home

Obama Surrogate Says Obama Will Win NC and IN: Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The newly all important Obama surrogate Joe Andrew was on Fox today and he flatly predicted Barack Obama will win both Indiana and North Carolina. Apparently he believes Zogby. In any event, here is another example of bad expectations management by the Obama camp. They are predicting victory in both Indiana and North Carolina. If it does not happen, then what?

Let's make this an Open Thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Zogby Predicting Obama Wins In Indiana and NC | Obama Adviser: Obama Joined Wright's Church In Search Of His "Blackness" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Surrogate Says Obama Will Win NC and IN: Open Thread | 162 comments (162 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    O....K...... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    Maybe he is new to the Cool Aid and doesn't have any tolerance for  it? ;)

    Seriously this makes no sense. But I hope all Obama supporters go out proclaiming he'll win IN. I remember Sen Obama said something like "it will be closer than people think" about PA before that one too.

    Maybe he's a mole. (none / 0) (#55)
    by JohnS on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    Kidding.

    [ Parent ]
    more like a weasel... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    morale (none / 0) (#129)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    I think in Indiana that it's called building morale to get out the vote (by saying the race isn't hopeless), which is at least more redeeming than "expectations management".

    [ Parent ]
    To quote Homer Simpson (none / 0) (#146)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    "Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."

    Obama the weasel.

    [ Parent ]

    How nice of him... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    I guess he's been talking to Zogby, eh?

    Question. Will there be another SUSA poll (none / 0) (#8)
    by derridog on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    out tomorrow?

    [ Parent ]
    I dunno... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    But you can sign up for notification.

    [ Parent ]
    Almost certainly yes (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Joe has called it. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    Let's go home. You know he was right about suffering all those vicious Clinton attacks after endorsing Barack, so...

    Those *crickets* were blistering! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    their little legs must be worn out! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:15:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I can picture him... (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
    constantly refreshing his Inbox, just waiting for attention that never came.

    [ Parent ]
    One of the reasons they are bad at (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    setting expectations, is that Obama is doing worse as time goes on. Awhile back they said Indiana was a tie breaker, which meant they thought they would win. But Obama's support has faded since then and they seem to be having a hard time adjusting to his slide. It would behoove them to look at more then 1 poll.

    Can we drop "surrogate" (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    and just use "slavish lackey" for Joe Andrews instead?

    I think it fits him better.

    In case anyone objects (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    to the "slavish" adjective, I'll also accept "fawning lackey".

    [ Parent ]
    The second one... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by outsider on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    Just because it doesn't look to me like anyone in Camp O is actually telling him to say this stuff.  He's one of those toadies who's willing to utterly embarrass himself on his own initiative!  So what's he expecting as a reward?

    [ Parent ]
    I give my dog chicken livers (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    as treats.  Perhaps Andrews likes tummy rubs?

    [ Parent ]
    Tummy rubs? (none / 0) (#72)
    by ccpup on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    Safe to say we can all file that one under:  

    Things We Never Need to Know

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm very partial to lek (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    As in Joe has become a lekker

    Definition and partial etymology of Lek

    [ Parent ]

    Imperialist running dog lakey (none / 0) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    that was the great Marxist Leninst term used by the supreme Albanian leader Enver Hoja (sp) in the 1970s

    [ Parent ]
    Doonesbury used it too in his strip (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM EST
    one of his characters used to describe people that way..it was very funny.

    [ Parent ]
    I Just Want To Know WHAT'S IN JOE'S WALLET (none / 0) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    I suspect he was bought off; or maybe the obama campaign had some deep dark secret they were going to use against him.  And, I would bet there were no blistering attacks by the Clinton side.  He is a gnat in the big scheme of things and most people don't even know who he is.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, c'mon. After Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#120)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    nothing could surprise me.  Some people just get into politics for the sake of their egos.  Give them a chance to get into the national spotlight and they'll be your bestest buddy.

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Andrew is a jerk (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    he accused the clinton campaign of attacking him when he announced his defection.  yet, they never attacked him...  andrew is obviously over-rating his own importance.  the clinton campaign doesn't think he's even worth attacking.  what a loser...

    He is taking a cue from Obama who (none / 0) (#111)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM EST
    kept saying that the other candidates, Clinton and McCain, were talking about him rather than issues. The funny thing is that they weren't. They were talking issues, Obama was talking about himself.

    [ Parent ]
    This has become a staple of Obama's speeches (none / 0) (#142)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    From the same link I posted last night about the undecided super-d:

    "Because we've been so successful, my opponents have been trying to make this election about me," he said. " `We're not sure he shares our values. We haven't seen him wear a flag pin lately. He's got a funny name. He says he's Christian but we don't know. His former pastor said some terrible things, and so, can we really trust this guy?' "

    This is smear by "some would say," and attributes remarks to not only Clinton but McCain that they've never ever uttered.

    When asked about Wright on This Week, Clinton said it was time to move beyond that and focus on the real issues--the same thing Obama's been saying. But his clever confluence of his "opponents" and what he says they said somehow trumps the reality of what they've actually said.

    [ Parent ]

    Joe Andrew and former DNC chairs... (none / 0) (#150)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    Former DNC Chairs prefer Hillary because she can beat McCain: CNN

    [ Parent ]
    Had they already (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    endorsed her?  I didn't hear about this so I'm wondering if it is confirmation of their support.  They are correct IMO that she would win today and Obama wouldn't, but I'm biased.

    [ Parent ]
    voted against the war??? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    I was flipping channels and the part I caught was Wrong Way Joe saying Obama VOTED against the war.

    Apparently the Kool-Aid was extra strong and enables him to lie with a straight face to millions of Americans.

    I sent him a little email with links to "the swamp" and NPR articles on just how unimportant and unrecorded his speech at an anti-war rally, that he's based his whole campaign on, really was in the real world.

    His email is: jandrew@sonnenschein.com

    Say hi for Hillary.

    reply to myself... (none / 0) (#91)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    Here's the transcript:

    "The people in Indiana remember there's more than 100 Hoosiers that have died in the Iraq war, and he voted no on that war."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354106,00.html

    [ Parent ]

    This campaign seems (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    to run on 'if you say it often enough, it becomes true'.   One of Obama's supporters was just here this morning, writing that Obama voted no.  I feel like I'm expected to exist in some alternate universe to get through this stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    You Might Remember That From The (none / 0) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    republican play book of dirty politicking.  Repeat it often enough and it will be true.  

    [ Parent ]
    No to mention (none / 0) (#118)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    someone else's playbook. 'nuff said

    [ Parent ]
    My First Thought Too blogtopus n/t (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Whoa! "The Speech" (none / 0) (#117)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    that seems to be the basis for his meteoric rise is unrecorded for posterity?

    I did not know that.

    [ Parent ]

    I read somewhere awhile ago (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    the recording of the original speech, at Federal Plaza, was of poor quality, so Obama re-recorded it for posterity.  Unfortunately, despite extensive Googling, I could not locate the info.  It would be quite interesting to see if the words are identical in each version.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, it's true (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    You can read about the re-recording here.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah. Thanks. Wouldn't you expect (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    a savvy media interviewer to pin Obama down on this:  where is the initial recording/transcript?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#145)
    by otherlisa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:23 PM EST
    IIRC, the Speech was not considered particularly significant or newsworthy at the time - therefore no good audio.

    If I were slightly more paranoid, I'd wonder how much of the Speech was actually delivered as it's now been recorded.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess I am "slightly more (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    paranoid."  Inquiring minds want to know.  I'm putting Stellaaa on this!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama comments on MTP (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    1.  Does not want to talk about him wants to talk about policies.  Huh?  That was the whole point of his campaign.  

    2.  It's in his DNA: he said this again and explained it.  What he said is that because he is biracial he can bring people together, it's in his DNA.  The conclusion is that whites and blacks cannot do it, cause their DNA does not allow it.  How could people allow him to say that and keep repeating in.  This is eugenics.  


    He really said that? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    The conclusion is clear.  We must elect Soledad O'Brien!

    [ Parent ]
    Or how about me (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    I'm a mutt.

    And BTW, haven't scientists predicted that if our DNA were analyzed, that MOST of us would have some AA DNA?

    [ Parent ]

    Colbert will have fun with that (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    but seriously, what a stupid think to say. He's going to get compared to Wright again.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard him before (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    mention his DNA, in the MTP he explained it.  I will find the exact point he said it cause I DVR.  

    [ Parent ]
    DNA comment (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    at 11 minutes.  
    " Its in my DNA to believe we can bring this country together"

    [ Parent ]
    Can't tell you how much I hate the DNA (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    talk - I'm supposed to think that DNA endows someone with the necessary skills to "bring people together?"

    Maybe the Oreo cookie people have the real secret.

    Or the people who make the chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream slices.

    And let's not forget about the "sweet and sour," shall we?

    He can wax poetic about DNA all he wants - I'm not buyin' it.

    [but I am wishing we had some Oreos in the house]

    [ Parent ]

    Ohhh, Oreos. I'm doing Phase 1 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    of the South Beach Diet this week (our son is getting married next Saturday and I've gotta squeeze into my dress!), so please...NO MENTIONS OF COOKIES!

    (Excuse me while I go and get a piece of celery.)

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    "it's in my DNA" is sort of a figure of speech too.  Did he actually make the point explicitly?

    [ Parent ]
    He started with (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    I am the son of a white woman and an African father, it's in my DNA...etc.  That is what was astounding.  

    [ Parent ]
    His DNA? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    My inner scientist's head just exploded.

    I'm unique, you are unique, but only Obama is the right kind of spay-shul!

    Obama has the same genome as most of us, 22 matched pairs plus the old XX or XY set.  

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't this Statement Follow Wright (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:02:40 PM EST
    In his claims that AAs learn one way and Whites here learn another way, i.e., that we are born different in ways that go beyond color?  Isn't this part of Wright's "different but not inferior" bit?

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't know anymore about (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    DNA than I do!  Aren't lots of supposed Caucasians learning they have DNA of Africans?

    [ Parent ]
    Lineage studies are fascinating. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    The "Native Americans" are descended mostly from an Asian tribe with minor genetic donations from other sources.  It's a great way of tracking human migrations and also in studying genetic advantages versus diseases like recorded epidemics.

    I wonder what the genetic studies of the Texas cult will show when it comes to parentage.  (Legally, it's a frikking mess.)

    [ Parent ]

    My grandmother grew up (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:31:30 AM EST
    on a reservation, but I am white as the driven snow.  I look like the awkward neighbor child in family photos.

    Genetics are a wonderful thing.

    [ Parent ]

    You had me leaning your way on (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    reparations, but now I'm thinking, with a chunk of those casino profits, no.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, right (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    Casino profits?  Maybe for a select few.  The rest get shafted.  That's the great thing about being a minority--as soon as you get some money and power, you can slag off the rest of your people and live in luxury.  "Let them eat cake," as Wright might say behind the gates of his $10mm mansion.

    Speaking of cake (mmm...cake...) did anyone read Newt Gingrich in Time this week?  Q: who is John McCain stronger against?  A:  "I think...Clinton has a lower ceiling and a higher floor.  She probably can't get much above 53-54% [of the vote], and she probably can't drop much below 47%.  ...Obama is a bigger gamble for the dems.  He could be a unifying national leader.  He could collapse as well."

    Uh, 47% ain't bad.  I think that's on par or higher than what Bill won with, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    Further evidence (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    "I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA."

    Canoe Canada

    [ Parent ]

    Another interesting snippet: (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    While there's no denying the two had a close, longtime relationship - the title of Obama's second book, "Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon - Obama said the media has overblown it.

    "He was never my spiritual adviser (or) spiritual mentor. He was my pastor."

    Meanwhile, yesterday's NYT had an article about the national UCC, which is composed mostly of Caucasians.  Trinity is the largest congregation.

    [ Parent ]

    but didn't he introduce Wright (none / 0) (#128)
    by ccpup on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    at a big AA function in June 2007 as his "spiritual mentor"?  And I believe he made other comments pre-Wright Debacle which also referred to Wright as a spiritual mentor or adviser or something.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. Speaks w/forked tongue. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here ya go....ccpup (none / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29302&only&rss

    [ Parent ]
    Rev. Barbara Reynolds cited a letter (none / 0) (#139)
    by lookoverthere on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    dated February 5, 2007:

    For 20 years, Rev. Wright has been a " friend, mentor and pastor."

    Rev. Reynolds wrote/blogged defending Rev. Wright and the comments were garbage. I don't know if the blog still exists, but it's quoted in other places.

    The Left Coaster had a blog about the vile spew aimed at Reynolds as well.

    [ Parent ]

    That Introduction (none / 0) (#156)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    was featured in a piece about Obama shown on MSNBC last night.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's why he spent it on th SS of Chicago (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    First time I heard that I had to wonder about his choices. If it was in his DNA, wouldn't he be joining diverse groups of people together instead of just the South Side? There are all kinds of Orgs he could have worked for. Heck, I'm sure Vital Voices would have welcomed him  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Most people living in the south (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    have mixed DNA.  I think the norm is that if you go back about four generations, you tend to find it.  Mine, you only have to go back two, which is why I am a huge proponent of reparations.

    But, lookit, the current human/chimp mix is leading the US to the brink of destruction; maybe we should start looking at a different set of criteria for the presidency.

    (open thread: how perfect is Chim-Chim in the Speedracer commercials?!)

    [ Parent ]

    My favorite story about this (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    Was pertaining to James Watson, one of the folks responsible for the elucidation of the structure of DNA (Crick and Franklin involved too, plus probably others who were ignored).

    Watson once made a (false & debunked) statement about how Africans genetically have lesser intelligence. As it turns out, Watson's own genome was found to be 16% of African descent.

    A link

    [ Parent ]

    If you go back far enough (none / 0) (#121)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    We're all 100% of African Descent, so he's even more the fool.

    [ Parent ]
    Not gonna sell me on reparations. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    My people didn't come over until after WW I.  Nothing tragic or romantic about them.  Not fleeing wars or famines, not slaves or slave owners.  Just plain folks.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, don't get me wrong (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    if I didn't think I'd get a fat check, I'd be against reparations, too.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Label it "Historical economic stimulus" (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    and you've got yourself a winnah!

    Heh.  Ain't politics grand?

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#149)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    He said that? Wow! Well his father was a serial abuser of women. He was already married when he fathered Obama whom he abandoned at age two to go to Harvard never to see him again. His father died penniless and fathered children with at least four other women, out of wedlock.

    Bring people together? He has lost 30% of the Clinton base and how many white working class voters will not vote for him. If I'd didn't like Clinton so much, I'd be happy to see him the nomination so I could vote against him and see him lose winning not one of those red states he loves so much.

    [ Parent ]

    I get this icky feeling that Joe Andrew (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    is more of a "plan" than a man, and is the result of the latest "strategic vision" committee meeting at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, wherein it was decided that it would be great publicity for the firm to have Andrew do this stunning about-face - and it wouldn't cost the firm a penny.

    Although Clinton can't win NC... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by outsider on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    ...this, combined with the Camp O spreadsheet predicting a victory in both, makes it much easier for Clinton to claim a victory if she pulls off a win in IN.  Especially since she can push the "I beat him in his own backyard" taunt.

    Of course, if she only wins one out of two, there'll be another round of shouting about "the math".  But I'm not sure it will sound so impressive the 101st time around...

    Its very unlikely that she can win, but let's play (none / 0) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    a little game: what happens if she loses within 2-3% or squeaks a tiny win. What will it mean really?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was supposed to win Guam (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Josey on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    by 10, 20, 30 points. A BLOWOUT!!

    7 votes?  ouch!


    [ Parent ]

    Yup (none / 0) (#151)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    I found a poll in Pacific Daily News last week that pointed to 10 point margin win by Obama in Guam. So if that trend is consistent and other polls from around the country seem to indicate a 10 point bleed, he is in trouble in Indiana.

    It is also nonsensical to predict a win because it may get his own voters to stay home thinking it is in the bag.

    [ Parent ]

    If she's within 5% in NC, (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by eleanora on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    that's a gamechanger. Very unlikely, but even if she just keeps him at 15% or under in a state that was supposed to be a blowout demographically and wins one of his neighboring states by any margin at all, the concern from Dems who want to win in Nov has got to be staggering. This late in the game, the Dem voters should be flocking to the presumptive nominee, especially with the media and money advantages he has. His ceiling may be much lower than I had thought, which is going to make McCain a tough beat.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by outsider on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    I genuinely believe that, if she manages to win NC, by any margin, she has basically won the nomination.  Obama can't come back from doubts like the ones that would be engendered from a result like that...

    [ Parent ]
    Wolf get the role of the SD's Right (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    They were created in the 80's to over rule the pledged delegates to nominate the most electable candidate. And that ain't Barak, IMO
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    Joe Wilson nails it, again! (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1060220.html

    AND...consider this by BTD... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    "...(Obama) does not think it is smart to debate the (foreign policy) proposal in a campaign for the Presidency."

    Please God, let him not really mean that!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent, but, shouldn't the (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    Wilson's endorsement of Hillary Clinton be included?

    [ Parent ]
    Joe once again... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    reminding all former Kerry voters what we all know is true. I'll never understand why the same people who allowed John a pass on the issue and argued Wilson's point 4 years ago have now assaulted Hillary over her vote.


    [ Parent ]
    Why Oprah left Trinity UCC (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    Newsweek has an article up on Oprah leaving Wright's church that has a few interesting things in it, among them:

    Friends of Sen. Barack Obama, whose relationship with Wright has rocked his bid for the White House, insist that it would be unfair to compare Winfrey's decision to leave Trinity United with his own decision to stay. "[His] reasons for attending Trinity were totally different,'' said one campaign adviser, who declined to be named discussing the Illinois senator's sentiments. "Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American and, more importantly, as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America. Winfrey wasn't going for that. She's secure in her blackness, so that didn't have a hold on her.''

    Something tells me this will not go over well.

    I'm not even sure what the h*ll that's supposed (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    to mean.

    [ Parent ]
    It means trouble (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That Oprah saw trouble, but (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    Obama didn't? That Oprah is really black and Obama isn't? Or just that Wright stays in the news?

    [ Parent ]
    All of the above (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'd say that Obama couldn't figure out who (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    he was until he encountered Wright, whose views on being an African American male in the U.S. are quite controversial.  Makes it look like Obama really was an empty vessel.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Obama's problem (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    is that he is truly African-American -- American by birth, but with a dad from Africa,  and not an African-American as we use the term in society, which is to imply ancestry of former slaves brought to this country.  And this has always been a problem with Obama for me -- he isn't AA in the way that term implies, but he tries to make it seem that he is -- it makes me wonder why can't he accept his own heritage for what it is instead of trying to make a connection to one that isn't his?

    [ Parent ]
    Votes. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:54:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The thing about Trinity is that they (none / 0) (#136)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    are an Afro-centrist church..which means that they are looking for connections to Africa rather than America. The fact that Obama's father was Kenyan is a big deal to them. Obama is seen as a real African for some reason. I think that may be part of Obama's attraction to that church..his father is important to them just because he is an African. Never mind that he didn't stick around to raise his son, or that he went home to his other wife. What matters to Trinity is that Obama, Sr. was AFRICAN. So that validates Obama in a way that no other AA church is going to. Makes what makes him different from other AAs important rather than different. Now he is out asking for votes from AAs who don't care about the African connection, but do care about shared experience. He has managed to avoid mentioning that he has no shared experience, either personal or familial, with most AAs in this country. No one in his family was ever a slave. No stories passed down from freed slaves or from parents and grandparents who lived under the Jim Crow laws for generations. Just an African father. So, you can see why Trinity appealed to him. Their attitude about his father probably soothed what must have been a sore spot in terms of his father's absence in his life and, in a way, validated his existence. I wonder how he feels now that he has tossed them all under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    That is bad. Really bad.

    [ Parent ]
    My New Standard Answer for the Barack Obama camp: (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    I will not vote for president in November if Michigan and Florida's delegates and super delegates are not represented and allocated according to the way the elections unfolded. Obama removed his name deliberately in Michigan for whatever reason he is saying, I do not believe it. Therefore, I will simply leave the "President" slot on my ballot blank. I WILL however, vote straight down the ticket Democrat, and hope for a majority in the House, Senate, local and national candidates. I do not like Obama, Dean, Brazille, Axelrod, Dashle and now Joe Andrew. I do not like hypocrites like Kerry and Kennedy who support Obama even though Clinton won MA by 15.4 %. The OBAMA campaign has also done everything possible to punish the voters of Florida and Michigan by refusing to cooperate for a re-vote. Obama will lose to McCain and McCain will not run again in 2012. So I say, Hillary 2012!!
    Second this (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by DaleA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    My feelings exactly. FL and MI are too important in the electoral college to just blow them off. This is stupidity on an enormous scale.

    [ Parent ]
    The Magical Plouffe Spreadsheet (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Petey on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    "The newly all important Obama surrogate Joe Andrew was on Fox today and he flatly predicted Barack Obama will win both Indiana and North Carolina. Apparently he believes Zogby."

    Andrew believes in the magical Plouffe spreadsheet that shows Obama easily winning Indiana.

    The fact that Obama has dramatically slipped from The Math should be the first indication that things are not well in Obama-land.

    Did anyone watch "This Week"? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST
    Favorite line:

    GS was trying to be tough with Hillary and asked her about Rush Limbaugh trying to get people out to vote for her and mess with the election and Hillary replied that Rush has always had a crush on her!

    Loved it!

    Not Obama (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by OldPara on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    You folks had better listen. Not Obama. As many have in  western NC,  I have departed the Democratic Party for the ranks of what they term as "unaffiliated" here in NC. That allows me to selectively vote  in whatever primary I choose. Most independents I know  desperately want a non-Republican to take the the presidency, but not him. Hilary we could accept. But not Obama. If he is the NC choice after the 6 May primary, I personally will hold my nose and vote for McCain this November. It is not so much Obama himself as it is the entourage he would bring into power were he elected. I have checked the credentials  of the people pushing him and they are not acceptable. So vote for Obama at your peril.

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:55:11 AM EST
    They already predicted they would win IN on the famous spreadsheet.  I'm not sure how it would look for the presumptive nominee to go around saying that they're going to have a tough fight in a bland, could-go-either-way state like Indiana.

    If they lose it, they lose it.  I don't think it makes it that much worse if they were saying ahead of time that they expected to win it; they sold the media on the notion that PA was utterly unwinnable for Obama but I don't think the same trick will work in IN.  Basically I think expectations are close to irrelevant now for both candidates.

    I disagree with you (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    Expectations management is especially critical in these 2 states.

    Why? Because Obama is going to get destroyed in West Virginia on the 13th.

    He will get destroyed in Kentucky.

    Ther news has to fill a vacuum.

    If Clinton winning Indiana by 3 or 4 is a big win for Clinton, then it is going to be 2 weeks of big Clinton wins before Oregon and if Obama loses Oregon, then he is in deep deep trouble.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Oregon win will (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    be weakened by Clinton Kentucky win IMO.  Teevee: Rasmussen did their poll this morning for NC and seemed to be downplaying it's importance to Obama.  Said he just needs to finish strong.  Well, he will win Montana and South Dakota at the end, but it will be weakened if Clinton takes PR big, (2 days before?).

    Right now, I just don't see him having a strong finish.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    i wonder how it's playing in OR when the obama campaign distributes literature about protecting "the great lakes" and "1.1 million veterans in PA" among other embarrassing cut-and-paste errors?

    compare this to hillary's compact with OR and you get one candidate focussed on issues (hillary) and another just cutting-and-pasting in his issues-oriented (NOT) campaign.

    see this link:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/1/235235/4183

    [ Parent ]

    Try tis one on (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    Indiana:Obama::Texas:Hillary.

    Cept, Zogby notwithstanding, I think Obama is actually behind in IN.

    [ Parent ]

    Go to Pollster.com (none / 0) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    And remove the two latest Zogby results, and what you will see is pretty clear. Unless there has been a ground shaking shift he is not winning IN.

    [ Parent ]
    Well yeah, but Zogby is the only one running (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    a public daily tracker of the states, so far as I know.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but a daily tracker with random numbers (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    Not so useful imo. I remember his miraculous PA turnaround for Hillary, where apparently in one day 1/2 the voters must have changed affiliation to cause such a swing in a daily tracker!

    I really am not cherry picking, I'd say the same if he says Hillary is up 20 points in NC. I think Zogby is there only to prop ARG up from the bottom spot.

    [ Parent ]

    I am sure he is down (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    because of the demographics. At this point, I think an Obama win in Indiana would be a miracle.

    Almost as much as a Clinton win in NC.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has only had one miracle (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    in this entire process: Iowa. Luckily for him, that was the most important one.

    Hillary, OTOH, is a clinch hitter.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW on the demos (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    I am amazed you did not pick up on what Zogby's problem. He projects whites as only 83% of the Indiana vote.

    If he projected it at the consensus 89%, Clinton is up 8 in his poll.

    [ Parent ]

    Truthfully, (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    I don't usually look beyond the toplines of Zogby. I have my own dartboard: ARG. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Hence retrofitting the Indiana tiebreak, NC win (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ellie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    WORMing the new goalpost position, Obama diminished a potential HRC win in Indiana by making it part of her PA score, and isolating his (impending) performance as a stand-alone to hold up against WV / K'y.

    Neither here nor there: If TeamClinton or a YouTube savvy supporter was on the ball in Indiana, s/he'd splice the clip of Spike Lee's insulting taunts against pro-HRC black supporters like Charlie Rangell -- slamming him with egregious "Massah" talk -- with footage of Spike sideline smack on Indi Pacers' HOF'er Reggie Miller. (Flying elbows in the paint aren't Unifying by nature, but if one must be returned, make it a good one!)

    Blitzering: Donna Brazille's working the "most delegates already" hooey with Roland Martin.

    [ Parent ]

    How do you suppose the Hoosiers (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    reacted to Obama shooting hoops with UNC?

    [ Parent ]
    I'd say with the local ritual of chair rearranging (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ellie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    While the pool was watching, the senator did not score any points, but campaign aides later reported that he sunk a 3-point-shot. (MSNBC 04/29/2008)

    Taking credit for a unearned trey isn't just a slap at the Miller legacy, but insults the profound religious beliefs of TWO devout states.

    This outrage needs to be exposed NOW! :-)

    [ Parent ]

    That alone should be enough (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    to doom him in both states.  

    [ Parent ]
    The new WORM should be (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    "it doesn't matter how the rest of these states vote, Obama is getting the nomination."  That way, the Obama camp and the msm can save themselves the trouble of having to reset expectations as each of the remaining contests approach.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    What if before PA Obama campaign had said "this is really tough, we should lose by 20%, we'll work hard" and Clinton camp had said "we are going to blow this thing wide open, we'll win by 10% at least." Don't you think the narrative would have been very different? Instead they both said its within 2-3%, which made the results look good for Sen Clinton and bad for Sen Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    Of course you can make it look better or worse by managing expectations.  I just don't think that "how it looks" is all that relevant this late in the game.

    Besides, the Obama campaign did quite a successful job of revising expectations for PA after the fact.  It went from "we expect to do very well" to "PA is Hillary's home state, and has totally unique demographics, we never had a shot."  With the media's help all things are possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Due respect (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    I think you miss what Super Delegates are looking at.

    Clinton needs to freeze the SDs so she can rack up big wins in Kentucky and West Virginia and see if she can upset Obama in Oregon.

    Then the math look a lot different.

    [ Parent ]

    and nothing will freeze them better... (none / 0) (#147)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST