.NYT article LINK
The New York Times reported today that the White House is quietly conceding that they are losing control of the Health Care Reform debate. So......in response......? A march? Rapid Fire TV ads? Formal debates moderated by NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC? Nope....a website.........That's it....a website..
The WH released a myth busters website.......What Obama should do is concede he needs a little help from his friends.....Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Mike Bloomberg, Warren Buffet and other Business Leaders and even the Kennedys to get the word out and deal with the fires.
Obama's majestic triumph tempered by heartbreaking Election Day setbacks to gays and lesbians
By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst
November 4, 2008 marked a transformational day in American history. With the election of the first African-American as president of the United States, the world, all of a sudden, became closer and a bit more unified. People were rejoicing in five continents. Although supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin understandably may not have felt euphoric when the networks declared Barack Obama president at 11:00 p.m. EDT, I sure did.
But my elation was doused not that long afterwards, as three gay marriage bans and one anti-gay adoption initiative all apparently succeeded, reminding me that the country still has not taken that next big step.
For Obama, this was a contest that will keep political scientists and book publishers busy for decades. Barack Obama, a relative neophyte with a foreign-sounding name, rose from virtual obscurity and defeated a powerful Clinton machine to emerge as the Democratic Party's nominee. Then he took on John McCain with his vaunted military and congressional experience, the embedded racism in the country, as well as the Republican Party's fear and smear operation to win in an Electoral College landslide. In the process, Obama turned several red states blue with surgical precision.
There was as much good luck involved as there was skill. A perfect storm of events and personalities produced raindrops filled with smiles. He mainly benefited from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush with whom he linked to his opponent, John McCain, with relentless regularity.
McCain incomprehensibly selected Sarah Palin--the butt of numerous jokes from her obvious lack of national and international knowledge--to be his running mate. The McCain campaign failed to effectively utilize the candidate's strengths and instead defaulted to what the Republicans seem to do best: attack.
And there were no significant international crises that affected the U.S., which would have highlighted McCain's perceived strength on national security. Then came the financial meltdown in September that accentuated the incompetence of the Bush presidency and McCain's bumbling response to it.
Added to that, notable endorsements from Colin Powell and a series of other Republican conservatives, the full-throated support from his chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton and her husband, and the die was cast.
But oh that skill!
Obama's campaign, led by David Plouffe and David Axelrod, crafted a blueprint on how 21st century presidential campaigns should operate. Always disciplined, always on message, always consistent, Obama successfully presented himself as the "change" candidate at a time the country was thirsty for change.
The campaign eschewed public financing and using the Internet primarily, managed to raise almost three quarters of a billion dollars to launch what was nearly a 50-state campaign. This forced McCain, who accepted public financing, to spend his more limited resources defending his own turf. That was crucial in states, such as Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and North Carolina. In the end, the better campaign prevailed.
And that is good news for the LGBT community. Because now there is a much better chance for achieving non-discrimination legislation in the workplace, a Federal hate crimes bill and the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Expect to see openly gay and lesbian members in Obama's administration; he kept reminding voters down the stretch that the country should not be split according to "gay" and "straight" among the other dividing lines in society. No other major presidential candidate ever used such rhetoric, and he repeated it to traditionally conservative gatherings in Middle America.
But those defeats on the ballot initiatives stung like nothing else has ever before. Just as national polls were indicating a gradual positive trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage, November 4 proved to be a startling wake-up call that so much work remains.
Ballot measures in Arizona and Florida resoundingly banned "gay marriage" in those states adding to the stockpile that has swollen since 2004. Arkansas voters sadly banned adoptions by gay couples. The ones suffering most from that decision are children.
But the biggest heartbreaker appears to be the results of Proposition 8 in California. While the votes have not been fully tallied at press time, the measure that would roll back a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, apparently is heading for passage.
Proponents of Prop 8 benefited from a major influx of funding from the Mormons, the Catholic Church and other religious entities to scare voters about the idea of two men or two women marrying. Tony Perkins, president of the virulently anti-gay Family Research Council, symbolized the religious support of the measure.
Characterizing Prop 8 as more important than the presidential election, Perkins said, "We have survived bad presidents. But many, many are convinced we will not survive this redefinition of marriage."
If Prop 8 survives the counting of absentee ballots, it will mark a staggering defeat to gays and lesbians since it was the first time rights that have been won were actually taken away. While it remains unclear if the existing same-sex marriages in California will be permitted to stand, the effects of such a setback will reverberate throughout the country.
And it mars the glistening victory of hope over fear in the election of Barack Obama.
www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com
The entire Republican party is representative of the fool I work for - not internet savvy.
They underestimated it and insisted on using telephones and connecting the old school way, through rich folks like them who would continue to make the "others" think their voices and their votes don't count.
They never heard of myspace, facebook, online networking, don't like text messaging, refuse to even use voice mail. Oh, but they don't know how much they miss when they don't pay attention to online community and the power of digital freedom, thank you Al Gore!!!
Also, they rely solely on being 'known' - having lots of money and old guard connections; and took for granted that some unknown who happened to be black wasn't going to find enough people interested to even worry about him.
By the time they started to worry, it was too late and they were caught with their Depends down. They underestimated the people that Obama never once took for granted.
This new school blue-turned-white-collar electronically-savvy young black lawyer from out of the god-only-knows-where whipped their old tired stuffed-shirt lunatic elitist fuddy-duddy can't-click-on-an-email-without-written-instructions part-fascist butts!!!
Go Obama 08!!!
For a while now numerous American leaders have called for a change from business-as-usual politics. Barack Obama arguably has the most star power of this new generation. In reality, though, he is boiling down the complex web of issues that America needs to address into a core message for a mass audience to digest. “Change” is the mantra, because in these days of “sheeople” that can't pay attention long enough to see the train that's about to hit them, one word is just about all that can get through the noise coming from their iPod.
His advisers understand this intimately. His top “commander” is David Ploeff, a member of my own generation of political operatives who grew up with TV, worked for the old school candidates, and cut our teeth on Baby Boomers' perceptions of the world – often having more than a few misgivings about how the old ideas were working out. Barack Obama himself straddles the two generations, but is arguably more “Next Generation” than “Boomer.” To put it in TV terms, our parents liked Captain Kirk, but our generation knew that Jean Luc Picard was better.
So now the next generation political campaign is setting records in nearly every area of American politics. Ploeff, with a ripened, old-school mentor in strategist and media guru David Axelrod, is hatching a plan to be competitive in 50 states, many that haven't voted for a Democrat in two to three generations. They are raising money that out-paced even the money machines of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush using a hybrid of small donors and big money supporters woven into a symbiotic patchwork, rather than big lobbyists just running the table. Finally, and this may be the most important part, they've managed to boil the campaign down to “change” and make it stick.
Yes, they are stealing a page from Bill Clinton's own playbook. Anyone who's seen “The War Room” remembers the two mantras that James “Semper Fi” Carville (a.k.a. “Copperhead”), Paul “Motormouth” Begala (a.k.a. “The Texan”), and George “The Whiz Kid” Stephanopolous (a.k.a. “The Greek”) drilled into staffers' heads. “Change vs. More of the Same” and “It's the Economy Stupid” are as famous now for how closely they followed the good old P.R. rule of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), as Bubba is for actually taking it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When you remember this factoid it might explain why the former POTUS was more than a little hurt and uncharacteristically hypersensitive when Obama kicked him and his wife in the tail on the campaign trail.
The fact remains, when Barack Obama was a young “Barry;” he was exposed to the lessons that were taught during the Reagan and Clinton eras. What he and his own “War Room” understand now is that those political lessons need to be improved upon and revised for the next generation. They understood at the campaign's outset that K.I.S.S. was going to have to be boiled down even further for today's “Ritalin Kids” to absorb. The result of their work is that he has a bigger army of diverse, excited, and energized young activists joining his campaign organization (i.e. the “movement”) than anything modern American politics has ever seen.
If you take the 100,000-foot view of the two major Presidential campaigns, there is a stark contrast between the messages preached out on the stump. It is so simple, really; but not everyone is seeing it -- either because they are blinded by the hubris that got them where they are today in the first place, or they are just part of a different generation. John McCain is a product of an older generation, the Clintons are Boomers (and so are Al Gore and John Kerry, mind you – part of the reason they never captured the next generation's imagination), while Barack Obama is recognized "one of us” in the minds of these young activists. He “gets it” and “means it.”
The older folks don't believe it though, because they think they've seen this dog-and-pony-show before.
They're right. His name was John F. Kennedy, and if you've been paying attention you'll quickly remember that Kennedy's brother Ted and daughter Caroline are major players in Barack Obama's kitchen cabinet of advisors. So is Gore, and hopefully so will be the Clintons if the former POTUS can put his ego in his pocket.
The JFK comparisons have been all over the place, but most commentators haven't quite been able to nail the “why.” What is it about Barack Obama's candidacy that reflects John F. Kennedy's? The reason is simple. It's the “movement,” not the particular candidate, something the older generation was unable to achieve in the post-JFK-assassination political landscape. The people who were there for the inside discussions in some of those aforementioned campaigns know and privately might even admit -- it has been tried numerous times.
So Obama is going for it, not for himself, but for “the movement” and this time the Secret Service is hopefully going to keep him alive to actually make it happen. Hopefully the Clintons will go the way of Gore and Kerry and work with the Obama juggernaut to bring the Boomers into the fold. Obama's folks will hopefully keep just enough independence there to insure that the next generation campaign continues adding independent voters, Reagan Democrats, and maybe even a few Republicans willing to cross over and vote for “change.” If that happens (and the polls are looking like McCain doesn't have a snowball's chance in his supporters' favorite tax-dodging land of Barbados), the Obamakins will have proven they have learned all the lessons necessary to go out and lead. They will have earned the right to “graduate” to The White House.
The question is, are the American people ready to graduate from the new school of political and diplomatic leadership? I think so; otherwise people wouldn't be so passionate about crossing over in the first place. They are tired of the divisive ways of George Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove, and Jesse Helms is now gone (R.I.P. to the 'ol hate-monger). They're tired of being looked at as “those people,” with a pariah as a leader, by other countries. In this economically connected global community, it is time that we start acting as the 232 years our country has aged. In short, it is time for the United States to graduate into genuine long-term leadership.
We're no longer the new kid on the block that needs to prove its greatness to the rest of the world. We don't need to lead by shoving “our way” down the throats of those who don't understand that Democracy is better. We need to adapt a higher level of leadership than even our own country has been called to deliver before. It's called “demonstrative leadership,” and it is how truly great societies go from historic to legendary. Rather than having to invade to get what we want, as George W. Bush has attempted and failed to do, we are going to have to raise the bar of democracy and show that it works for the long term. This is arguably the single greatest challenge for any society in human history, and even the great ones don't always make it.
Of all the times in our country's still young life, though, it is time that “America” stands for a unified and flexible definition of a democracy that works well, innovates, and really leads the world rather than representing an ideological slice of the past. People like Obama are pushing us in this new direction, not because they don't like America as it is, but because they understand that our country must evolve to survive. Like everything in our young country's fast ascension, our adolescence was painful and difficult, and sometimes reckless. It is time for us to prove that we are ready to leave behind the imperialism, the nukes, the Cold War, and the Culture Wars. We have learned enough now to know that pushing our way upon others isn't authentic leadership.
As an adult nation, ready to “graduate” from those ideas and actions, we must show the world that we know how to behave, be responsible, and truly lead as the great country we profess to be. After all, there are a lot of other adolescent countries out there who are learning from the lessons we must teach.
Authored by Scott B. Foval, Edited by Rosemary Roberts. Copyright © 2008 Scott B. Foval
The Candidate-Nominee Crossover
The first article in this series described how some of the most astute political observers were “blindsided by Hope” and Barack Obama’s historic victory, convinced America would continue to be ruled by Freak Show politics. Eleven organizational principles guided Obama’s campaign for the nomination, which relied heavily on grass roots and community organizing tactics. The successful “early states” strategy provided enough momentum to carry Obama over the finish line, a race he won by the only measure that counted: delegates.
This article offers a candid assessment of the campaign’s challenges as Obama goes from being a candidate to the nominee. Obama will adapt his management approach to the general election campaign, internalizing electoral strategy as an important part of the corporate culture. The internal challenge is melding a grass roots movement with the Democratic Party establishment and limiting expenditures on paid political ads and services. The external challenge is to avoid inevitable distractions and stay on message. Obama can reassure voters by convincing them he can best promote their enlightened self-interest and through his selection of a running mate and shadow cabinet. The result could be an historic and major pendulum swing in American politics.
Part II continues below the fold.
No sign of Obama hinted some sensed in 2004 that Obama would make history. But few expected it would be so soon.
About David Axelrod.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103509.html?hpid=artslot
Philip D. COUBOURA | mardi 20 mai 2008 | d’après le Figaro et le New York Times Source
Les élections américaines de novembre, et plus particulièrement les primaires démocrates qui connaîtront très certainement leur dénouement dans les jours à venir sont l’un des sujets les plus attrayants parmi ceux qui font l’actualité ces derniers temps
L’importance des enjeux, alliée à l’âpreté de la lutte qui oppose les deux prétendants du parti de l’âne (Barack Obama et Hillary Clinton) font que les chroniqueurs politiques les plus avertis et les bloggeurs les plus influents s’y intéressent avec la plus grande attention, multipliant analyses et conjectures sur les péripéties successives de ce duel au sommet. Pour conquérir l’électorat démocrate et les voix des super délégués (libres de leur choix à la Convention Nationale de Denver du 26 au 28 Août), les deux protagonistes usent de tous les artifices et stratagèmes sous la houlette de « gourous » de la communication qui leur servent de mentors.
Le propos de cet article est de vous présenter l’un de ces experts de la vie politique américaine, ces faiseurs de rois, qui peaufinent les discours politiques des candidats et sans lesquels, il serait quasiment impossible à quelque candidat que ce soit de remporter une élection locale, voire nationale. Il s’agit de David Axelrod, conseiller en stratégie politique et directeur de campagne de Barack Obama, actuellement favori de la course à l’investiture démocrate pour les élections de 2008.
Inconnu du grand public, cet ancien journaliste de 52 ans, diplômé de l’Université de Chicago s’est forgé une solide réputation de consultant et de stratège politique de par les diverses campagnes électorales qu’il a menées et les trajectoires politiques de leaders charismatiques qu’il a contribué à façonner.
Né dans une famille juive new-yorkaise, d’un père psychologue rescapé des camps de concentration nazis (qui se suicida alors qu’il avait à peine 19 ans) et d’une mère journaliste, il commence sa carrière en tant que chroniqueur au Chicago Tribune.
A 29 ans, il est engagé comme directeur de campagne de Paul Simon, un candidat démocrate au Congrès américain. Depuis, il a fondé AKP & D Message & Media, son cabinet de consultant à Chicago, d’où il a fait aboutir plusieurs candidatures, dont celles d’hommes politiques afro-américains : Harold Washington, le premier maire noir de Chicago, John Street, élu de Philadelphie, Anthony Williams, de Washington, Dennis Archer, de Detroit, Michael White, de Cleveland, Lee Brown, de Houston, et surtout Patrick Deval, le premier gouverneur noir du Massachusetts.
Suite de l'article
Pages les + lues :
Dernières nouvelles
David AXELROD, artisan de la victoire de Barack OBAMA
116 délégués
Barack OBAMA et le Congo RDC
Résultats DémocratesSondages
Dossier Barack OBAMAQui est Barack OBAMA ?Qui est John EDWARDS ?
Comité de soutien EuropéenBarack OBAMA for PresidentGroupe Europe for ObamaBlog du ComitéDonationEmail : dunia@sendwe.be
There was a myth at the center of the Clinton campaign, the idea that she and her husband, the former president, had a nationwide organization ready to knock on every door in America. Not so. The Clintons had many friends, but no organization. Bill and Hillary were always top-down, media candidates. Obama's manager, David Axelrod, a former Chicago Tribune reporter, did build a national knock-on-any-door campaign, an old-fashioned Chicago-style campaign -- and it worked.
It is hard not to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. She expected her campaign to be a walkover, and there she was like a deer in the headlights when the Obama Express came roaring down the tracks. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is not a new thing in presidential politics. In my experience, the new guys, new managers, usually win. And Axelrod was the new guy, as Karl Rove was the new guy in 2000, and before him there was James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, Lee Atwater, Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell.
The new guys win because they have to learn the rules from scratch. The old guys play by old rules, run the same old campaigns that worked before -- and it is often too late for them when they realize the game has changed. Poor Hillary and her strategist Mark Penn just didn't get it.
More
You can tell who's going to be a better chief executive of our government from the way they run their campaigns...
James Carville stood his ground today, refusing in a CNN interview to apologize for the "biblical" and "seasonal" metaphor, name-calling of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He had compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot for endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
Carville apparently believes Richardson owed the Clintons his support, if not continued neutrality. But he also pointedly signaled that if Obama is the party's nominee he himself is prepared to join the Obama campaign "from Day One". Is his "friend", David Axelrod, really looking forward to having this man join the campaign? If so, please assure us Carville will first be subjected to thorough ablutions.
Carville, who Cecil B Demille would have cast as the snake that got Adam and Eve thrown out of the Garden of Eden, avoided any reference during the interview to his New Testament namesake, the Apostle James. James was rebuked along with his brother John for seeking power and authority above the other disciples. Carville probably knows that James was beheaded and the first Apostle to be martyred.
(Cross-posted on OneMillionStrong)
Obama runs tight campaign shipBy: Ben Smith December 21, 2007 12:45 PM EST
When Barack Obama met with friends and advisers in Washington late last year to begin seriously talking through a presidential campaign, he described the operation he'd like to build. "He laid out his theory that, if he ran, he wanted to have a campaign with a relatively tight-knit group of people," recalled Michael Froman, a friend from Harvard law school who is now a senior executive at CitiGroup. "No matter how chaotic the campaign got that there'd be — he used the words — 'an island of tranquility.'" Of course, who wouldn't want an island of tranquility? What's unusual about Obama is that he seems to have gotten his wish — even as he threw together an organization with about 500 employees and a budget of $100 million based in a sprawling, open floor of an office building on Michigan Avenue in Chicago. His campaign is unique among the major political organizations this cycle, and unusual in presidential politics, for its apparent unity, and for the fact that virtually none of its internal campaign arguments have spilled over into the press.
That cohesion is a mark of Obama's personal style — "he told us he wanted a drama-free campaign," one staffer recalled — which focuses more on collegiality than on the dynamism of competing views that can drive, or divide, political campaigns. The campaign's culture is also relevant because Obama for America is the largest organization Obama has ever run.
Aides say he insists on collegiality, and that his tight inner circle — led by his main consultant, David Axelrod, and campaign manager David Plouffe, who had been Axelrod's business partner — has not faced serious internal challenges for power.
Unity can sometimes be brittle, and tension can be dynamic — Bill Clinton's winning campaigns were famously fractious — but many observers view the sheer functionality of Obama's organization as an unexpected success. "It's a sign of strength," said Bob Shrum, the top adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004 and no stranger to internal strife, who recalled that the brief respite in that campaign's public infighting came when things were going well. The Obama campaign's structure stems in part from early decisions to hire professional political operatives largely from circles around people Obama already knew, including his Senate chief of staff, Pete Rouse, and campaign manager Plouffe.
Veterans of congressional leadership, Rouse and Plouffe hired people they knew from earlier campaigns. And while the Obama campaign describes itself as a movement, it is staffed largely by political professionals. "It's not evangelical like the Dean campaign, or anything like that," said an aide. "It's a bunch of campaign operatives, most of which didn't graduate from the Clinton campaigns, who all believe that we can do things in a different way." The fact that the candidates' advisers aren't letting their arguments spill over into the press might seem banal, but consider his rivals.
On the Democratic side, John Edwards turned to a charismatic outsider, Joe Trippi, who swept in in April, elbowing aside existing advisers and putting his own aides into place. The Clinton campaign has been characterized by years' long, creative tension on the question of how much she should be humanized, and by outside sniping from former aides to President Bill Clinton, like James Carville. Among the leading Republicans, Sen. John McCain's campaign fell into outright civil war in July, and one of his closest advisers was forced out. Mitt Romney saw an argument, reported by Politico, over whether or not to air an attack ad. Rudy Giuliani's campaign is seen by reporters as having Washington and New York camps; Fred Thompson's has pitted his wife, Jeri, against a series of advisers. The Obama campaign's discipline was tested most intensely in the late summer and early fall, when major donors to the campaign pressed the candidate to begin attacking the front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A New York Times article in October cited anonymous "aides" 11 times, who reported on low morale in the Chicago headquarters and their concern that the candidate "might be spending too much time reading blogs and newspaper clippings." Still, though political consultants often lose their jobs in hard times, Axelrod's place was secure. "No one was talking in August or September, 'let's shake up the campaign leadership,'" Froman said. And when the campaign hired an aide to improve its rapid response operation, it was another Axelrod partner, John Del Cecato. Now Obama is in a position to mount a serious challenge to Clinton. He's winning in some polls in the crucial state of Iowa. He may not win, but he escaped the crippling tales of internal division that have handicapped campaigns like his in the past. At a finance committee meeting in Des Moines this fall, Obama soothed donors' nerves, and defended the choices he and his staff made. "When you signed up for this you didn't think it was going to be an easy ride," he said, according to Julius Genachowski, another law school friend and former Clinton administration official who was there. Obama continued, "Listen, it's going to be bumpy, there's going to be turbulence. If you need me to sit next to you on the plane and hold your hand, I will. But I hope you won't need that, because we have a lot of work to do and we can win this."
Dear David Plouffe & David Axelrod:
The campaign is hurtling fast forward but controls are necessary to keep it grounded. Fiscal responsibility will soon become a focus, if not already. McCain is now pushing his less than $100-150 Billion plan versus your closer to $200 Billion plan. I understand that the plans are never quite finished, but this difference should be addressed, if not also modified.
The U.S. population is ready for change, but we are still looking for conservative government spending. Be prepared for disseminating clear concise arguments that demonstrate your plan's RESPONSIBLE spending. The Economy is suffering and George Bush's government spending programs have our U.S. Debt skyrocketing. It is clear that his administration, at the very least, shares strong fault in our present economy woes.
The Obama campaign must show how his plan, at its core, is fundamentally different and better. However, the more expensive Obama's plan is over McCain's plan will make this much more difficult to explain.
How close is Senator Obama to Warren Buffett or Alan Greenspan?
It's about time.
I found this great article on the political ticker at cnn.com today:
Obama: I feel like I'm running against both ClintonsPosted: January 20, 2008, 8:20 PM ET
MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) — More tit-for-tat on the campaign trail – only this time, it’s between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
After losing the caucus tally in Nevada, the Obama campaign took aim at Bill Clinton and the comments he made during his many campaign stops in that state on behalf of his wife, Hillary Clinton.
Now the Illinois senator himself is taking on the former president, telling Good Morning America that he feels as if he’s running against both Clintons.
In the interview, Obama reportedly says that the former president has been misrepresenting both “my record of opposition to the war in Iraq” and “our approach to organizing in Las Vegas,” as the controversy over Saturday’s Nevada caucus vote continues to grow.
Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod did not back away from the remarks after they became public Sunday night, telling CNN the Clintons “have a good cop, bad cop thing going” in which “he comes with a negative message she stays positive.”
Axelrod accuses the former President of “doing slash and burn stuff,” and slams the Clinton campaign, saying “there’s a philosophy of saying and doing anything it takes.”
“It’s very clear that Bill Clinton is playing fast and loose with the facts,” says Axelrod, and unbecoming of a former president: “It’s been a little crass, as someone who supported him and respects him, I think it’s disappointing.”
And Axelrod vows Obama will continue to hit back. “As long as he’s out there, we aren’t going to let him distort the record,” he says. “We’ll aggressively challenge him when he misrepresents the facts.”
He also calls on the former president to stop distorting Obama's record. “If he wants to help his wife, just be honest — don’t parse words, don’t truncate quotes to make your case.”
The ABC interview with Obama has yet to air, but the Clinton camp is already fighting back.
“We understand Sen. Obama is frustrated by his loss in Nevada, but the facts are the facts,” said campaign spokesperson Phil Singer. “President Clinton is a huge asset to our campaign and will continue talking to the American people.”
The new brawl comes as the battle between the two camps over the Nevada vote shows no signs of abating, with both sides accusing the other of voter intimidation.
On Sunday, Obama’s Nevada State Director David Cohen said there had been a “clear-cut disenfranchising” of voters in the state because of actions by Clinton supporters, and the campaign's general counsel, Bob Bauer, said they were asking the state and national party to investigate.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson called the allegations “absurd” and “laughable,” and spokesman Phil Singer responded charged that “Sen. Obama’s allies in Nevada engaged in strong arm tactics and intimidation against our supporters.”
Singer also repeated former President Clinton’s charge that the senator’s record on the war had been “inconsistent.”
–CNN's Jessica Yellin
I composed the following letter yesterday, which I plan to send to the Obama campaign (probably on MySpace, although I have no idea if it will reach the right people in time). I encourage other Obama supporters to write similar letters:
Please take the time to read this letter and perhaps pass it on to other folks in the campaign who might be able to put these ideas into action. I'm sure much of what I will say has already occurred to the higher ranking folks in the Obama campaign, but I am so "fired up" that I thought I would take a moment to humbly suggest a few new courses of action.
First of all, let me say that I just ran across the Factcheck section of your website. This is an excellent resource, and I will definitely be diverting people to it when I hear unfounded attacks on Senator Obama in the future.
There's only one problem.
Senator Obama has to start shooting down these attacks by Senator Clinton as soon as they are made, in real time, in a fair but firm manner. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that this next debate in Nevada is absolutely crucial to the future of this campaign. I love Senator Obama for his disdain for dirty politics, but he absolutely has to come out swinging in this next debate. He has to correct Clinton on her false allegations as soon as they are made. As I see it, she is getting away with political murder.
He also needs to challenge her on her new argument that she has "35 years of experience/change." She has offered absolutely NO specifics on this, and besides, many of us know Senator Obama has more years as a publicly elected official than she does!
Which brings me to my final point: Senator Obama has to start trumpeting his own experience! We supporters know of his rich and varied experience on the streets of Chicago where he touched the lives of real people on a grassroots level, and of the positive changes he implemented while serving in the Illinois state Senate, but he has to start letting the public at large know what his accomplishments are. Sadly, most people aren't going to take the time to go on the internet and read about his accomplishments (even though it takes all of ten seconds to do).
I found this brief but excellent article on cnn.com that underscores what Clinton is trying to do with her "experience" argument (essentially, moving the goalposts) and how Obama should counter it:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/11/martin-clinton-redefines-what-experience-is/
I hope you'll take my comments in the spirit with which they are intended. I support Mr. Obama 100 percent and want to see him take this country by storm!
On Thursday, December 27, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during an election rally for her political party in Rawalpindi. Accordingly, Barack Obama has released his statement concerning her death:
I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world.
In the following commentary, I will focus on the unfolding events thus far, a brief historical background of Pakistan as it relates to Ms. Bhutto, and Pakistan policy.
