Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

The Genius of Obama's Campaign

by BooMan
Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM EST

Reason number 999 why Obama was wise not to run an overtly progressive campaign.

Among some conservative Democratic politicians last night, there was an almost palpable sense of relief that Obama showed he could win over their constituents -- the blue-collar, rural whites who, they feared could bleed over to the GOP in the fall.
"It's not Senator Clinton's fault, but the baggage she carries is the divisiveness of the 1990s," [Rep. Chet] Edwards [D-TX] said. "People are wanting to turn the chapter to the future rather than going back to the last chapter. It's not fair but that is the reality."

Actually, a more populist campaign might have attracted rural white blue collar voters, but it wouldn't have won the support of the press, much of the party elite, or the Blue Dog Democrats that represent rural white districts. John Edwards learned this first hand. How much less effective would Edwards' strategy have been if Obama had attempted it?

In all the post-mortems I've read today, no one anywhere has expressed any ideological discomfort with the prospect of an Obama presidency. That's the genius of Obama's campaign so far. He has managed to inspire the masses without making the suits nervous. And that is no small trick. In fact, I have never seen it done before. But it is precisely his ability to make everyone feel comfortable that is fatal to any Clinton attempt to rally the Establishment to save her candidacy at a brokered convention. The Establishment has no compelling reason to save Clinton because they are perfectly content to live with a President Obama.

And, while many see this situation as evidence that Obama will govern exactly to the Establishment's liking, you should look at the current lay of the land and ask yourself: could he have succeeded any other way? Even now, in the face of one bruising and humiliating defeat after another, the Clintons are not shying away from the strongest of strong-arm tactics...a convention fight that they'll enter with less pledged delegates, less overall votes, and less states won. If the Establishment had any compelling reason to reject Obama, the Clintons might still prevail. But Obama has stubbornly refused to provide them with any reasons.

The best evidence for his qualification for the office is his campaign itself, which doesn't leak, uses its money and resources wisely, and wins, wins, wins...all things Team Clinton cannot claim.

If race was originally a concern, Obama's crushing victories in the country's whitest states and his ability to carry white men in places like Virginia have laid that concern to rest.

Obama carried 89% of Virginia voters 17-24. He is driving so many young people to the polls that no state is safe for Republicans in the fall. Obama is promising a Reagan-like blowout...a forty-state blowout. And it isn't making anyone by partisan Republicans nervous.

That, more than anything else, shows the genius of Obama's campaign, and why Clinton should start looking for an opportune time to drop out of the race.

The Genius of Obama's Campaign | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

I'm not that hopeful (4.00 / 2)

I've never had any delusions that Obama is left-leaning. I find him liberal enough, same with Clinton, but to me he's only a smidgen to the left of her. At the same time, just with his background, I know that this is a candidate who knows what it takes to get everyone involved. To work with the "minions" instead of telling them what to do. It speaks to his ability to bridge gaps that he can get "The Village" to get behind his message AND us peons, to the point where we stand shoulder to shoulder willing to work together. Anyone who is scared of that, has a lot more issues with power than they're probably willing to admit.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign - really? (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure what to think. I was an Edwards supporter. In 2003-4 I was a Dean activist. It seems a shame that either:

a)a Democratic candidate for President must run on policies that are essentially centrist

b) a Democratic candidate for President must run under the guise of a centrist in order to enact their real agenda - populist and liberal in nature

Speaking truth to power as both Edwards and Dean have done in their runs for party nomination sure did seem to end it all.

And yet, we hear this today:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/115414/128/660/455975

True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade

I'll add this other thought. Is it different if your progressive candidate is running for Congress instead of for President?

Donna Edwards didn't hide her liberal credentials. She made the establishment furiously fearful (as witnessed by the truckloads of money they dumped into Al Wynn's campaign towards the end.

She won - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/0166/99800/1017/455626

Obama's latest economic policy announcement, his wins, and Donna Edwards winning give me reason to hope that centrism and triangulation are dying in our party:

Our caucus is once again on notice. If they continue to serve corporate interests rather than their constituents, if they insist on remaining aloof to the nation's popular sentiment, they'll get booted in a Democratic primary like Joe Lieberman in 2006 and Al Wynn in 2008.

by pbriggsiam on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:14:03 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign - really? (none / 0)

Well, her district (and mine) is a largely Democratic one. Al's problems were twofold: 1) he took positions VASTLY out of step with his district, but thought he could get away with it because 2) he was the so-called "Kingmaker" in Prince George's County (which is most of the district), and as such, acted as mayor (locals would call him about local things, which I suppose is bound to happen given the proximity of Capitol Hill and the cong. district) and as meddler in local affairs. Or put another way: he was arrogant and would do whatever the hell he wanted, 'cuz who was gonna stop him? He was running things.

Truth be told, there's been A LOT of discontent with him for a few years now, but again, no one had the gumption to run against him. And he knew it.

Until Donna Edwards. And he took neither Donna nor the discontent seriously...until he barely squeaked by her in '06 with 3 percent. Until then, he won all his races by 80ish percent or better. He then spent '07 sucking up to everyone--no more Kingmaker stuff. (I still have the mailer of he and Dennis Kucinich--it took a 1/2 hour to stop laughing.)

But it was too late. And last night proved it.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 05:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (4.00 / 2)

Another great post Booman. I'm sitting here, an Obamican, and it just amazes me that you seem to be the only one on the left who understands this simple logic: the ONLY way Obama could win was to stay in the center just one quarter inch left of Hillary.

Therefore, we have no idea how he will try to govern. His positioning so far has ZERO signaling value since he had to position himself exactly as he has done.

The next steps are also completely obvious. He will move a number of degrees left in the next three weeks -focusing specifically on economic issues. This will serve to swell the general Democratic Party enthusiasm for him. They don't call it populism for nothing. He gets a free double by criticizing NAFTA, since it was a Clinton administration accomplishment. He will also show a bit of careful specificity on this or that, anticipating and deflecting criticism on this score.

Within three weeks a lot of your acolytes and Edwards type lefties will be feeling a lot better about him. Only those paying close attention will notice that he won't be locked in on anything. After Hillary drops out on March 5th he will start moving back to the center. We will also start seeing an increase in technical policy reasoning. He will play the competence card against McCain. Since McCain actually has no coherent views on domestic or constitutional issues, this will be a very effective move. It will help grow the legend too: he inspires like MLK and JFK and he's also a lovable nerd like Urkel or any super bright geek [like you and me Booman].

Well, when all is said and done, the question is, how will he govern? I don't know. He will have an unbelievable expectations management game to play. My guess is that, after picking up some easy pieces and making some of the obvious strong moves [no extension of Bush tax cuts], he will focus for a while on process improvements that will have quite broad support.

Then he will have to get to the big stuff. Here is my prediction, which is also my hope [a very dangerous combination]: he will govern to the middle 80%. Among other things, he will prove that he sincerely cares about actually improving the lot of the less advantaged members of our society by doing something about it in an effective and rational way. This IS an 80% position. Ten percent on the hard right don't care at all and ten percent on the hard left want to turn over the apple cart.

I predict that two years from now the hard right and the hard left [including some of your readers and many of the nutroots] will hate him. The 80% will finally feel better about America and will be looking forward to returning Obama in a second landslide.

by foucaultfan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Foucaltfan,

There is something wrong with a view that thinks that being a centrist President will be acceptable to those of us in the progressive community. America has seen the political center shift further and further right in the last 20 years. That's a lot of political-center correcting required.

It's naive to think that with Obama, Rethuglicans will see the light of reason and cooperation. They will treat him with the same contempt they treat any liberal American or liberal policy. We won't really get our nation back until we've marginalized the Rethuglican Party so much that they are FORCED to move their party further left - that will be the correction this country needs politically.

I'd also add that as a former Edwards supporter (and Dean before that), we aren't looking for someone to pander to us and then run to the right. That's inconsistent. It's dishonest. It does this country no good and certainly betrays the progressive community.

You seem more concerned with getting a Democrat in the office of the President than with the real reason we actually need one. We need a liberal President who will fight for the principles of the Democratic Party. Principles and values determine my vote and it's not going to be enough for me or this country to only deny the Republicans control of the Presidency.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but here is where I'm coming from - a focus on the moral center as opposed to political center:

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/5089

The moral center always comes from outside the system, from the bottom, up, or from some leader with a vision willing to challenge the status quo.
The political center often chooses short term expediency over long term principles. Vanity asked, is it popular; politics asked, will it work; morality and conscience asks, is it right. To get our nation back on the course of its promise, we must answer the "is it right" question--that the moral center, one much more profound than the political center.

and

America at its best is not the private playground of the mean-spirited, the war-mongers, the greedy, the hypocrites; America at its best is the nation that enlarges its democracy, shares its wealth, fights only to defend itself, tries to make life easier for those Jesus called "the least of these.

Personally, I don't see how you compromise this.

by pbriggsiam on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure I disagree with you. I totally agree that a "focus on the moral center" is an estimable goal and I believe that Obama has this vision. I believe that partisanship can exist as a grownup discussion of different possible approaches to reaching shared core goals. I certainly want to see a substantial reduction of the vicious, cynical, un-intellectual partisanship of the last 20 years.

I generally agree with this quote you provided: "America at its best is the nation that enlarges its democracy, shares its wealth, fights only to defend itself, tries to make life easier for those Jesus called "the least of these."

I was interested to see that it was from Jesse Jackson, speaking in 1996.

Different people can have different reasonable views about the best way to reach the same ends. Jesse Jackson was against the 1996 Welfare Reform. I was in favor of it, because I thought that it would help the poor more than the previous system. I believe that I was right, in balance. Others, even now, believe differently. However, I certainly think that Jackson's goals were sincere. If we increase taxes on the wealthy somewhat, to pay for various beneficial initiatives, I would support that. Susan Sarandon would pay more taxes and some VP at Exxon Mobil, with similar wealth and income to Sarandon would also pay the same increase. That's OK and probably a good idea. However, I would be against raising the top marginal rate to 70%, as in the old days. That would be confiscatory.

Why do I care? Because our entire way of life is based on our constitutional system of ordered liberty and the pillars of that system, as articulated in the Constitution and Bill or Rights, include the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the protection of property [and other important constitutive liberties including the RKBA]. In the modern world we understand that the state must tax to some extent and thus the protection of property must be compromised. However, the maximum reasonable level of protection must be retained - not for greed - for liberty.

Some Republicans, like Tom Delay, are thugs. Some Democrats, like Sid Blumenthal, are also thugs. Neither party, in general, is a criminal enterprise.

by foucaultfan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I think it's all about HOW you move the moral center to meet the political center--or come awfully damned close.

This does not happen overnight.

Some wingnut "ideas" used to be seen as crazy 30 or 40 years ago. What is considered "centrist" right now in 2008 is really rather right wing (center right if I'm being charitable). It's been a constant disinformation campaign by the nutjobs. That's not unraveled in a day, but you must begin somewhere. A smart way is to begin to pair progressive principles with patriotism, for example and make sure you're inclusive to get everyone's buy-in, as Obama has done. Will the wingnuts go for it? No. But that boxes them in, and that's just fine with me.

On November 5, 2008, President Obama's next step is to figure out how many progressive ideas he can turn into law that seems to be common sense...until they're just "naturally" perceived that way. Some issues will be a longer term project than others; some issues don't allow a lot of wiggle room.

Some of us will be pissed, because he just won't be able to do everything all at once. We don't know what outside events will impact us, and our laws. He'll still have to play the political game on some things, because he'll have his eye on re-election. That's just the reality. The hope is, however, that by racking up a few wins and by being honest, plain-speaking and having the courage of his convictions, (along with a healthy dash of political charisma) that those traits will propel him on the tougher issues.

Basically, it's taking the Reagan rulebook to bring us back from a generation of disinformation, and then going forward to break new progressive ground. IOW, using a similar style to Reagan's (how he appealed to people to back policies and laws against their own economic interests) by appealing to a new set of values that is also happens to jibe with their economic interests.

Easier said than done.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I'm doubtful that the crowd that will dislike him for not being a war hawk, not being pro-life, and/or not cutting taxes adds up to only 10% on the hard right. I'd say it's more like 30%, as in the floor of Bush's support.

--
When we hear freedom we know it doesn't mean armed occupation. --felagund

by froggywomp on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

Yes, you are right. My Obam-intoxication was getting me carried away.

The reality is that 60% is about the best that can be hoped for by any candidate at any time in America. That's probably all for the best.

This year, it might be 53% - 47%. If he does as well as I hope, he could be re=elected with 60%. The 40% who vote against him next time could be 30% convervative base, 5% hard left types, and 5% contrarians who would vote against anybody at any time for any reason.

I'm really kind of kidding about the 5% hard left. I'm kidding in two ways. The hard left fighting keyboarder progressives, trustafarian hippies, black block anarchists, Hincheyites, Waxmaniacs, Moranmorons, and fellow travellers don't amount to 5% of the electorate, maybe 2-3%. Also, they would never vote for the other side. They'd just stay away.

So: 2012: Obama - 60%, "Rethuglican" 37%, Nader-Gore 3%.

By the way, global cooling - one hell of a problem, global warming, not so much.

by foucaultfan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (3.75 / 4)

Did it ever occur to you that Clinton has served a very great purpose in the rise of Obama's campaign and I submit that even a convention fight will only serve to raise him more, so that he can and will win the national election.
I question would his rise have been as meteroric had he not been juxtaposed to HRC.
Yes I do think his campaign has been genius, the greatest part of which was casting HRC as having a racial(racist) policy (whatever you want to call it)and looking like he did not do a thing to advance that meme. That I believe was his turning point, in N, Carolina, it made possible the shift in the populace and brought race out into the front so that it could be seen, discussed and then discarded as a detriment to his campaign as to the nomination.
So I believe we will see in the national campaign a similar thing done with McCain.
I do think it is the perfect time in history for this man with this personna to become Pres. and I hope upon hope it will start to heal this nation and by extension have an effect in the world.
I still think HRC would be a better manager of the Presidency, but her lack of inspiration against the inspiration evident in Obama's campaign, makes him the most viable of the two.

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

by diane101 (dianed101 @ yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

While I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on Clinton's racial campaign, I totally agree with the rest of your comment.

by BooMan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I knew we wouldn't ever agree on that either but thanks for the agreement on this comment.

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

by diane101 (dianed101 @ yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

BTW, you might be interested in this. It takes a hard look at Clinton's management style.

by BooMan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Have to agree. I think the Clintons WERE relying on the racism that still persists in this country to bring Hillary to frontrunner status. I dislike this aspect of Bill Clinton's politics, the way in which he played both sides the coin. The bad side came out and now Hillary has to live with it.

Can't say I didn't believe that the country was still to racist for an Obama candidacy. I'm being surprised day after day. I have changed my mind. I underestimated the American people.

by shergald on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I get your point on this one, seems like campaigns (staff) in themselves often prove the downfall of the candidate, as in Kerry also or Gore in 2000. And who they choose to manage that campaign is important and does suggest that inability to not choose good managers might be carried over into the office.
However the reverse may be true for MR. Bush, good campaign(staff)(only good in the sense of winning) but bad management in the job.

Click here to step into the Village Blue2

by diane101 (dianed101 @ yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Hillary is much like Bush, managerially. She values loyalty over competence. That is why she has stuck with the same bad managers and is still using much of Bill Clinton's old loyal staff who are all stuck in the past, running a 1990's campaign, rather than finding the best advisers for the future. That's poor judgment.

The job of the top executive is NOT to be a "good manager" by the way. It is to use good judgment in selecting good managers to delegate the management work to. His/her other primary function is to be the chief communicator. To communicate the vision and values of the entire organization, from the lowest level volunteers, all the way up to the top executive managers. Put a "good hands-on manager" in a chief executive job and you are almost guaranteed to fail.

by RandyH on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I strongly agree with you, and I wanted to add that this idea is also present in political science. It's believed that the modern Presidency developed problems when many of the functions formerly executed by the Cabinet were subsumed within the White House office.

Apparently, the opportunity to micro-manage is a temptation that's hard to resist. Attempting to solve all problems from within the Office of the President rather than through the appropriate agencies leads to overreach and mischief. Ultimately, it's a recipe for failure.

Just to give a concrete example -- think of the Bush administration's intelligence gathering debacles, and you can also presume either incompetence or ill intent.

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So when did (none / 0)

the cabinet get subsumed?

by martini on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Ambinder on Atlantic.com had an article on his management style. At least I think I read it there. So much reading these days!

Anyway, Obama has a broad plan, like a chess game, where you examine the possible moves way in advance. He used his resources to build from the ground up, a la DFA under Jim Dean and the DNC under Howard Dean. And augmented his paid resources with volunteers. This takes enormous organizational skills and a detailed and well-executed plan. He involved the web, including FaceBook. Well, I think it's the founder of Face Book who is overseeing his web presence. The point is that it's not 1990's politics, but 2008 politics.

Clearly he has chosen excellent advisers and is able to follow good advice.

It all bodes well for good governance.

Having said all this, I still fear the sense of hope and promise that is welling up in me--old enough to have been seared by many political disappointments.

by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 07:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That approach, (none / 0)

in light of this comment,
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/13/123654/484#44

certainly offers a cheering thought!

by martini on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Re: the juxtaposition of HRC and Obama.

A contrast effect would highlight the differences between the campaigns, but it would be misleading to think that Obama's success was due predominantly to this contrast effect. George Lakoff had written about styles of political communication before the election, and what's remarkable is how well Obama's campaign follows the Lakoff technique and how poorly the Clinton campaign does.

The following article explains some of these ideas. A fuller treatment is in the online publication, Talking Points, under the VIP method, at the Rockridge Institute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Also, I disagree that the Obama campaign made the Clinton campaign into anything, but they did call them on their strategy. Moreover, I was still undecided on who I would support till relatively recently. It was the Clinton's strategy that soured me on her as a candidate. You can choose to believe there wasn't intentionality, but I don't find that perspective plausible.

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

Re: above post.

Make that "Thinking Points," not Talking Points.

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html

i will admit this didnt ring true to me but it is an ideological discomfort with obama....they are out there.

im nervous he doesnt make the suits nervous.

by anna in philly (flymetothemoon@yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (4.00 / 2)

I have tremendous respect for Joe Wilson. I heard him speak last year at Xavier University in Cincinnati and came away very impressed.

If, at this point, all things were equal and we were starting at square one in this campaign I would agree with him. But we are not at square one. The point, first and foremost, is that Democrats have to win in November. If a Democrat does not win in November then nothing else will matter. And right now, in today's world, it appears that Obama has the best chance of winning. And it appears that he also has the best chance of having coattails for other Democrats to ride in order to have the greatest likelihood of increasing the Democratic majority in Congress with the right kind of Dems.Both candidates have their specific weak points which will be viciously attacked, regardless of the nominee. The weak points of Hillary make it much more unlikely that there could possibly be a transformative election in November.

I understand and respect his concerns. But I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Joe Wilson is sitting right next to Richard Holbrooke on Clinton's foreign policy advisory group. Does anyone Wilson's opinion is going to trump Holbrooke's or Albright's?

by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

I know and like Joe Wilson, but that's a stupid, partisan endorsement, and it says more about his appreciation for how Hillary treated him during his dark days (a point definitely in her favor) than it does about the merits.

His revisionist history on the war is pathetic. It shows that Wilson is as Establishmentarian in his thinking as the worst of the brutes.

by BooMan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

One of Joe's best qualities is his loyalty. But Joe's piece demeans his loyalty trait.

by mainsailset on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

He's part of Clinton's foreign policy team, for chrissakes.

What do you expect him to say? That he's leaning towards Obama?

by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

well, yeah. But that's why I would expect a member of the team to do a better job with the history than Joe's article portrayed.

by mainsailset on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Congratulations BooMan. Your prognosis has been spot on. and thanks for serving up clarity of the issues.

A roundup on the wall of hurt (H/T: Sullivan)

998: her baggage will damage down the ticket.
The Open and Shut Case Against Hillary Clinton
This was truly the sleaziest of Clinton's pardons (which is saying something). But it lacked the glitz and intrigue of the Marc Rich pardon, and perhaps for that reason, it is among the less notorious. But the FALN pardon was indisputably the worst.
How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason -- the only reason -- that the pardon was ever granted. She had a senate race to win, after all, in a state with over 1 million Spanish-speaking voters. Characteristic of White House thinking at the time was an email sent by an adviser concluding that the pardons would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)." One can already imagine the attack ads that the McCain campaign and the RNC are devising right now, [.]
997: She's a sore loser;
"She has not had the grace to mention Barack Obama's name, nor his existence or success. Not as "Senator Obama," not even as "my worthy opponent in the contest for our great party's nomination -- for this battle we all believe in to change the course of the nation's future" and so on. This on a night when he has just trounced her fair and square in Virginia and, presumably, will in a few minutes be shown to have done the same in Maryland and D.C."
996: She's become our Huckabee?
...the point is that Clinton is starting to resemble Huckabee--a boutique candidate, catering to a small portion of the electorate. In fact, Huckabee is running stronger than Clinton which is saying something.
995: The big jump!
Bill Clinton campaign chief backs Obama
"COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton's 1992 campaign plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, an aide to Obama said Wednesday."

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 1)

Take one down, pass it around, and there's 994 bottles of beer on the wall....

--
When we hear freedom we know it doesn't mean armed occupation. --felagund

by froggywomp on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

We got our first telephone solicitation for an Obama contribution last evening. (They wanted $150.00!) He's obviously got a good organization but admittedly I remain uninspired. Edwards got my money.

I admire his support on the ground but my primary vote for him was based upon being not-Hillary. And I've already given my contribution to Edwards.

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

by boran2 (blogistan@yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST

it's (semi) official (none / 0)

obama is now the front runner according to rasmussen:

In another sign that he might just be the official frontrunner now, Barack Obama has taken the lead in Rasmussen's daily tracking poll

Obama 46% (+4)
Clinton 41%(-3)
And for the general election match-ups against John McCain:

Obama (D) 46% (+2), McCain (R) 40% (+0)
McCain (R) 46% (+1), Clinton (D) 42% (-2)
tpm electioncentral

from the clinton camp...from inevitable to underdog:

...she told a Cincinnati television station that "Ohio is really going to count in determining who our Democratic nominee is going to be." She also declared herself the "underdog candidate" in the Wisconsin primary next Tuesday, the same day Obama's birthplace Hawaii holds its primary...
AP

time is running out for a graceful exit.

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST

And to seal that "underdog" fate (none / 1)

Clinton has decided to go negative against Obama in a state that she claimed yesterday wasn't that important. MSNBC and CNN are once again running her ad for free.

Now just imagine if Mike Gravel had said, "Now, I want to debate Clinton one on one every 4 weeks." Are we seriously supposed to believe that when Clinton denied the request that that means she's scared of Gravel?

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 01:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 0)

I know I diaried this just a moment ago, but it's too fucking important.
Blue Dogs to cave on Fourth Amendment

House Republicans engineered a series of procedural votes Wednesday in a bid to derail the Democrats' prooposed extension, which President Bush said Wednesday he would veto. They argued that the House should simply take up and send to the White House a surveillance overhaul bill (HR 3773) that the Senate passed by 68-29 Tuesday.
Because 21 conservative Blue Dog Democrats have endorsed the Senate-passed bill, Republicans might be able to win approval of the Senate bill through a motion to recommit the extension with instructions to amend it with the text of the Senate bill.

# Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

# Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602

# Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314

# Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893

# Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392

# Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830

# Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

# Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377

# Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615

# Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671

# Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038

# Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765

# Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638

# Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035

# Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172

# Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284

# Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996

# Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944

# Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807

# Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594

# Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394

How's about front-paging this?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:07:07 PM EST

Re: OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 0)

I'll have to look into it. I hadn't thought of that tactic. They are way ahead of us, aren't they?

by BooMan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 0)

is you bustin my ballz?

they iz already bustid.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 0)

huh?

I'm saying that it had not occurred to me that they might use the extension to get around a conference.

by BooMan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 1)

soory, read to fast: i though you were suggesting that my plea to font-page the latest fisa shenanigans was a no-brainer and you were busting my chops for being obvious. My bad.

That's what happens when you have a long day at work after a night of poor sleep and weird dreams involving michelle malkin. I dreamed we were teenagers in love and we lived in a hotel that was a cross between The Shining and the Divine Lorraine on Broad Street. It was horrifying, but thankfully didn't involve sex. Malkin was dressed like a goth, but was wearing a beret.

I still shudder...

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OT: FISA and Blue Dogs (none / 0)

EEEEWWWWW!

Thanks for sharing. Ick. I'm compelled to brush my teeth again.

by RandyH on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DUDE...TMI (none / 0)

I don't even have balls, but they still shrunk at reading that. I thought my dream was weird. No. I'm not sharing it.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DUDE...TMI (none / 0)

how do you think I feel?
that shit happened in my head. Jeebus, I could have a freakin' tumor or something.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the fever (none / 0)

I've have some icky dreams when I was sick.

But I didn't inflict them on other people. ;P

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

In all the post-mortems I've read today, no one anywhere has expressed any ideological discomfort with the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It would be easier to do so if he had any identifiable ideology or policy positions. So far, he's built the entire campaign on his considerable personal charisma (and, to be fair, Hillary Clinton's lack of charisma).

Clinton's campaign may be incompetent enough to let him get away with it, but McCain's will not.

---Cthulhu for President: Why vote for the lesser evil?

by eodell (eodell at naqada dot org) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 04:16:42 PM EST

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

I don't see McCain having well thought out, consistent policy positions to oppose Obama. He's been in public life a long time and his positions have taken many twists and turns. speaking of, didn't he say today he wouldn't oppose a ban on water boarding? Obama has taken a strong position opposing water boarding. So, will McCain's campaign win points off this beyond the hard core 25-30% that still support Bush and his war? I think we we see a lot of this should the two nominees be Obama and McCain.

by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 08:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Genius of Obama's Campaign (none / 0)

Oops. Would oppose a ban.

by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Genius of Obama's Campaign | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile