Obama Racing the Clock
[Link repaired]Â
Barack Obama has only one enemy left standing and it's not Hillary Clinton. It's time itself. All the evidence is in: the more
that voters are exposed to Obama, the more they flock to him. The more they see Hillary Clinton, the more stagnant her numbers.
If the election were held last Tuesday, Clinton would have walked away with it. If it were to be held a week from this Tuesday, Obama would waltz to victory. Read the rest of my post here.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The link’s screwed up.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Link is dead.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Here I’ll actually do something about it:
Read the rest of his post here
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“Link is dead.”
Then Hyrule is completely fucked.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
It is very doubtful that either will land a knockout blow tomorrow. More than likely will be a split of delegates and we move on to PA, MD, DC and other points. And here the calander favors Obama as there is a space between contests for him to get his message out. As for the uperdelegates – they can commit and uncommit right up to the first ballot in Denver. I think they’ll see which way the wind is blowing first. And don’t be surprised if those “Non-Delegates” from Florida and Michigan loom large. The credentials committee report will be a lot of fun this year!
February 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Marc’s analysis is on the mark. Although the current primary process differs vastly from 1968, I think by tomorrow night the situation will be analogous to that which existed for a few hours on June 6, 1968.
Bobby Kennedy had come back from a loss to Gene McCarthy in Oregon and won CA. Hubert Humphrey hadn’t entered any primary, yet he and the Scoop Jackson were out dealing with the big-dealers who tended to run the state parties that had not been hit by the Kennedy/McCarthy tornado in a primary, because only a very few states had primaries.
Before Sirhan interjected himself into history, there was a strong sense that Bobby was going to win, even though he was behind in delegates and the party sachems were out to steal it from him.
I think that is pretty much what will be going on as of tomorrow. Obama will emerge with momentum–more or less depending on whether the slow process of mind-changing is overrun by the supersonic speed of the primary calendar. The Clinton/McAuliffe DLC wing will be out plying the superdelegates and trying to get Clinton delegates seated in Florida and Michigan. That, in turn, will force/allow Howard Dean and the DNC to peel off the referees’ jersies and line up with Obama, which is certainly where Dean at least belongs.
I’ve always wondered whether and in fact how Bobby would have won in 1968, though I do not doubt that he would have. I cannot say that I have no doubt that Obama will win, but it seems like everything Clintons do to pin him down just causes Hillary to bleed. For example, this weekend the theme was that Obama was too weak/inexperienced to deal with the torrent of abuse and opposition that will come down from the right. Her approach is, at bottom, wholly fear-based. So far, Obama has shown that he can handle some heavy heat nonchalantly, much as John Kennedy used to do. And as evidence, Hillary need only listen to her husband yesterday in LA churches, talking about getting beyond the false characterizations of race, and getting real close to actually apologizing for engaging in racialist issue-wedgery.
There is one more thing I think Obama needs to do to assure a united, optimistic Democratic party behind him. He needs to speak directly and honestly to feminists and ordinary women who have been waiting for years to elect a woman president. He needs to acknowledge that his candidacy is not anti-woman, but does have the sad effect of acting as a barrier to the election of a viable woman candidate. He needn’t apologize, because he has nothing to apologize for. But he does need to recognize that he is in effect asking women to delay their dream in order to facilitate his more audacious dream. I’m hoping he can find his way to do this in the next weeks.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Maybe they shouldn’t count any of the primary votes until March 1st. Each state would have more input, Florida and Michigan could have their say without penalties, and each candidate would have to pay attention to more than just the first primaries. Of course, that means more money to spend, so it will never happen.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Cooper’s latest triangulation: Hillary steals the election, by the profound malace only SHE could deplay.. She denys her opponient his Good given right to a time machine!
Wow! The Kennedy’s and Maria Shirver! Be sure to tell them how JFK murdered Deim, Coop, when ya see’um!
February 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
It is indeed a strange primary. Here in San Diego there is a lot of talk but little visible action around the vote. As is often the case here. The drama seems to be on the Democratic side, but I wish someone would comment on the manner in which the Republican campaign has evolved. I would like to see a chart showing the poll average for each of the Big Six (including Paul) since, say, Labor Day, or even Dec. 1st. Talk about positive and negative spikes…precipitous rises and falls….I’m sure it would demonstrate visually how irrational and desperate the Repubs are this year.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Marc’s Obama photo doesn’t demonstrate visually how irrational and desperate the Dems are this year,
Now to your question Michael. The Big Six is down to The Big Two….. plus Laurel and Hardy. And like the Dems, the Repubs are divided themselves over The Big Two.
Here’s a headline. Ann Coulter wants Hilary.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Actually, Coulter said she’d campaign for Hillary if McCain got nominated — i.e., to underscore what a traitor to conservatism she thinks McCain is.
Of course, we all know she has a funny way of underscoring things. Reacting to the Schwarzenegger endorsement of McCain, she noted that it took place at a solar power plant. Sacrilege! “Why not an abortion clinic?!” she exclaimed. (Her interviewer reprimanded her, reminding her she was on a civilized show.)
Poor girl. Desperate for attention, as usual.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:15 am
It could be that we’re witnessing the RNC publicity machine eating itself.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Shillary is the Republican, folks.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Coulter is right. If the liberals are so proud of their stances, they should hold their rallies in front of abortion clinics, at military protests, at failed public schools focused on teachers unions rather than kids, in emergency rooms of government hospitals watching people die, in front of their pork projects, and at the jail gates letting terrorists go free.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Actually Bunker, we are trying to keep America from eating itself, financially and morally.
In every family there is usually one that is the most responsible. This one is almost always the primary breadwinner. This is the one that feels the pressure to keep the lid on all the needs and wants, separate the two with using common sense, and quite often say NO to the wants. This is the on who knows they will have to find the money to pay for it all in the end. They know, being independent and responsible, it is their responsibility to be sure they and their family members control and behave themselves financially and morally in a way that does not make them a burden on other families in the American family.
In the American family, these people favor the Republican party. They are the responsible ones who are not a burden on others, but know they will be the ones required to pay the bills of other American families that have let themselves become dependent on the charity of others, many times permanently, to the point of feeling ‘entitled’ to it.
One only look no further than the current election cycle to watch the Democratic candidates compete over which one is going to be the most ‘generous’ and ‘charitable’ with the income of other families. All while they have already eaten up 3/4 of the future income of American families with their $49 Trillion unfunded, unenforced, unmanaged, and out-of-control irresponsible gov’t giveaways.
The Democrats are bleeding uncontrollable from the heart, slowly killing America with their ‘motherly kindness’, while fighting off the ‘fatherly tough love’ trying to put a turnicate on it, for the future of the American Family.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am
If the liberals are so proud of their stances, they should hold their rallies in front of abortion clinics, at military protests, at failed public schools focused on teachers unions rather than kids, in emergency rooms of government hospitals watching people die, in front of their pork projects, and at the jail gates letting terrorists go free.
And if Mitt Romney believed so strongly in the war in Iraq, at least one of his five sons would be there.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Randy thinks that a Dad should force a son into war, despite the son’s choice, if the father believes the war is just. Well, if Randy supports the war on poverty, he should force his relatives into it.
Jim R, good synopsis. But, if liberals can’t say “no” to drugs, they sure won’t say “no” to taking money from others for their wants.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Of all the mind-numbingly asinine things you’ve said, that ranks near the top.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“Well, if Randy supports the war on poverty, he should force his relatives into it.”
Into what — the war on poverty (whatever that is, exactly) or poverty itself. The former makes logical sense while the latter is just a kindergarten-level diss (maybe nursery school). For all you know Randy has tried to convince his relatives to do what they can to eliminate or ameliorate poverty, since, according to you, that’s what he so strongly believes in. If so, Randy has acted with integrity, so long as he hasn’t ‘forced’ them to adopt his beliefs and practices. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, hasn’t seemed to make much of an effort to convince his sons (even without coercion) of the importance of serving the country in a war they all claim as just and necessary. If he had, I’m certain at least one would have heeded the call.
I give the advantage to Randy in this case. Good job Randy.
Jim R -
I’ve worked hard all my life, paid the bills and am now putting two fine, well-groomed kids through college. Yet I vote Democrat.
I guess I’ve fallen through the cracks of your thoughtful and nuanced analysis.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I throw out the challenge flag for a review by the booth.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I’m a Pats fan as well as a Democrat, so please — no football analogies.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Jim R: If you read the newspaper, you’d be aware that George W. Bush and his party are on videotape with the crack pipe of government spending in their hands for years, puffing away in the seedy motel of expensive, failed military adventurism.
And now you, apparently, take the Marion Berry defense: “The Democrats set us up.”?
Talk about shirking responsibility.
You want to play Big Daddy, Jim R., how about starting by accepting responsibility for the massive deficits generated by the Bush administration, alone, almost all of it in years when the GOP controlled the White House, Congress and the courts, even.
Do the math. Check your facts. Bush signed and delivered the biggest increase in entitlements in U.S. history. His budget deficits have set a record and he just delivered another two days ago that will in all likelihood set yet another record for spending more than the government takes in.
Do the math, Jim R., then get back to us.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Evets: “I’m a Pats fan as well as a Democrat”
Well evets, one out of two ain’t bad!
February 7th, 2008 at 8:22 am
“I’ve worked hard all my life, paid the bills and am now putting two fine, well-groomed kids through college. Yet I vote Democrat.”
Sorry Evets. My comment was meant as a generalization, so I should have said, “In the American family, these people ‘generally’ favor the Republican party.
I also agree with BB’s comment. And the fact Bush did not veto one spending bill during his two terms, and the fact he is inclined to do so now the Democrats are in control of the budget, is a good reason the Democrats are likely going to get their turn to eat us alive in the next election.