The way things have been going, the internuts will go back to harping on the 'he's not ready' chestnut using Obama's interview with Hadassah Jones as proof -- "he's courting 5 year olds for his planned run against Chelsea in 2024..."
;-).
(Actually, for what it's worth, I'm impressed with his ability to connect with Hadassah's demographic)
And that's with the big dog there, some advance coverage, and hired buses. Hillary might need to pay a little more attention to her home turf: her " 'homecoming' rally" in Harlem yesterday was somewhat bedraggled. Didn't make the Times, despite the fact that there was pre-rally advertising in Crain's http://www.crainsny.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/FREE/71024003 MSNBC noted that they managed to fill the Abyssinian Baptist church to 'near capacity' -- for a free rally, this is hardly an impressive show of support. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21502355/ Daily news: more about the endorsers than the crowd, though it opines that she "shined." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/28/2007-10-28_hillary_clinton_shines_at_harlems_abyssi.html Evidently they resorted to busing in supporters from the outer boroughs: ""We support her and we support her ideas," said Leroy Gadsden, one of a busload of supporters from Queens' Guy R. Brewer Democratic Club." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/27/2007-10-27_hillary_clinton_shines_in_harlems_abyssi.html
So Hillary was supposed to be holding a big 'homecoming' rally in Harlem on the 27th. It got advance billing in Crain's NY business, but hasn't yet made the Times.
I'll be interested to see....
It's eerie how suddenly there's a high 'traffic' in posts by posters deeply concerned about Obama's late payment on his traffic tickets.
Clinton's OPPO must be running low, or they're flailing to grab the news cycle.
Worth attending with Obama T-shirts, etc.
http://www2.oct27.org/
Interestingly, Hillary is holding a 'counter-demonstration' the same day in Harlem. I'm assuming she hasn't invited Gathering of Eagles, but who knows?
http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/FREE/71024003
It should be clear that Obama is able to get his message across via new media much more easily than he does through traditional media.
But from my experience in the Queens grassroots I'm increasingly concerned that a fair minority of the voting public does not actually have regular access to New Media -- the web, perhaps, and certainly high-bandwidth web applications like Youtube. Mainly, I suspect, it is that they don't have the time, the resources, and the inclination to get a broadband subscription.
This is certainly a problem for basic organizing, partially because email junkies and the blackburied have a hard time relating to the great 'unconnected.'
But it's also a problem to approach in terms of spreading the message. And it raises the question, how much of the information on this site could be usefully exported to a DVD? (ironically, a DVD with video content could probably get out the 'last mile' to people who don't have regular internet access.)
In response to the AP article in which Clinton says she would negotiate with Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/11/in-shift-clinton-says-sh_n_68158.html#postComment
Too be certain, making too much of Clinton's re-discovered willingness to negotiate with Iran is "gotcha politics."
But if that is the case, her response at the Charleston debate was "gotcha politics" as well -- her statement there dodged the substantive question in order to make herself look good.
The problem is, Charles Krauthammer, who wrote recently of his growing respect for Clinton --"she is so liberated from principle .... flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated" -- is wrong. These exchanges show the one principle she cannot escape, which is the compulsion to posture and preen in order to make herself look good.
Picking meaningless fights with Senatorial adversaries may be good politics in a presidential campaign. It's sheer stupidity in office, not least because most Senators share here compulsion.
It has been claimed -- by one somewhat self-centered Senator -- that "divisive" is a term coined by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" against said Senator. It's probably more accurate to term "divisive" a description of what happens when big egos get crammed into a comparatively small space.
Frankly, amidst stories about Hillary's efforts not to make waves in the Senate -- serving tea to Richard Lugar, etc. -- I was beginning to conceive a grudging respect for my Senator.
This respect has diminished over the course of the campaign.
Interesting... I've been seeing a good deal of "outrage" over Obama skipping the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. It seems similar to the "outrage" about his having skipped the Move-on/Betrayus vote.
It's worth noting a couple things:
On "Betrayus" -- which is barely worth mention -- I did a bit of informal polling of Move-on stalwarts at their S-Chip rally. None of them, not even the one Clinton supporter, saw Obama's missed vote as a significant issue, nor were they particularly grateful that Clinton had 'adopted' them (as a platform for attack on Obama?).
On the Kyl-Lieberman amdendment
A) the 'outrage' is delayed by two weeks -- there was very little comment at the time. (September 26, the day before the New York City Rally) It is a (relatively) fair parry to Obama's escalating attacks on the Senate establishment (at 76-22, the blame is not all on Hillary) for agreeing the amendment.
B) except both the K-L and the Betrayus resolutions were non-binding -- not only would Obama's vote done little, but the resolutions themselves were simply venues to speechify (bloviate?).
C) On a non-binding resolution, does a Senator need to vote in order to go on record? It seems to me that Obama's views on both issue were clear and clearly expressed. Frankly, they were better expressed outside the Senate echo-chamber for a running presidential candidate Washington Square Park provides a better 'bully pulpit' than Washington D.C.
To be certain, I will be begin to be concerned when Obama misses binding, substantive (and contested) votes in order to campaign. But I doubt we should allow faux (fox?) outrage over these missed votes to distract from the point he is making.
Frankly, the legislature has been compiling a pretty miserable record for living up to its responsibilities. (Vis the most recent toothless growling against Turkey about the Armenian genocide). I wish a brilliant young senator could have more effect in the those hallowed chambers... Sadly, I'm pessimistic.
Curious...
McCain seems to have started buying google ads:
"Obama for President?" "Why not learn more about John McCain?"
Hummm... I must say I'm perplexed. What is it about the Obama demographic that he wants to appeal to?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04obama-text.html
Good interview with Scarborough and (Mika) Brzezhinski
October 24, 2003
I do indeed hate polls. I think they're a corrosive influence on politics. But, I am stunned (and happy) about this latest Zogby poll showing Dean pulling away by a huge margin in New Hampshire.
Dean Soars into Huge Lead in New Hampshire Now Leads Kerry 40-17 Among Likely Voters; Clark and Edwards in Distant 3rd --New Zogby PollFormer Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean has opened a large lead over his closest challenger in New Hampshire according to the newest poll by Zogby International.Dean earned 40%, compared to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s 17%. None of the other candidates have exceeded single digits in the polling. Retired General Wesley Clark and North Carolina Senator John Edwards are tied for third with 6% each.[...] Pollster John Zogby: "This is stunning. Dean leads 43-20 among Democrats and 35 to 11 among Independents. He hits 40 among all age groups, union and non-union voters. His lead is 57-17 among self-described progressives, 50-20 among liberals, and 34-14 among moderates. Married voters give him a 38-13 edge and singles a 45-21 point lead. He holds huge leads among all education groups, among investors and non-investors, men and women. This qualifies as juggernaut status. Can he be stopped?"
It seems worth emphasizing why Hillary would be a poor choice for the next four years.
Hillary is not polarizing because of her political positions. She is polarizing because she has no moral compass and cannot be trusted.
One example: Gore worked with the Clintons and they let him swing in the wind. He vouched for Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, then turned around to find Clinton confessing.
These kind of betrayals are not forgotten in Washington -- it is unlikely that Clinton will be able to build partisan support simply because Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) know that she's a fickle friend.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=1
"Other Russia," Gary Kasparov, and Putin-era Russian politics.
Those of us who spend too much time with the Netroots have seen the critique of Obama as simply a cipher for Hillary, or the impatience with Obama's failure to throw red meat (red mud?) at Hillary in the debates. I wanted to give that problem some thought, and highlight the grassroot's need to show that the difference, in the end, is less in method than in substance.
The problem Obama faces is that in substance he doesn't differ all that much from Hillary -- bear with me for a moment, I'm sure there are many here who would disagree. He's a realist, and willing, as Kucinich notes, to use force as an instrument of diplomacy. He's in favor of health care reform, but also, as many have noted, he believes that the insurance companies should have a seat at the table.
He can be, and has been denounced as a 'corporate democrat,' particularly by people on the loony left.
But bottom line, we're just not going to find all that much of the red-meat rhetoric that you'd like to hear.
Yet... his method in pursuing the Democrat's brass ring is very different -- the event described here was put together in _six days_, for the most part by BHO's grassroots supporters.
We got word that he was coming last Friday.
Lord know what he would have gotten with media advertising. This is, by the way, something that Obama's professional staff must be thinking now, as they try to figure out how to unbalance Hillary: how many people do you have to pack into Lower Manhattan before the NY machine begins to take notice.
The grassroots element to his campaign is, of course, interesting because of the strategic choices it offers. But it is also significant in the effect it has on the candidate.
HRC and BHO may not differ all that much in their actual positions. But there are two big differences between them:
1) I (and the rest of the 20k people there) will, in some way be able to go to President Obama and say "YOU OWE US." I/We understand that he might not listen, but we also understand that he knows he would be risking his political support. 2) Something that WJClinton never had -- or never really tried to have -- during his presidency was the ability to mobilize crowds in the tens of thousands at short notice. I've blogged on the significance of this ability here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/carringtonward/CSBS
I posted the following as #110 on the New York Times Political Caucus Blog, arguing the point about Obama's potential effectiveness in dealing with Republicans
Patricia Barry (#92) raises a (one) good point, arguing that Obama has ‘a little too much of the can’t we jus all get along attitude.’ It is a point that seems to resonate with supporters of another candidate who claims that she ‘knows how to fight.’
Well, frankly, that ‘fighter’ may be too confident of her abilities to fight as a president: she and her supporters seem to think that they can ‘win’ by smearing, confronting, and embarassing their opponents to their face — a method we’ve become familiar with.
And it’s true that money and a spin machine can make these direct confrontations seem effective.
But these folks forget the realities of Presidential power — the president moves politics indirectly, by cutting her opponents off at the knees. (The Marines have a different expression for this). Reagan, in his ability to mobilize constituencies and put politicians in the hot seat, was past master of this art, with the result that his Presidency — not Bush’s — reshaped American politics (and, I would argue, set the nation off in the wrong direction).
The thing is, neither Bill Clinton, nor either of the George Bushes ever learned how to attack their opponents in this way. Their opponents in the legislature might hate them, but unless their reelection was threatened, they would not fear them. Their presidencies were, essentially, sterile as a result.
Obama has so much potential because he is one of the few Democrats in decades with the right chemistry to ‘attack’ his opponents in a way that will change their ‘hearts and minds’ — to refer back to the Marines’ expression.
Put it simply, all the talk in the world will not change the mind of an opposition politician. But pull together 24,000 supporters in his back yard, and he may begin to consider the error of his ways.
— Posted by Carrington Ward, Queens New York
Hey folks,
Just a note.. I've heard a number of people from across the nation mention that they've been calling New York City supporters about the NYC rally on the 27th...
I'm working in New York to turn people out, so it feels great to hear that other people are working for us as well!
Why is this important? Well, there's a lot of buzz in the press about why Obama and Edwards have to work hard to distinguish themselves from the Senator from New York... Vis:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/usnews/whispers/main3286117.shtml
Well, there's one way that we can draw a sharp distinction, which is by getting people out for a humongous rally in 'her' backyard.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/contact/splash/nyrally09272007
We're working as hard as we can to do this on the ground in New York City... but know that every bit of help we get from 'the air' allows us to reach out further from our online presence...
:-).
And remember, we'll be calling back for you, come November 5!
http://www.biothinking.com/greendrinks/index.php
Every month people who work in the environmental field meet up for a beer at informal sessions known as Green Drinks.
We have a lively mixture of people from NGOs, academia, government and business. Come along and you'll be made welcome. Just say, "are you green?" and we will look after you and introduce you to whoever is there.It's a great way of catching up with people you know and also for making new contacts. Everyone invites someone else along, so there’s always a different crowd, making Green Drinks an organic, self-organising network.
These events are very simple and unstructured, but many people have found employment, made friends, developed new ideas, done deals and had moments of serendipity. It's a force for the good and we'd like to help it spread to other cities. Contact your local node to get the latest info about coming along.
You can also email edwin [at] greendrinks [dot] org if you want some tips on how to set up Green Drinks in your City.
I'm sure there will be posts to follow up on the New York City 4 Obama African-American Day parade in Harlem, but I figured I'd post a quickie because I came away psyched up about the campaign and our volunteers.
We had New York State Senator Perkins marching with us (about 40 of us in our custom "Harlem 4 Obama T-shirts) and we were immediately preceded by a rather glum and shufflish clot of Clinton supporters in two convertibles.
They may have been particularly glum because they were trailing a very large group of neutral activists, whose platform was, essentially "Hillary hasn't been elected yet, there must be a debate in Harlem between Clinton and Obama."
We, on the other hand, were having a grand old time. There was a scattering of "Hillary" "Hillary" people on the parade sidelines, a lot of "O-bama!" cheers, not a few "where is Obama?" questions.
But we were having a grand old time (and an entirely eco-friendly and shoeleather powered) because we were led by the Brooklyn Drum-line Express -- a high voltage group of teens recruited at a previous fundraiser. They were an absolute treasure, getting us through a hot day and a long walk with style.
So, what a blast.
The lesson, of course, for neophyte organizers like me -- do not leave home for a parade WITHOUT MUSIC! Huge.... the crowd got into us (even the Hillary supporters were counter-chanting in time with our drums). There is little so powerful as a group of people "moving together in time."
... And its another reason to canvass the high schools and colleges for support -- they may not vote, but they can sure pep up a rally!
But we were having a grand old time (and an entirely eco-friendly and shoeleather powered) because we were led by a high school drum line who had been recruited in Brooklyn. They were an absolute treasure, getting us through a hot day and a long walk with style.
:-). No, not the announcement of Flatearthers for Obama (mercifully).
http://uclaforecast.com/reviews/Leamer_FlatWorld_060221.pdf
Is a great review of Tom Friedman's famous "the earth is flat" thesis about globalization.
