is the true so hard to say for so many…. obama has the demo-moneymachine behind him now and hillary now doesn’t. period. see how easy that is. the dems will probably put edwards in with obama to try to carry the south but leave it to the democrats they will make another close race out of what should have been a runaway.
faustus,
No offense but where are you getting your political information?
Hillary has had the traditional big Dem donors behind her.
Obama came at it from a very different direstion with MANY MORE smaller donors… very few from the “dem-moneymachine’ as you call it.
Here is one of MANY links describing pretty much the opposite of what you say:
http://tinyurl.com/3kl596
And as for her losing because she’s a woman “period” … you have any sort of polling data or even a decent link which makes you think that?
>>I don’t know about you but I’ve seen his
>>friends and they have made it extremely clear
>>where they stand.
Is FUD the best you have to offer, Doc? Which ones of Obama’s “friends” have you “seen”? The wacky retired pastor, who never said any of his wacky shit while Obama was attending the church, and whom Obama has now disavowed?
If you want to see somebody with skanky, sleazy friends, just look to the current Chimperor-in-Chief. Holy shit!!
>never said any of his wacky shit while Obama was attending the church
Yeah right. He was just an ordinary black pastor, but when Obama wasn’t there, it was time to hate Whitey.
Even Obama doesn’t claim that.
The reality is Obama wanted to be close to this church for his own political reasons, and he doesn’t consider what this guy said to be wrong.
Even Oprah dropped this church.
#17–Mike==don’t you think most thinking people who are also religious make a huge disconnect between church and real life?
Incongruously, it does seem Obama decided to run for Presnet late in the day for him not to have cleaned up all these negative contacts AND he had to be hit in the head 3-4 times to finally give them up. I think Obama got a good mouthfull of the coolaid, and if my own life is any guide, he’s probably pretty well pussy-whipped into the religious thing as well==gotta keep the wifey happy.
Still–like Carl Rove and Cheney, it will be interesting to find out who the real power is behind Obama. I only hope the expertise and overall message they have chosen continues to be demonstrated after he gets elected.
America is still not ready for a female president, period. Time will tell if America is ready for a black president, even if he’s whiter than Colin Powell.
Which ones of Obama’s “friends” have you “seen”? The wacky retired pastor, who never said any of his wacky shit while Obama was attending the church, and whom Obama has now disavowed?
If you want to see somebody with skanky, sleazy friends, just look to the current Chimperor-in-Chief. Holy shit!!
You have to be blind or really stupid to believe obama was never present when these comments were made.
“Chimperor-in-Chief” you will call Obama that to I guess.
>>You have to be blind or really stupid to
>>believe obama was never present when these
>>comments were made.
Of for Christ’s sake. If some intemperate remarks by the pastor at some guy’s church is the most damning evidence you can come up with against Obama, that guy is in like Flint.
Nice switch. But you’re the one who claims to believe Obama never heard any of this. 10 years ago you were probably telling people Monica was a deranged stalker and Bill never touched her.