home
Open Thread | 394 comments (394 topical)
Campaign Emails (5.00 / 10) (#16)
by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:40 AM EST
I always like to compare the tone and the 2 tonight are consistent in tone with past ones:

Dear ***,

Tonight's victory in Indiana was close, and a margin that narrow means just one thing: every single thing you did to help us win in Indiana helped make the difference.

Every call you made, every friend you spoke to about our campaign, every dollar you contributed made tonight's victory possible. And I couldn't be more thankful for your hard work.

Every time we've celebrated a victory, we've celebrated it together. And tonight is no exception. This victory is your victory, this campaign is your campaign, and your support has been the difference between winning and losing.

Thank you so much for making this campaign possible. Let's keep making history together.

Sincerely,
(signature)
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Friend --

We just won a decisive victory in North Carolina thanks to people like you.

Indiana remains too close to call. But what is clear is that we did much better than all the pundits predicted, despite Republicans changing parties to support Senator Clinton, believing she would be easier for Senator McCain to defeat.

Here's where we stand.

As of Tuesday morning, we needed just 273 delegates to clinch the nomination. When the votes are fully counted Wednesday morning, we will have gained more than a third of them in a single day.

We have a clear path to victory. But now is the time for each one of us to step up and do what we can to close out this primary.

Please make a donation of $25 right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Thank you for everything you're doing,

Barack
Thanks for that (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:05 AM EST
Somehow it captures a lot of things that I say in this process perfectly.

[ Parent ]
not just tone (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:42 AM EST
That's some pretty awful writing quality on the Obama email. And the beg for a donation, of a specific amount? Tacky tacky tacky.

I find it slightly odd that both are signed by the candidates themselves. When I was on the Edwards mailing list, most were signed by David Bonior, Joe Trippi, or someone else on the staff, who probably did actually write it.

[ Parent ]

They come from different 'people' (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:37 AM EST
I tend to receive more from Clinton and they've been from Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Terry, Maggie, etc. All in the same style/tone, but a bit different. They sound like they are from different authors. Chelsea's sound just like her.

Obama ones are from Him, Michelle, David, and one or 2 others (iirc). I haven't been on his list as long. I was comparing the blogs and news on both sites, but neglected to sign up for his email until  right after OH/TX.

Here's a brief one from Chelsea from earlier today. It's a follow up to an earlier event invite she sent:

Dear *,

What are you doing for Mother's Day? Please join my mom and me to celebrate!

This Saturday, May 10, we'll be at the Sheraton New York for a very special event honoring Mother's Day and helping my mom's campaign. I know my mom would love to have you there, and so would I!

Please take a look at the invitation below for details. I hope to see you Saturday!

Thanks for everything you're doing to help my mom win.

Go Hillary!
Chelsea

I don't have a Bill one handy (yes, I crashed my email! ) but he sends ones to rally us and also did some donation events.

[ Parent ]

We get those too (none / 0) (#38)
by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:03 AM EST
emails signed by campaign chairs, etc. But always, after a primary, is one from Hillary.

[ Parent ]
Obama;s dogwhistle (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:15:25 AM EST
despite Republicans changing parties to support Senator Clinton

this is Obama saying that white people tried to keep the nomination from Obama

[ Parent ]

White voter backlash a-comin' (5.00 / 2) (#364)
by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
I read that same statement and I was a little disturbed by it.

Perhaps, Sen. Obama, those "Republicans" who crossed over, crossed over to vote for you???  Why would it only be Republicans (aka white people) be the only interested in disrupting your claim to the "crown".

Oh, he sickens me with his arrogance (and his wife's too).

And begging for money?  Hillary didn't say a word of it in her letter, even though she's having financial problems.  You know what?  This country doesn't deserve her, she's too good.  

Obama's the nominee and McCain will be the next President of the United States.  End of story.  

[ Parent ]

I just love her inclusiveness and upbeatness (5.00 / 1) (#353)
by rnibs on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM EST
Plus, I can't say how happy I was when I got up this morning.  I went to bed last night, depressed, thinking it would turn out like MO.  

I was determined to contribute my usual small donation to her whether she won or not, but I was so thrilled, I doubled it to $50.  A victory is a victory, and we need her to win.  We don't need Obama pulling defeat from the jaws of victory in Nov.

[ Parent ]

You have the change he's looking for! (4.42 / 7) (#44)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:24 AM EST
And did you notice that it's still all about Clinton?

What in the world would he do if she weren't running?!

[ Parent ]

If she weren't running (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:27:12 AM EST
he would not have run. Simple as that.  He knew he could exploit her built-in negative numbers, and that it was allowable to say anything about the Clintons and get a free ride in the media. His candidacy would not have been feasible without her being the one to beat.

[ Parent ]
If she wasn't running (none / 0) (#47)
by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:12 AM EST
Edwards would be the nominee.

[ Parent ]
Edwards wouldn't have won NC tonight (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:41 AM EST
One candidate has a 91% AA voting block.  I'm surprised NC was under 20 points

[ Parent ]
Um, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:27 AM EST
do you think that Obama would have gotten that 90+% without smearing the Clintons as racists? Before that tactic, he and HRC were about even in their AA support.

Would his strategy have worked on Edwards? I don't know, but it seems to me he has truly counted on the media's CDS to push his narrative. Without Clinton, he wouldn't have had that.

[ Parent ]

I don't agree (5.00 / 7) (#72)
by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:45 AM EST
I think smearing the Clintons as racist was a bad act, and in the long term was part of what makes Sen Obama unelectable imo.

But he would have gotten the AA support when it became clear he was viable. Its very understandable.

But it makes it so much more of a tragedy what he did. There was no need for it.

[ Parent ]

Yes there was. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:21 AM EST
He had to hobble HRC somehow. His strategy was a two-fer: taint the Clintons AND get a huge AA turnout.

It worked.

His strategy got him the AA votes when he needed them so he could pull out that long string of victories. Once he had won all those states, he tried his best to get her to quit before she crushed him in PA.

Now, she's won the tiebreaker and his victory was not as large as projected in NC. He will be calling for her to quit until the WV/KY primaries, when she will crush him again.

The race-baiting thing was his firewall against her certain victories in the states that Democrats need to win in November. It was completely and totally necessary for him.

Otherwise, we would be talking about HRC v. McCain right now.

(IMHO of course.)

[ Parent ]

Obama played the race card (5.00 / 5) (#169)
by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:59 AM EST
...to get white voters. He was going to get AAs the moment he won Iowa but there is nothing white "upscale" fauxgressives value more than playing champions on race. When he played that card, they came running in droves and from then on he was free to completely demonize her at every step of the way. With the upscale whites crying racism at every turn, they got a holy cause. It solidified the latte vote for Obama and upped turnout for AAs. Every time his turnout slips or he loses he's used it. He will pay for it though. It's one of the reasons many will never vote for him.

[ Parent ]
You are so right (none / 0) (#375)
by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:35 AM EST
I was listening to CSPAN this morning and many people called from important states like PA and OH and even IN and said that they will not vote for Obama, that Obama is really the WRONG choice and Hillary has been vilified by the Obama and the MSM who is set up Obama as the "Second Coming".

For a while now, I read that many voters who voted for Obama in the primaries said they had no intention on voting for him in November.

I believe this will hold until November.  The Republican Machine hasn't even gotten started.

[ Parent ]

I cannot believe you people actually (2.33 / 3) (#115)
by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:35 AM EST
believe Obama would risk polarizing the electorate along racial lines. The guy has been walking on eggshells, even refusing to visit black neighborhoods or attend black forums. Black people understand his motivation and forgive him. Blacks know he cannot win if he is perceived as "the black candidate." Clinton's not stupid, she knows the same thing. Race baiting, covert and overt racism was introduced by Clinton as a deliberate and cold blooded campaign strategy. That's how she eeked out IN today; that's how she kept it under 20 points in NC.

The 30 or so posters on TL are among a very small subsection of Hillary supporters who, unbelievably, contend with a straight face that it was actually Obama who radicalized the contest. Among the rest of the world the consensus is that it was the Clintons  who played the race card and who did so consistently.


[ Parent ]

OK (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:44:55 AM EST
Underestimate the number of people who think the Obama campaign played the race card.


[ Parent ]
Seth90212 (5.00 / 5) (#210)
by ding7777 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:12:48 AM EST
Yes, Obama intentially race baited to

1). give the media another "trash Hillary" talking point

2). appeal to "white guilt"

3). force black SD's to endorse him or be challenged in a primary fight

The reason Obama doesn't campaign in black neighborhoods is he already has 90% of the vote in those neighborhoods, so why waste resources on sure thing?

Obama does speak to black forums (example:  National Association of Black Journalists)

The consensus is wrong. Go back to the Nevada debate... you'll see/read where Obama apologizes for injecting race into the campaign.    

Obama used "race baiting" to win the nomination. And "race bating" is why he will lose the GE

[ Parent ]

I'm black (5.00 / 5) (#381)
by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
and I  know a ass-kissing "Uncle Tom" when I see one.  I'm tired of seeing so-called black leaders having to hide their true feeling in order to keep the white people happy.

Obama LIED about not knowing Rev. Wright.  And no one is willing to say that.  But you better believe this is be an issue with the Republicans.  And more.  

This nomination will not bode well for the Democratic Party in the United States.  

[ Parent ]

Is this like AA (Alcoholics Annonymous) (5.00 / 4) (#395)
by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
I am also black and totally completely - share your belief.

[ Parent ]
why would clinton alienate AAs? (4.83 / 12) (#128)
by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:30 AM EST
I cannot believe you people actually believe Obama would risk polarizing the electorate along racial lines.

I cannot believe anyone seriously believes Clinton would throw away the black vote without picking up a single white vote by saying things that are not only offensive, but cast a shadow on her decades of active service to the AA community.  I can only assume that people who believe Obama's attacks on her do not realize how much she has done for AAs.

I cannot believe there isn't anger about how Obama portrayed Bill Clinton's economic policy's impact on poor people. I can only assume that people who believe Obama's attacks on him do not know much about Clinton's economics.

I cannot believe there isn't anger about Obama not saying something about Wright's attacks on Bill and Hillary. I guess ... well there is no excuse for that.

I cannot believe there isn't anger about how Obama is constantly talking about how Clinton's supposed negativity, because Clinton lacks integrity, flawed character, bad bad bad bad bad. If that isn't negative, I don't know what is - but people swallow it whole.

[ Parent ]

the funny (not ha-ha funny) thing is.... (5.00 / 10) (#136)
by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:32:08 AM EST
... starting about three or four hours, every conservative gasbag is going to finally "discover" how Obama has been playing the race card all along, and how despicably he has acted towards the Clintons.

And all the "impartial" hosts will put up a little fight, but will concede the point eventually, and Obama-the-race-baiter will finally become conventional wisdom.

And there's not a damned thing that Democrats can do about it, because its absolutely true.  

[ Parent ]

Once Obama became viable she had no black (1.00 / 6) (#150)
by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:05 AM EST
vote to throw away. The black vote for Obama is motivated by the same sentiments that cause many women to vote for Hillary. There's nothing negative about it, just pride and wanting to help a "sister" make history. And I would argue that Hillary has gained white votes by playing the race card. There has been a racist white vote for Hillary. That is undeniable. There have been code words and dog whistling which have galvanized this vote.

A Clinton insider is on record as stating that they wanted to turn Obama into the black candidate. This was about the same time as Bill's Jesse Jackson comment, which I believe was an unambiguously racial statement.

Look, I'm not saying the Clintons are bad people. They want to win period. Would Edwards have adopted these tactics against Obama? Would Kerry, Dodd, Gore, etc? I doubt it. You have to step out of this bubble to appreciate just how stunned people are by these tactics.

By the way, it is patronizing and condescending to speak in terms of the Clintons doing all these great things for AA's. What exactly did they do? AA's have done a hell of a lot more for them than vice versa. There would not be a Clinton presidency without AA's. Bill would've been impeached or forced to resign without AA's. As far as I can see Clinton did not do an ymore for AA's than Bush 1 or Bush 2. Next time you want to claim that the Clintons were the saviors of AA's please cite specifics.


[ Parent ]

So we're obligated (4.42 / 7) (#291)
by ChrisO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM EST
to detail what the Clinton's have done for African Americans, but it's acceptable for you to come here and spew the talking point that "everyone knows" the Clintons played the race card? How about if you actually detail some of those instances, so we can point out how what "everyone knows" isn't a particularly good metric for gauging the truth?

Your remark that it would be foolish for Obama to divide the party along racial lines is indicative of your lack of understanding of political dynamics. Obama's goal wasn't to divide the party. I'm sure he would take evry rural white vote he could get. But he accurately determined that he could exploit the stereotype of Hillary built up by the media and the right wing that she was an opportunist who would do anything, including race baiting. He also knew that accusing someone of racism is akin to accusing them of child molesting in Dem politics. White liberals love guilt, and he accurately determined that fools like you would fall all over themselves to show how not racist they are by condemning the Clinton's racism at every turn. Look at how many white commentaters have suddenly discovered racial justice, and are spewing hate filled invective against the Clinton's racism, as if they've ever given racial issues more than a passing nod before. I don't know if Obama knew how well this would work for him, but it certainly has. The shamelssness of his supporters in this area is breathtaking.

Look at some of the supposed transgressions. Hillary's campaign brought up drug use. Hillary's campaign sent out e-mails saying Obama was a Muslim. Hillary's campaign sent the photo to Drudge. Know what all of these things have in common? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. I've never heard before that it's a common stereotype that Black people are secret Muslims. Politicans of both races, includsing Bill Clinton, have been dealing with drug use issues for years. Yet every supposed transgression is tied to race by Obama's supporters. Even with the Wright issue, what most people objected to was Wright saying "God damn America." That's not a racial issue, but what was Obama's response? "Yes, we do need a dialogue about race." (As BTD pointed out, a subject he has never brought up again, despite his "courage.") How many times have I seen the term "uppity" used by Obama supporters, in every imaginable context. Call him inexpreienced, you're saying he's "uppity." Criticize him for elitist comments? You're saying he's "uppity." He knew exactly what he was doing, and how easily fools like you could be manipulated.

[ Parent ]

Amen To That n/t (none / 0) (#410)
by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST


[ Parent ]
racialized the contest* (none / 0) (#116)
by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:04:33 AM EST


[ Parent ]
You've been listening to MSNBC too much (none / 0) (#119)
by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:21 AM EST


[ Parent ]
i am sorry but i don't understand it. (none / 0) (#306)
by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM EST
you see i am color blind. i am doing what is requested. i expect obama as a candidate to represent all the country to be color blind too and not resort to dog whisles on racism. when he does that, what he tells me is he doesn't represent me. what axelrod and brazile have told me is that they don't care for the votes of the average american. how plain does it have to be here?

[ Parent ]
I think people like to THINK they are no (none / 0) (#418)
by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
thinking in class and color, but you are, whether you think you are or not.  

I think Obama will not be President of the United States, so it doesn't make a difference if he says he will represent everyone.  Only Hillary Clinton has tried to talk to everyone, even the FoxNews crowd.  

Like my momma said, The Democratic Party is on a suicide mission.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#386)
by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:48:47 AM EST
Obama was referring to Edwards as the "white man" in the race before AA-audiences.

[ Parent ]
Let me clarify (none / 0) (#67)
by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:24 AM EST
If Hillary wasn't running, Kennedy, et al would never have put Obama up in the first place. Thus, Edwards would be the nominee.

[ Parent ]
If hrc weren't running (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST
Edwards would be his target and the results would be the same.
/ "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
[ Parent ]
No -- sexism wouldn't work (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:41 AM EST
against Edwards. That is why the msm ignored Edwards until he had to drop out.

[ Parent ]
Nor would the media's built-in CDS (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:06 AM EST
make Obama a temporary media darling.

[ Parent ]
Racism would (5.00 / 6) (#109)
by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:50 AM EST
and it is one of the reasons I will not vote for Obama. By labeling the Clinton's as racist, he has divided the Democratic Party and to a great extent this country. He is not a Democrat.
/ "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
[ Parent ]
Just another sleazey politician who will (5.00 / 3) (#123)
by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:11:56 AM EST
Do anything to win.  There's nothing new or different  about Barack Obama.  

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm.... (3.66 / 3) (#55)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:16 AM EST
food for thought.

I personally felt the Republicans would bow to the religious right and nominate Huckabee. So instead of HRC v. Giuliani (which is what the pundits were predicting back then), it would be Edwards v. Huckabee.

Wouldn't that have been a fun race?

Sigh. Why won't anyone elect me Queen of the Universe? I've asked nicely but somehow, I never seem to get enough votes. ;-)

[ Parent ]

ha (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:22:55 AM EST
Sigh. Why won't anyone elect me Queen of the Universe? I've asked nicely but somehow, I never seem to get enough votes. ;-)

I'd vote for you, but only if Hillary isn't running ;>

[ Parent ]

So now Obama thinks Republicans are (none / 0) (#25)
by Teresa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:05 AM EST
bad? I guess he threw them under the bus too.

[ Parent ]
What happened to his (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:47 AM EST
"Democrats for a Day" outreach?  Now crossover votes aren't worth anything and should be suspect, if they went to Hillary?

[ Parent ]
Nycstray, thanks for those emails. (none / 0) (#97)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:17 AM EST
I believe, if one knew nothing else about either of these two candidates, the emails alone could provide enough insight to make an informed choice. That would be Hillary for me.

[ Parent ]

Open Thread | 394 comments (394 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft