You know I work with a lot of young people. And all I have to say is this: if Barack Obama can become president, and show the young cynics that one people can stand behind one country then I will devote whatever time is needed and how ever much money it takes to get that one man elected. This election is that important to me and to this country. Shayna it is wonderful to see your enthusiasm. I see it here in New England with the young folks I work with and I really think it is wonderful to see.
I wonder what will happen to this country if the younger generation Y’s can see a truly working efficient government a government I believe Barack will be able to work his ass off for. He get’s that fact that it is going to be tough, but I believe that he believes he has what it takes to lead this country from where it has been to where it is going…
Glad to hear it, and glad that I was the one who tipped you off about only the caucuses counting here in WA.
My wife and I moved an appointment for some work on the car to next weekend so that we can caucus tomorrow (for Obama). First time I ever cared enough to participate in the nominating procedure…
I’m quite flattered if you are putting me in with the young crowd, considering I’m 46 years old. This election has become extremely important to me. I’ve been working in the political consulting world for 8 years now, planning and co-hosting fund raisers for everything from city council to President, for people like Jane Harman, the late (and awesome) Juanita Millender-McDonald, Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, to name a few. And never – not once – have I ever gotten personally involved with a campaign like I have this one.
I’ve canvassed neighborhoods, attended local rallies, phoned and emailed people. I’ve stood on my busy street corner waving around my Obama for President sign on multiple occasions, for hours at a time. I’ve written to superdelegates (those in my state, and those I know personally) and donated money numerous times. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything more important in my life, than actively work to get this man elected President.
And I’ll tell you what I love about this man and this campaign, it’s people like this. . .
It fills me with so much hope and anticipation. I think we’re about to see what heights this country can soar to.
Ok, I’m slightly embarrassed :o I wasn’t talking about you as being a youngster necessarily, but more that I work with a lot of people between the ages of 18 and 25 and I see their enthusiasm, and knowing you “virtually” you remind me a lot of them. So keep up the good work! And you should feel flattered you ***are * ** an inspiration.
He needs to take them all, except possibly VA. And if he doesn’t then he has to be razor close. He needs commanding leads in DC and LA. And the better he does the more delegates he gets in the rest, the better.
This is all doable. Hell, it’s expected. Which is why he needs to do it.
Oops, forgot about Maine. Obama needs ME less than he needs VA. Keep it close and it’s a survivable loss. I think he’ll take it though. Caucuses are good for him. They cater to the politically passionate, and while Clinton’s supporters may be more numerous in many places, I think Obama’s people are more passionate about the campaign.
Unless the Obama campaign suddenly collapses, I see the next real test for him being March 4, and specifically Ohio and Texas. If he wins Ohio and stays within 5 points of Clinton in Texas, I think the party might start leaning on Clinton to drop out. If not, then I think they’ll turn on Obama. If it’s a truly split decision (Clinton decisively takes Texas, but Obama takes Ohio), then it’s kicked down the road to April 22 and PA. The winner there will almost certainly get declared the victor.
I say this having seen almost no polls, but: it seems to me that he should win most of the next contests, and generally should win them pretty easily, Virginia included. I think the Clinton campaign is saying as much, too, although I’m sure they are also trying to lower expectations. Wisconsin might be interesting, and I think it’s going to be considered another bellwether.
That gap between March and April is just amazing. I think they’ll do their damndest to get Michigan and Florida in there - I said it would be inconvenient and upset people, but March 4 doesn’t settle it, Democratic leaders are REALLY going to start sweating, because that would guarantee the thing will last at least another six weeks, and possibly more. (The idea that the Democrats will be hurt because the race hasn’t ended yet is silly, I think, but if it lasts another two months or isn’t resolved at all by the primaries, that becomes a serious issue.)
I think Maine and Wisconsin are the only tossups in February. Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, the Chesapeake primaries, and Hawaii are all Obama’s. And I think even WI will go Obama too, in the end. So out of all those I’d say Clinton has a chance in Maine, and I don’t think that will be enough to blunt public perception of momentum.
At this point, the victor will be the one that gains enough steam to get the public perception of winner. Once there is a clear winner in the public eye the superdelagates, mostly political creatures to a fault, will start to solidify their support around that person. The better part of a month’s worth of wins will be more than enough to seal the deal.
Obama enters Ohio and Texas with the momentum of a freight train, and that’s all she wrote for Clinton.
Of course, most of my experience with politics consists of poll enabled hope followed by a soul-crushing defeat, so I guess take my thoughts with a bucket or two of salt.
In a vaccuum giving delegates to Hillary is probably good for Hillary. Obama wins in Michigan and Hillary wins in Florida and Florida is bigger.
The reason she opposes a do-over is that right now she gets almost all the delegates IF SHE CAN GET THEM SEATED.
So she is going to want the DNC to change its rules just enough to seat the delegates but not enough to havce a do-over.
Her campaign doesn’t believe that the DNC will be able to deny delegates to Michigan and Florida and each of Michigan and Florida are insisting on having their pre-super tuesday primary count (to lay a precedent for the next set of primaries).
So she thinks that there is a chance to have delegates representing the current primary results from Michigan and Florida seated and there is little to no downside to insisting on on seating delegatres from those two states based on the currnt primary results.
The Florida and Michigan delegates won’t be let in unless there is a do-over because it will stink of foul play - which it would be.
I don’t really see Clinton taking this campaign by the reigns and surmounting Obama. I really do see from what I am reading and what is on the current poll trends - an Obama Democratic Ticket. And you can bet your bottom dollar he is courting Veeps right now for the win. Hillary grossly underestimated Obama’s political acumen. He’s tidal wave of opportunity - where she smells of old cavalry horses.
HRC would be an underdog to beat McCain even if she won entirely on the up and up. A win by seating delegates by changing the rules along the way would cripple her. Can’t happen. Now new caucuses can happen because that’s what the DNC would have accepted all along and that would give HRC a slight advantage - after her FL pander has built on her previous advantage there.
I’m hoping for a clearer answer before then - Obama doing resoundingly well in the next series and pulling off Ohio.
Along the line of Ohio - what do you think of her wanting to pullout of the MSNBC debate there because of alleged offense at a comment made (and apologized for) characterizing their use of their daughter on the trail as “pimping” her? Is it real umbrage or something else? And if it is real umbrage is the attempt to control what the talking heads say appropriate? As president will she refuse to deal with networks that allow their pundits criticize her or her family too much or, to their ears, offensively?
(Myself, I read it as another chance to play the poor beleaguered Hillary-the-victim card. Yeah, I’m at a point that I can’t believe anything out her camp is anything other than contrived.)
First Dad’s out then Daughter. Her campaign is wrought with controversy and it’s getting old. I doubt the beleaguered Hillary-as-a-victim role will help her campaign much anymore. As for pulling out of the debate? It can only help Obama with his millions of volunteers hitting the streets. Clinton’s strategists know this and I think they are in the beginning stages of just going through the motions for her.
A country of young future leaders standing behind their president is what may happen here, and Clinton knows in her deepest of deep spots that she doesn’t have that kind of support. I believe it’s weighing on her.
IMO, Obama needs to widen his lead of pledged delegates substantially with the next nine primaries/caucuses, then battle OH and TX to draws, or near-draws. Depending on the actual numbers, this could leave Hillary in the position of only being able to win via superdelegates (spun as backroom party dealings) and/or getting MI and FL delegates counted (more backroom dealings to make it happen, then the whole fairness question). He needs to back her into a corner from which her victory would be, or could be made to appear, tainted.
I believe Hillary can better survive having pledged delegates end essentially tied. Try not to fall too far behind over the next nine, then tie it up or take the lead with OH and TX – play those up as the states “to decide it” if the numbers look good for her, and even if they won’t actually produce an outright win. Her argument to count FL and MI then spins as “counting their voices to end the race in favor of the frontrunner” rather than “I need them so I don’t lose.”
Having said that, I’d add that if Hillary wins the nomination by getting FL and MI counted, I will not vote cast a vote for president in November. I’m an independent voter backing Obama, and if she can win the nomination fairly, she’ll probably have my vote – even though I believe Obama is the better candidate by far.
Is the controversy intrinsic to her or her campaign, or is it manufactured, and by whom, and if so why are you letting it affect *your * views? Are you equally as tired of Romney’s sons as you are of Clinton’s daughter, and if not, considering that they’ve been much further out in his campaign, why not? :dubious:
This election has become extremely important to me. I’ve been working in the political consulting world for 8 years now, planning and co-hosting fund raisers for everything from city council to President, for people like Jane Harman, the late (and awesome) Juanita Millender-McDonald, Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, to name a few. And never – not once – have I ever gotten personally involved with a campaign like I have this one.
So keep up the good work! And you should feel flattered 
you ***are * ** an inspiration.