Obama's Tone Is Subdued, Axelrod's Is Ominous
SAN ANTONIO, Texas—At the end of another day on which Barack Obama failed to deliver the coup de grace to Hillary Clinton’s White House hopes, the Illinois senator spoke to supporters here at an event that was notable mainly for its tepidity.
The crowd was startlingly small, numbering perhaps 1,500. Obama often attracts crowds 10 times as large. His speech was brief—it lasted barely 10 minutes—and featured few of the oratorical fireworks for which he is known.
Obama did, however, seek to reassure his followers: “We are on our way to winning this nomination,” he said.
He also trained his sights on John McCain, presumably seeking to position himself as McCain’s inevitable opponent in November’s presidential election. He added that McCain and Clinton “echo each other” in trying to portray his demands for change as “eloquent but empty.”
The day’s results, which saw Clinton win three states, including the big prizes of Texas and Ohio, to Obama’s one, must nevertheless have come as a frustrating blow. The race for the nomination now seems destined to continue until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, hinted to reporters that the senator may now become more aggressive toward the Clinton team and might begin raising questions about the ethics of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
When I asked Axelrod whether the apparent effectiveness of the former first lady’s more negative tone in recent days posed a problem for Obama, he responded: “If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate. We’ll do it on our own terms and we’ll do it in our own way. But if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that sort of stuff issues, I don’t know why they’d want to go there.”
The words seemed like an allusion to Whitewater, but Axelrod in fact cited the Clintons’ reluctance to release their tax returns as one example where “for all their yammering about how unfairly they have been treated, they haven’t really been pursued at all by the media on some of these questions.”
Obama did not get entangled in any of this during his speech, instead telling his supporters that “because of a movement you built that stretches from Vermont’s Green Mountains to the streets of San Antonio, we can stand up with clarity and confidence to say that we are turning the page.”
His address was also unusual for its touches of internationalism. He referred to the Ugandan grandfather of an aide who, aged 81, had stayed up through the night in Africa to watch the results of the Iowa caucuses come in. He added: “The world is watching what we do here. The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will they see? What will we tell them?”
At another point, the Illinois senator suggested that an Obama administration would prove an effective antidote to the anti-Americanism now festering in many nations around the world.
Axelrod stuck with more prosaic concerns. At one point, he implored reporters to look more seriously at the former first lady’s claims of political achievement.
“You hear Senator Clinton talk and you would think that she was Lyndon Johnson in the U.S. Senate,” he said. “But I don’t know what her major legislative achievements are.”
More importantly, perhaps, Axelrod also predicted that “the party will coalesce” behind one candidate, “if not tonight, then soon.”
But last night’s results have, at the least, almost certainly postponed any such move to bring this contest to a swift conclusion.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
In addition to the Clintons' racist tactics (hey, let's pit poor Hispanics against poor blacks, Jesse Jackson etc.) and lies (I just saw her on CNN making the preposterous claim that she helped negotiate the North Ireland peace deal) we now have this:
More on CNN today, he said "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line.
Amazing, McCain will use that line. That alone should disqualify her as nominee.
And nothing verifies more strongly Ralph Nader's assertion that the Americans are ruled by a single corporate and war-business dominated party. And if Clinton is the nominee, Nader is the logical place for the change-motivated to go if the Clintons achieve their goal.
But in the meantime, let's find out who's REALLY backing the Clintons and for sure let's dig up the mounds of dirty laundry, including their refusal to release tax forms, their refusal to release transcripts of her healthcare fiasco and what's really behind the pardon of Frank Rich, just for starters.
Obama has upset the apple cart of politics, and he must be made to pay, or so that's how the Democratic/Clinton machine feel. Also, if you feel that the corporate, war-business influence will disappear with Hussein Obama as president, you're sadly mistaken.
Nader will be only one of many alternatives on the ballot come November; exercise that choice.
Kudos for hilary! She has clearly demonstrated that she has mastered the art of politics: the means do justify the ends!
With all seriousness, you have to give it to her - she does want this presidency really bad. Let her have it. Lets see what other trickery she is able to pull out to help materialize her dream and our nightmare.
DNC
Re: Clinton Campaign
To Whom It May Concern:
On Tuesday, March 4th, Hillary Clinton had what was described as the first "confetti moment" of her presidential campaign. Just a scant few months ago, I might have watched her trio of victories unfold with a sense of ease, knowing that although she"s not my candidate of choice, she"s certainly a candidate who will serve the country well. However, in light of what can only be described as her "fear and smear" campaign, which included a barrage of lies and obfuscations against opponent Barack Obama, I am, quite simply, appalled. Swiftboating is something I would expect from a Republican opponent; coming from a fellow democrat, it is simply beyond the pale.
Hillary Clinton"s Swiftboating includes, but is not limited to:
1. Campaign literature casting doubt upon Obama"s pro-choice stance, in spite of his 100% pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood. Representatives of Planned Parenthood were so disturbed by the content of these mailers, they made a statement to correct the record;
2. Campaign literature stating that Obama "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars," when, in fact, nothing Obama has proposed or supported would affect Social Security taxes paid by the overwhelming majority of workers.
3. The strong implication that Obama is a practicing Muslim, which in the minds of some people equates to religious fundamental terrorism. This "smear and fear" initiative included not only mass e-mails and telephone banking, but also the release of a photograph of Obama in native African dress with the intent of making him look like a terrorist.
4. Misrepresentation of the facts surrounding Obama"s NAFTA position, including the suggestion that he gave one story to Canadian officials, and another to voters. Clinton"s "wink wink" stump speech was so misleading, Canadian officials issued statements to "correct the record."
5. A television message equating the fact that Obama has not convened any hearings in the "Subcommittee on European Affairs" with his being "too busy" to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan. The media (which supposedly favors Obama) failed to correct Clinton"s false statements by explaining that jurisdiction for Afghanistan lies not with Obama's subcommittee, but with the "Armed Services Committee" (which has oversight authority over military matters) and the "Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs," of which Obama isn't even a member.
Additionally, Clinton"s conduct throughout the course of this campaign has been divisive, and decidedly "Rovian." If she does not step down from this exercise in hubris, I predict she will continue to fracture the party from within, and ensure a Republican victory in the fall. I encourage you to use whatever influence is in your power to prevent that from happening.
Funny, Bill Clinton was just complimenting Rove. I personally am sickened by this race baiting and divisive campaign. And for my fellow "feminists," you can't just cry sexism all of the time and then push forward a candidate because she would be the first woman president. I am appauld at the over woman "white woman" vote in Ohio. All of the white women I saw being interviewed in Ohio kept saying how it would be great to have a woman in the Whitehouse and how they just "didn't trust" Obama. Sorry, but for some people of color, that is "code" for fear of black men. Plus, she has exploited this so-called division between latinos and blacks in a real Lee Atwater-Rovian way. Look to see how black people reaact to all of this, because one thing is for certain, Hillary will not win a general election campaign without strong support from the black community. I don't care how many older white women and latinos she pulls together out of fear. Trust me on this one!
NO ONE HERE WANTS TO ADMIT WHAT A PUSSY, AN EMPTY WUSS, MR. OBAMA REALLY IS...HE LIED LAST FRIDAY ABOUT THE MEETING WITH THE CANADIAN'S AND PROVED HE IS AS SIX-FACED AS ANY REPUBLICAN...HE IS SO DEEP IN THIS UPCOMING REZKO TRIAL THAT EVEN THE FAITHFUL ARE GOING TO BE LEFT SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS...AND THE BLACKS WILL COME BACK...I MEAN, THEY'RE SO UNGRATEFUL...THE CLINTONS WERE LOYAL TO THEM AND THEY JUST TURNED THERE BACKS ON HILARY FOR THE FIRST HALF-WHITE MALE CANDIDATE...EVERYONE SHOULD ALSO ADMIT THAT BARRY OBAMA IS NOT BLACK HE IS HALF-WHITE!!!!! LIKE MARIAH CAREY!!!!!
my question is where is Siko? there is so much emotion and strong feelings- that this is the best documentary about the american way of winning- with all walks of life included - ignorant, fundamentalist, passionate, etc..
hope Siko is taking notes - at the end of the day - i need a good laugh
It is not the candidates who are to blame but the Democratic party. If they are serious about winning in November, they must decide who will be the strongest candidate to run against Senator McCain.
It obvious that the Democratic party is divided. Senator Clinton deserves credit for her resurgence in the game. However, credit has to be given to Senator Obama for including people of all ethnic group in the game of politics. It is evident by some of the comments on this board that America is not ready for a bi-racial president. Although we pride ourselves on being the most civilized nation in the world, we still have prejudices that run deep. The truth is that a nation divided helps our government function. No one in office wants a unified America. The Democratic party in there flight to become the pioneer party, is causing more division then unity.
As intelligent Americans we must do what is right for the country. If America continues to focus on race, then we will loose in the global competition. President Lincoln was not national known before winning the election, and he was able to secure the union. No one who is elected president has experience at the job unless your the incumbent vice-president.
Senator Clinton has exposure because of her husbands experience. Senator Obama has a vision, but his race will hinder his ability to govern because of old-school prejudices and the division in the Democratic party. The truth is that neither candidate may be effective because America feels more at ease with a white protestant male, who can run this country.
Remember our history, is Obama and Hilary, both groups under-represented. It was not a win for Hilary or a defeat for Obama, but a headache for Democrats whom desire that their party make a decision to support either candidate. If after April, Hilary receives the nomination, then the Democratic party used Senator Obama and Senator Hilary to get a feeling on how Americans would vote. We are the true victims. So don not get caught in the game. The personal name calling of candidates does not reflect the ideas of the most civilized nation in the world.
Hope Obama and David Axelrod realize the dirt that team throws and will continue to throw at them. The Clinton's / surrogates are the most undesirable lot of idiots and are on a 'high' right now, but Obama must bring up the corruption factor of the entire lot of Clinton and wannabe's. This is the time, and it can be done with grace. It is truth and truth is remarkable and timing is everything. This NAFTA thing was a set-up, the Canadian consulate talked to all candidate's, not just Obama, Bill Clinton was in Toronto at his / partner in crime fundraiser the 29th of Feb/08, and this was nothing less than a lie from the Clinton camp. I'm a Canadian, one of many who see this election cycle in U.S. is once again corrupt. Hmmm...I've used that word above. How can decent Americans not vote for the most capable, honorable man??? How many positions is she handing out in her administration this time for the sake of Power. By the way, does knowone take a look at the 'ethic's committee' and see who has complaints regarding her. Or do American's not care? And then everyone wonders why Americans are 'not to be trusted'. After the Clinton Administration in the ninetees the World viewed the leadership with disgust and you want that back again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/opinion/06thur1.html
What We'd Like to Hear - NYT Editorial - 3/5/08 - ==============================================================
Says Hillary's campaign has been "nastier" and Barack is seeking a "coronation." --
I can assure you nobody of African-American descent would EVER expect a "coronation." As for the Clintons, they have run a come from behind, nasty campaign to the extent Hillary has diminished Barack while elevating John McCain. There is no confusion on the part of voters, according to exit polling even in OH last night. Rush Limbaugh has been and continues to request Republicans vote for Hillary to destablize (along with the Canadian Conservative Government) the Democratic Nomination process. Increasingly, one cannot tell where John McCain ends and Hillary Clinton begins -- including Rovian campaign tactics. Pretending the Obama surrogates are equally damaging with the Clintons, is untrue and does a disservice to the Obama Campaign which has gone from 20 points behind to where he is today by remaining consistently RESTRAINED. He is walking the walk and talking the talk of CHANGE. Finally, the media should honor their JOURNALIST freedoms/obligations and obtain, w/out further delays -- 1. Tax returns; 2. Clinton Library donor records; 3. White House records. This is a much more worthy effort than focusing on SNL performances. There is much at stake and "experience" now needs documentary PROOF. Release the records and we will do our OWN vetting. The NYT continuing to put forth "a pox on BOTH their houses" is media bias, in Hillary's favor. Her VICTIM campaign should be at an end. Show us the RECORDS...all of them!
Mr. Obama's campaign should NOT speak to ANYONE associated with the Conservative Canadian government while campaigning, including this Fall and through the Inauguration January 2009. They have an agenda and cannot be TRUSTED. Ditto, other governments, many of whom are probably in discussions w/Bill Clinton as a matter of routine and attempting to insinuate/destablize our Nomination Process via leaks, etc. Of course, Democrats who vote for Hillary Clinton should see what happened this week with the Canadian Government as a precurser of Bill's continued out-of-control antics, which will only ESCALATE when he is in The White House.
Of course, since the Republicans want Hillary to win so they don't have to run against Barack (they KNOW what it seems OH and TX Democrats do not!) -- there will be no investigation of what actually occurred with the Canadian Government.
Barack, focus on winning the American people and tell your surrogates to STOP engaging foreign governments where you cannot compete with the favors Bill Clinton (and the Bushes who are also for Hillary, no doubt) have done to foreign potentates with agenda(s).
To Whom,
Your allusion to Obama as the most capable and honorable candidate suggests very strongly that you are more persuaded by emotion than logic. He is, after all, running for the presidency of the United States, not some local 'Mayor' position. He, thus far, is the epitomy of 'form over substance'. He, admittedly, is a great rhetorectician, but his mantra of 'change' can have too many negative conotations, as change can, of course, be a bad thing! He offers nothing but Canadian style 'socialism' which, thankfully, the majority of Americans still abhor!
Of course, the Clinton's are a 'disgrace' to any thinking person. Hopefully, not them again!
Also, I perceive that most Americans do not care what France, or Canada, for that matter, think of us. That, in this silly world, is probably a good thing!
Rich: First of all Ontario, has a Liberal Premiere...the government which is Steven Harper (Conservative) is not a majority government, so you don't care of the damage your Billy Boy does to/or with foreign governments then don't elect his crooked wife to power. It is all relevant. It does matter what other countries think when this corrupt couple inflame rogue / poor / rich countries for the sake of their own destiny? It doesn't matter to them. By the way, I mean, Iran, China, Venesuala, Latin America and Kirkastan as rogue. All these countries the two have done major business with, Oh yes, Saudi Arabia and Dubai for a famous lifestyle on the backs of their own people. And no disclosure needed. Why does the media give her a break about tax returns, campaign / library donations and honestly how they purchase their first home in NY state? Of course it's relevent when a 'black man decides to run against the Clinton's. What experience did Clinton have when he came to power? Just swindling the people of Arkansas? And her? What exactly is her experience? Is Sandy Berger going to be in the WH and the archives for document slashing at the same time? Globally we know what goes on. Because it is your Country doesn't give you a head's up. It put's the world in danger with stupid mistakes. Canadian's died on 9/11 and Canadians die in Afganistan. It's not the first lady president, it's the two for one president who does more for themselves than your country or any foreign country. I've followed their history since Arkansas. We do have political junkies here also FYI. The world giggles and dreads their return. They have conducted themselves ruthlessly, cheaply and tawdry for the highest office of your country and you should be ashamed instead of rejoicing the art of divide and destroy. What the founding father's of your country and my grandmother's parent's country (by the way) fought for is being handed over to the the likes of the media and Dem heads. We can all see the games their playing....eg., suing for Texas caucus delegates, like they tried in Nevada. You honestly believe Borack Obama doesn't have what it takes? A little secret...he's more qualified...he's led a life with ups and downs (I don't mean poll #s either). He is strong, he has nerve..he has compassion..and he takes the high road and can articulate his and the need of the people, unlike those two angry, old, pathetic, unstable two for one ride.
Rich: of course I do realize your take on what is happening to this election and appreciate your side...but I do think logically most of the time (ha ha), but feel this is very important this time around and you are right, emotion does play a role but it is good if it seeks only those who do good will not destroy.
Just an observation/questions with a few facts thrown in.
What other candidate has ever had to not only run against their opponent, but at the same time the media bias against her(now fact supported through documented polls and statistics, media begrudgingly admitted admission), and been able to not only survive but come back in such a strong way? And this doesn't occur to people that this is a leader? HRC proves herself once again but little notice or wonder why it's not stated.
Funny how the media is trying to make the connection of how negative press toward Mr. Obama could have made an impact in the elections on March 4th, but still fail to go further to the connection of how they've affected the perception of Hillary and her campaign over the last 3 months with a constant barrage of negative media toward her.
What is equally as strange is how now it is accepted/encouraged by the media and seems to be the strategy when Mr. Obama goes negative in his campaign, which the Obama campaign, their supporters, and the media have been very critical of Hillary for supposedly doing.
The double standard still exist
I WONDER IF MOST OF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE SAME CAMPAIGNS I'M FOLLOWING. YES HILLARY HAS BEEN ON THE BACKBURNER OF THE MEDIA FOR SOME TIME, BUT IT'S NOT MR. OBAMAS FAULT THAT HE COMMANDS MORE ATTENTION THEN SHE DOES . THAT HE HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE PEOPLE STOP AND LISTEN AND SHE DOES'NT. I READ SOME CLAIMS ON HERE ON HOW WHEN HILLARY WAS SO CALLED BEING MISTREATED BY THE MEDIA, HOW BECAUSE HER PRESSENCE DID NOT COMMAND THE ATTENTION THAT IT SHOULD HAVE. GET REAL PEOPLE HILLARY STARTED OFF AS THE BELL OF THE BALL WHEN ALL THIS BEGAN SHE WAS LEADING BY HUGE NUMBERS IN EVERY EXIT POLL TAKEN IN THE BEGINNING. BARRACK WASN'T EVEN ON THE RADAR AT THAT TIME AND YET WHEN PEOPLE STARTED TO GET TO KNOW HIM AND LISTEN TO HIM AND HE TURNED THINGS AROUND HILLARY STARTED WITH THE ATTACKS. FIRST SHE SHEDS A COUPLE OF TEARS IN FRONT OF THE MEDIA WHEN SHE LOST IOWA SO SHE COULD WIN NEW HAMPSHIRE THEN WHEN BARRACK GOES ON A TEAR FOR THE NEXT 11 STATES AND CACAUSES SHE STARTS IN ON COUNTING FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WHEN IT WAS AGREDD UPON FRON THE BEGINNING THAT NO CANDIDATE WOULD CAMPAIGN THERE. THEN WHEN SHE KNOWS IT'S EITHER NOW OR NEVER SHE STARTS THIS NEGATIVE CAMPIAGN AGAINST BARRACK FOR THE OHIO AND TEXAS PRIMARIES. i MEAN SHE CLAIMS ALL THIS EXPERIENCE FORM WHERE I THOUGHT ONLY PRESIDENTS MEET WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS TO DISCUSS FORIEGN POLICY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. TRAVELING TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES WITH YOUR DAUGTHER FOR CONCERTS AND CEROMONIES OF SUCH DOES NOT GIVE YOU EXPERIENCE ON FORIEGN POLICY. AND THAT 3AM CALL WHEN IT COMES WHAT IS SHE REALLY GOING TO DO HAD THE PHONE OVER TO BILL. IF BARRACK IS ATACKING HER WITH NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS NOW GOOD FOR HIM. SOMETIMES NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY YOU CAN'T ALWAYS TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.
Add to your list her continued assertion that Obama will leave 15-50 million people out of his health care plan. Another scare tactic: who will it be? will it be YOU??? No the people who will be 'left out' of Obama's plan are the people who CHOOSE to be left out.
As a woman of about the same age I am starting to wonder if Hillary is going through her own 'change.' Angry one moment, laughing the next. Extreme highs and lows in her behavior. Sounds to me like menopause. If Americans want to fear something, they should fear letting this unstable woman near the oval office.
It's obvious Hillary is post-menopausal and prone to outbursts and other emotional highs and lows. Dangerous to have a woman in charge.
Unfortunately, in the end, if Hillary Clinton has her way, all we may have to thank her for will be a McCain victory. What could be more frightening than that?
Mr. Axelrod.
While I am an ardent supporter with my money and conversation of Barack Obama, (I am waiting on my tee shirt,I have contributed to this amazing campaign)I think it is time to give the message in a different way. I know the stump speech by heart and most Americans have heard it also. Tailor the speech to the Pennsylvania state and talk in middle class terms, get specific with the people and take Hilary Clinton on! She has claimed Pennsylvania, as her turf, and Ed Rendell and Bill Clinton have struck some sort of deal, I bet my life on that. Barack is a gentlemen and highly intelligent and apparently so are you his advisers, with all this political savvy why can't you advisers come up with a more compelling message, in more detail. I will stay home in November if Barack does not get the nomination. We African Americans will stage a Black Out, and let the Republicans get the next four years. I don't know what code to put in the box, why is this required.?
Mr. Axelrod--First ladies, as wives everywhere are USUALLY their husbands number one advisors---THAT is experience, but because this is unspoken and unheralded, it is easy for you to "spin" the fable that it isn't experience---shame on you.Ya think Roosevelt didn't consult Elinore, or John F.consult Jackie? Get real.
Also, because Obama could not absolutely repudiate, (READ: outright, unabashedly REJECT) Farrakhan's endorsement, without being pushed and cajoled into a corner on the issue, I will NEVER vote for him---I will WRITE in Hillary as MY choice, if he gets the nomination.
google