Organizing for America | JD's Blog: Defending Barack

Post from JD's Blog:

Defending Barack

By Jara from CA - Apr 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Lately, I have been having conversations (by phone and through email) with quite a few family members about Barack. Many of them are already supporters of Barack so these conversations are quite lovely. But I also have a couple relatives who are either on the fence about voting at all or they are just extremely doubtful about Barack's chances of winning the Dem nomination/general election. Still. Even though Barack is leading Hillary in every category that matters.

Below is a recent email exchange between my Uncle and I. Even though I get very frustrated with people whose opinions completely ignore the facts (e.g., my smart relatives), at least defending Barack in regular conversation helps prepare me for phonebanking. (There's always a silver lining if we look hard enough.)

fromJara

to Uncle Jeff* (*name has been changed to protect privacy)
dateThu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:13 PM

subjectHillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan

So...Hillary claims Barack should reject and denounce Minister Farrakhan - or anyone who is remotely associated with Farrakhan? Well, how come she hasn't rejected and denounced PA's governor for openly praising Farrakhan and the N.O.I.? I guess she forgave Gov. Rendell for this lack of judgment in exchange for his promise to deliver PA to her.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

_________________________________________________________

from Uncle Jeff

toJara

dateThu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:03 PM

subjectRE: Hillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan

Jara,

Unfortunately, Senator Obama has lost the Democratic nomination for President. The writing is on the wall...he and his campaign have been throughly beaten the last two months by Senator Clinton. Additionally, he can't continue his passive response to the neo-conservative talk radio, minor/major network news outlets and 527 splinter groups who will smash in his head with an effective misinformation campaign. Lately, he looks like he is in-over-his-head...his inability to squash the "association" attacks, patriotism challenges, and generalization of small town voters has been too damaging to him.

I know you - so it is a given you will disagree. Politics was my major in college and my independence status allows for an objective opinion. And, it is only my opinion...

Please don't get too mad,

Uncle Jeff

_____________________________________________________________________________

fromJara

to Uncle Jeff

dateFri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:18 AM

subjectRe: Hillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan

Uncle Jeff,

Of course I'm going to argue your assertions, because the facts say that your opinion is...misguided.

"Thoroughly beaten in the last two months"? lol I agree with you on one thing: I have no doubt that the Repubs will unleash a "misinformation campaign". Who doesn't know that's their tactic? And we know that Hillary is a Republican dressed up as a Dem. We've already seen what happens when people try to lower themselves to make full-frontal attacks (the only kind you seem to respect) on the Clintons - they don't win. I'm glad that you are in the minority in thinking that Barack's response has been underwhelming or "soft". SINCE the Rev. Wright controversy, Barack has won Wyoming (overwhelmingly white state) and Mississippi (an overwhelmingly..let's call it a "traditional" state) by large margins. That was on March 8 and 11 (again, DURING the Wright controversy). In the last 2 months, Barack has won 6 of the 10 contests (including splitting TX with Hillary but netting more delegates). So your "thoroughly beaten in the last two months" statement is more than a bit of an exaggeration. Beaten in the media? Maybe. Beaten in the things that win nominations? No.

Since politics was your major in college, I'm sure you understand the significance of Barack having a major lead in pledged delegates (160+), popular vote (400,000+), contests/states won (30 of 45)...FYI, he's been picking up at least 1 superdelegate every day since end of Feb., which has effectively (yet quietly) reduced her superdelegate lead from 200+ to only 25+. But you wouldn't know that if your only sources of news are the cable news outlets or "neo-con talk radio". That's not something they like to publicize. He has also raised more funds than Hillary (2 to 1) and McCain (3 to 1) from more unique donors (more than 1.5 million more) than the other 2 candidates. That translates into more support/votes. Barack is out-raising Hillary, who is out-raising McCain. Never in history has this happened. Repubs usually out-raise Dems very easily. I guess that doesn't say anything to you...Well, the DNC knows this and, trust me, it means something to them. One of the reasons why the DNC has let the Clintons get away with the crap they have is because they historically bring a lot of money to the party. Right now, the DNC has less than $2 million in their coffers. Two months ago, I was receiving emails every day from them begging me for money, as are other Dems. And we have all refused until the Dem nominee is selected. All of a sudden, the DNC chairman declares that the nominee WILL be selected in June. That is just over a month away. Who could possibly have the lead then? Hmm...

You are giving the media too much credit. Hillary has obviously bought the cable news networks, who have been complicit in keeping relevant information from the public in order to keep this race "close". But many of them are now admitting what has been going on. (Let me know if you want links.) Hillary's only chance here is to get Florida and Michigan counted so she can make an argument that's based on having higher popular vote. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, we all know how well that argument plays out. Both Gore and Kerry had the lead in popular votes, but who became our president for 8 years? Delegates are what matters to the Dems, especially since our system is proportional. There's a reason why our system is not "winner takes all". Think about it.

I suggest you look at the numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0

You probably already know this since you majored in politics, but it bears saying. There are 408 pledged delegates left for Barack or Hillary to get...Since the Dem pledged delegate system is proportional instead of "winner takes all" like the Repubs' delegate system, Hillary has to get at least 80% of the available pledged delegates going forward (while he has to get 20% or less) for Hillary just to minimize Barack's lead. Something catastrophic would have to happen between now and Puerto Rico for that to happen. No politician drops off that much in the polls because of nit-picking scandals. If Barack was gonna get hurt by anything, it's the Rev. Wright situation. Hillary knows this. That's why she keeps trying to put Michigan and Florida on the table despite the Dem party leaders in those states ignoring the party rules.

I'm not normally a gambling woman, but I'd like to propose a wager to you about this election. My side of the wager says that Barack will get the Dem nomination. Let me know if you're interested so we can agree on the wager terms.

By the way, back in Feb., Obama "accidentally" sent out a projected delegates/states won list that has him ending with more pledged delegates. He has only been wrong once (he gave Maine to Clinton). He has PA going to Clinton, so I'm not too worried about it...As a person who minored in Quantitative Stats in college, I'm very familiar with interpreting numbers trends. The fact that he came back from being 20 pts. behind in PA to just 9 pts. behind in less than two weeks is pretty damn significant. That indicates a major shift somewhere. Even though Clinton carried the state (but not by enough of a margin to mean anything), Barack's trend is positive, while hers is negative. PA is a state tailor-made for Hillary: mostly white, blue-collar, Catholic..,her base. She should've won by at least 20 pts. The analysts know this. That's why they're saying it's over for her.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html

It is possible to "lose" the battle in the media and still win the nomination war because there are too many people out there who already know who Barack is and what he stands for to believe the media. It's only people who aren't familiar with him or the political process who are susceptible to "misinformation campaigns". But that's the great thing about campaigning. :-)

Maybe you know about an unforeseen "gotcha" move they're waiting to pull on Barack. If so, that changes things. But his opponents would have to pull something bigger and better than Rev. Wright, bittergate, etc. in order for it to get some traction. These "scandals" just aren't sticking. Yes, they're being talked about ad nauseum. But they aren't increasing Barack's negatives by enough to make a dent in his lead. Recent polls say that the population's negative perception of Barack is at 39% (+9% since Jan. 08) vs. 54% negative of Hillary (+12% since Jan. 08). Those same polls say that over 60% dislike negative campaigning and think that Hillary is running the most negative campaign, as opposed to 22% saying Barack is running the most negative campaign. What does this mean? Hillary has successfully raised his negatives, but in the process has raised her negatives even more. It's the only strategy she can work with, but it's hurting her more than helping.

While you may feel you know me, don't forget that I also know YOU and I remember very well our old debates about politics. If I remember correctly, you were a strong backer of Colin Powell and believe(d) that Bush is a good president. Hindsight has shown that Colin Powell was "in over his head" in the Bush administration and that Bush is NOT a good president. So you'll understand if it's my opinion that you are too easily persuaded by smoke-and-mirrors (Hillary's entire campaign) and what you see in the media. Hillary's best strategy is hoping that the majorities in the remaining states will think like you do. I don't think they will. And I'm willing to bet on it.

Lastly, I don't put too much weight on your "objective" opinion. You were sounding death knells for Barack even during his 12-state streak, which showed me your "objective" agenda. :-)

Hope you don't get "too mad" either,

Jara

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

from Uncle Jeff

to Jara

dateFri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:56 AM

subjectRE: Hillary's Surrogate, Gov. Rendell, Praises Farrakhan

ok, you win because your analysis is better than mine. And, the facts/numbers are on your side. However, I am speaking from 40+ years of experience in seeing the destruction of highly qualified minority candidates. You ain't seen nothing yet..."certain people or forces" are going to destroy him...

I don't want it to happen - but it is coming for sure.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Wow | Report to Admin

By Jen Rencher from Jersey City May 7th 2008 at 3:07 am EDT

This is a fantastic email chain. Thank you for sharing! My fiance had a similar conversation with a friend of his (the gentleman is Haitian). His friend kept saying that there was no way a black man would win POTUS in this country. My fiance pointed out everything that you pointed out, but the only thing the friend kept saying was, "He's black. He's not going to win." Even though I disagree with the friend and your uncle, I completely understand because until Iowa, I was saying the same thing. Your uncle is 100% correct in his assessment about qualified minority politicians being destroyed by "certain forces" but I am hopeful that our country is getting past that. How can I not when Barack has won 32 out of 47 contests? The friend said that in the general election, all the racists will come out to vote against Obama. My response to that is - if the country was as racist as you think it is, wouldn't the racists have ALREADY come out in droves to make sure that Obama didn't get the nomination? I know that race has indeed played a part during this primary (the whole Wright controversy was really about painting Obama as an "angry black man"), but I am confident that the scores of new voters and the large numbers of Independents and Republicans switching to the Democratic party for Barack will more than offset those would vote on the basis of skin color.

Jara's uncle - I completely understand your cynicism, especially as an older black man in this country, but please be assured that we are indeed, on the cusp of a new America. Your generation's fight for equal rights has lead us to this moment and I thank you.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.