April 23-25, 2008
Apr 23 02:17 Obama Got Thrashed Apr 23 10:15 Trouble Looming for Obama, Part II Apr 23 20:25 Intellectual Dishonesty At Its Worst Apr 24 02:44 Still Waiting For Tarryl's Response Apr 24 16:46 Arianna Huffington: High Profile Buffoon Apr 25 02:39 McCain and the NC Ad Apr 25 02:23 My NFL Mock Draft Apr 25 09:22 Minnesota 2020 Is a Rural Minnesota Think Tank? Apr 25 19:03 Censorship In North Carolina?
Obama Got Thrashed
Barack Obama had better hope the superdelegates didn't pay attention to tonight's Pennsylvania primary. He'd better hope they don't check the map in western and rural Pennsylvania, where he got thoroughly thrashed. This county-by-county map tells the tale of how thoroughly Obama got thrashed.
Of the 68 counties in Pennsylvania, Hillary won 23 counties with 55-65% of the vote and 29 more counties with 65-75% of the vote. Fayette County went Hillary with 79%. Sen. Obama won only 7 counties, with Philadelphia being his best county with 65% of the vote.
The only logical conclusion we can draw from that is that Sen. Obama's statement at the San Fransisco fundraiser hurt him badly. That said, the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell complains that the Clintons counted on racism to win:
Clinton banked on the strength of Gov. Ed Rendell's observation that conservative white voters in that state would not vote for a black man. I traveled across Pennsylvania with the Obama bus tour, and tens of thousands of white men and women turned out at his rallies.That's a bit over-the-top. It's a stretch to say that Clinton exploited that division. It'd be one thing if she had played racial politics or if she'd played the racebaiting game like Pastor J-Wright did during his tenure at Sen. Obama's church.
But early on, Rendell boasted that the discomfort of white voters with a black candidate may have accounted for 5 percent of the votes he racked up against Lynn Swann, a popular former NFL player, in that state's gubernatorial race.
Obviously, there are people in this country who are not yet ready to see a black man elected as president, just as there are people who aren't ready to call a female commander in chief.
Still, it is appalling that any candidate in the Democratic Party, the party that has benefitted from the blind loyalty of black voters, would stoop to exploiting bigotry in order to win the election.
Mostly, she won because blue collar Democrats can't identify with an elitist like Sen. Obama. Those are voters that Sen. Obama has traditionally had difficulty winning over. I don't see a reason why they won't continue being a problem for him. These are voters that Sen. McCain has a real shot at.
Don't misunderstand me. I still find it difficult to picture Hillary winning the nomination. After tonight, though, I find it more difficult picturing Sen. Obama winning over blue collar voters in sufficient numbers to win in November.
Let's also remember that Sen. Obama outspent Hillary by a 2:1 margin. At minimum, a candidate with that type of spending advantage should win. To lose even though you outspent your opponent is inexcusable. To lose badly when outspending your opponent that badly is a collapse on a par with last year's Mets.
It's times like these that I wish I was the Tums distributor for DNC Headquarters.
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:18 AM
No comments.
Trouble Looming for Obama, Part II
Last week, John Judis wrote about his misgivings about Sen. Obama. Today, he's asking if Sen. Obama is the next McGovern . Here's what Mr. Judis wrote on the subject:
Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.Without scrutiny, Sen. Obama could craft whatever image he wanted. Now that he's scrutinized, that image is changing dramatically. It's difficult to say that you're a uniter when you attend a church pastored by a racist. People won't buy the notion that you're commander-in-chief material when you've got connections with an unrepentant terrorist. People won't buy the fact that you share people's goals when you're an elitist.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.
The days of Sen. Obama being seen as a moderate are in the rearview mirror. The lunchpail crowd will look the other way rather than vote for Sen. Obama.
The lengthened primary process has kept interest high in the Democrats. The bad news for Howard Dean is that it's exposed alot of vulnerabilities in Sen. Obama.
Another question worth asking is whether freshman Democrats in swing districts in the South and Midwest will campaign with Sen. Obama. If any freshmen avoid campaigning with him, that's a definite signal that they think he's radioactive.
Either way, this isn't shaping up the way Democrats wanted it to shape up.
UPDATE: Sean Hannity is talking about how Republican house candidates are making commercials tying their candidate to Barack Obama. He says that they're highlighting Sen. Obama's ties to radicals like William Ayers and Pastor J-Wright. I can't say that I'm surprised.
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:46 PM
No comments.
Intellectual Dishonesty At Its Worst
The concession speech that Sen. Obama delivered last night was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. In delivering such a dishonest speech, he's re-inforcing the notion that he's just another intellectually dishonest politician. Here's part of his intellectual dishonesty:
John McCain believes that George Bush's Iraq policy is a success, so he's offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy; a war that's sending our troops on their third tour, and fourth tour, and fifth tour of duty; a war that's costing us billions of dollars a month and hasn't made us any safer.That's a steaming pile of BS. Sen. McCain criticized President Bush's policy. Sen. McCain frequently told people that he didn't have confidence in Don Rumsfeld, that they needed more troops in Iraq. Had President Bush implemented the surge right after his reelection, Iraq likely would've been largely cleaned up by now.
Though that's the biggest half-truth Sen. Obama said, it certainly wasn't his only whopper:
John McCain said that George Bush's economic policies have led to "great progress" over the last seven years, and so he's promising four more years of tax cuts for CEOs and corporations who didn't need them and weren't asking for them; tax cuts that he once voted against because he said they "offended his conscience."Sen. Obama knows that Sen. McCain isn't "promising four more years of tax cuts for CEOs"; Sen. McCain is advocating making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Sen. McCain is advocating that because he knows that letting the tax cuts expire is a huge tax increase.
Let's also draw a contrast between President Bush's economic policies and the policies that Sen. McCain is advocating. Sen. McCain is committed to eliminating earmarks. He's threatening vetoes to bills with lots of wasteful spending. President Bush didn't veto an appropriations bill until after Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. Here's another portion of the speech that's worth laughing at:
We can be a party of those who only think like we do and only agree with all our positions. We can continue to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States. We can exploit the divisions that exist in our country for pure political gain.Talk about worthless tripe. If Sen. Obama is the great uniter, why did he get his head handed to him in Pennsylvania? If Sen. Obama is the great uniter, then why can't he attract blue collar workers? If he's this great uniter, why is he getting his head handed to him with so many traditional pro-Democratic demographic groups?
Or this time, we can build on the movement we've started in this campaign, a movement that's united Democrats, Independents, and Republicans; a movement of young and old, rich and poor; white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. Because one thing I know from traveling to forty-six states this campaign season is that we're not as divided as our politics suggests. We may have different stories and different backgrounds, but we hold common hopes for the future of this country.
Here's what the WSJ is reporting about last night's primary:
Pennsylvania delivered a 10-point win for Hillary Clinton last night, the same margin by which she carried demographically similar Ohio last month. Since the two states together are vital to Democratic chances in the fall, their primary results provide an important window on how Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama are faring with key voter groups after the events of the last seven weeks.The uniter 'genie' is out of the bottle as is the elitist snob genie. I don't see a plausible scenario that helps Sen. Obama put those genies back in their respective bottles now that the video and audio are bouncing around the internet is beyond me.
The circumstantial evidence is that Mr. Obama lost ground among those "bitter" rural voters he described in his infamous San Francisco comments as likely to "cling" to religion and guns.
Mr. Obama lost weekly churchgoers (who made up over a third of Pennsylvania voters) by a clear 58% to 42% margin. In Ohio last month, weekly churchgoers voted 51% to 49% for Mrs. Clinton. Catholics, a conservative social group in both states, gave Mr. Obama only 31% of their votes in Pennsylvania and only 37% in Ohio. No numbers are available for gun owners in Ohio, but in Pennsylvania gun owners turned thumbs down on Mr. Obama by 62% to 38%.
All in all, only 63% of Pennsylvania Democratic voters told exit pollsters they would be satisfied if Mr. Obama won the nomination, down from 66% who said the same thing in Ohio. This translates into an opportunity for John McCain. Ten percent of Democrats said they would sit on their hands in a McCain-Obama race, and 15% said they would vote for McCain over the Illinois senator. That's a significantly higher "grumble factor" than in a possible McCain-Clinton race, in which 6% of those voting said they would stay home and 11% said they would vote for Mr. McCain over Mrs. Clinton.
Given that Pennsylvania voted for John Kerry over George W. Bush by barely two points in 2004, the exit polls in last night's Democratic primary are an open invitation for Mr. McCain to spend lots of time and money in the state.
It takes alot to change a powerful first impression. Voters' first impression of Sen. Obama has been changed, which speaks volumes about the powerful imagery of the Pastor J-Wright tapes.
Finally, it's difficult for me to picture a scenario as to how Sen. Obama can win in Pennsylvania or Michigan if he can't repair the damage that he's done to himself with his fundraiser speech. How that damages down-ticket Democrats is another consideration in all this. Don't think that Howard Dean is only worried about whether Sen. Obama is a viable general election candidate. If Obama is seen as elitist, alot of those freshmen will start running away from Obama, putting both themselves and Sen. Obama at risk.
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:26 PM
No comments.
Still Waiting For Tarryl's Response
About three weeks ago, I sent an email to State Sen. Tarryl Clark after she held a townhall meeting with Larry Haws. During her opening statement, Tarryl asked for suggestions in resolving the budget deficit. When I got the opportunity, I opined that it started with the legislature not setting budget targets. Tarryl replied that they set an overall goal but that they didn't set departmental goals.
I've talked with King Banaian and Michael Brodkorb because they did a couple Final Word shows on the budget. Additionally, I've talked with several legislators and LA's. I also recall Gov. Pawlenty's veto letters talking about his unwillingness to sign omnibus bills without knowing how much other bills were going to cost.
After the April 5th meeting broke up, I tried talking with Tarryl . She told me she couldn't talk because she had another meeting to attend. That's when I wrote her this email:
Tarryl, Let me be perfectly clear about this: the reason why we have a budget deficit is because Minnesota's economy is slowing. Businesses have noticed all the tax increases that the DFL has passed. They simply aren't willing to put their money to work because they don't think that they'll get a good return on their money.I'm still waiting for Tarryl's response. At this point, I'm not certain that I'll get a response. She's made it clear that she didn't appreciate me asking difficult questions. Tarryl didn't appreciate me holding her accountable to past promises, either.
They've also seen the types of spending increases that the legislature passed. As you know, the legislature originally passed a budget that would've increased spending by almost 20 percent. Everyone knows that that isn't sustainable even in the best of times. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty was the adult, trimming spending increases to the 9% range.
Saturday, you asked for suggestions on how to eliminate the deficit. The point behind my question & statement was to point back to the start of the process. You said that an overall budget target was set. I joined with several prominent blogges to research that. The consensus we reached was that Gov. Pawlenty made several references to the lack of a budget target as he vetoed bills in the final week.
I wanted to talk about conducting oversight hearings before you left. I reminded you that you'd promised that at that townhall meeting in January, 2007. Why haven't those oversight hearings been held? Furthermore, why didn't we see more budget discipline last year?
Finally, I wanted to ask why the Senate DFL leadership didn't force Keith Langseth into complying with Tom Stinson's call for keeping the Capital Investment bill within the 3% range. Specifically, did you & Sen. Pogemiller stay silent because you were okay with that? Did you openly encourage him to stick with the $925 million figure? Why didn't you give a little ground on the bill? Alice Hausman was willing to. Why shouldn't you?
I look forward to hearing your replies to each of those questions.
I won't hide the fact that I'm pretty displeased with her unwillingness to answer my questions. Whether she had another meeting or not, she works for me, not that committee or commission. Frankly, I'm not certain that she had another meeting to attend. If she did, she certainly didn't mention it during the meeting. In fact, Tarryl didn't seem to be in a rush until Dan Hollenhorst and me attempted to talk with her after the meeting.
It's time that Tarryl started representing everyone in her district, not just her supporters. I'm being charitable in saying that Tarryl's constituent services needs improvement.
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:44 AM
No comments.
Arianna Huffington: High Profile Buffoon
In this morning's LA Times, Arianna Huffington explains that the media bias against Democrats isn't because of "the blowhards on AM talk radio" or Fox News. She explains that it's the "right-wing message has become a part of the news media's DNA." No, that isn't a missprint. Huffing Arianna actually thinks that the media is going too easy on Republicans. Here's part of her venom:
Certainly other White House insiders, such as William Safire and George Stephanopoulos, have made the leap to TV and print news. But this current crop remains unabashed propagandists. By embracing them, the mainstream media have revealed a mile-wide streak of self-loathing.To parrot George Will "Well."
Have they been so cowed by the Republicans' relentless branding of them as "liberal" that they feel compelled to sleep with the enemy? Make no mistake, Rove, Kristol and Snow are the enemies of honesty, truth, facts, reality and the public's right to know.
Rove's commitment to deception is legendary. His entire career as a GOP shot-caller was built on it. Kristol, Dan Quayle's chief of staff in the first Bush administration, is neoconservatism's crown prince. As editor of the Weekly Standard, he was a prime pusher of invading Iraq, and his claims about the war's progress have been discredited again and again. His reward: a column in Time magazine in 2006-07, and then this year a conservative slot on the Gray Lady's Op-Ed page. The New York Times might as well have given a weekly column to infamous fabricator Jayson Blair.
Rove, Kristol and Snow are "enemies of honesty, truth, facts, reality and the public's right to know"? Hearing the publisher of the Huffington Post make that statement is one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. If she's going to chastize someone about being "enemies of honesty, truth, facts, reality and the public's right to know", she'd better start with familiarizing herself with truth, verifiable facts and reality instead of the tripe that's published daily at Huffington Post.
Ms. Huffington didn't think twice about approving a post that wished that Tony Snow would die. Ms. Huffington gives liberal idiots like John Murtha and Russ Feingold a place to write their lies about all things Iraq and President Bush. As absurd as that portion of the op-ed is, it isn't the most surreal portion of her op-ed. This is:
The prerequisite for any TV pundit is credibility. Viewers won't agree with every opinion expressed, but they do need to trust that it's an honest opinion, not some prepackaged PR line cooked up in the White House to keep us in the dark. That was always Snow's specialty, along with a dismissive glibness that made him the poster child for the Bush administration's brand of Callous Conservatism.If the "prerequisite for any TV pundit is credibility", why doesn't she practice what she's preaching? the rules that should apply to TV pundits should apply to publishers, too, right? When John Murtha talks about Iraq on Huffington Post, there's precious little accuracy in what he's saying. Russ Feingold has talked about the Bush administration not getting a warrant before wiretapping Americans on Huffington Post. Where's the proof that that's what's happening?
Ms. Huffington whines about Mssrs. Rove, Snow and Kristol spreading the Bush administration's propaganda, which is her right under the First Amendment. Frankly, I'd love giving her a bigger megaphone to spew her nonsense. That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't embarass her for writing this propaganda-laden piece of trash.
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 24-Apr-08 08:21 PM
Arianna Huffington whining that the media is becoming a shill for the right is like whining that the PLO are becoming shills for the Israelis.
McCain and the NC Ad
Now that the North Carolina GOP advertisement is the latest buzz, John McCain weighed in against the ad . That's a shame. He should've said he didn't agree with it but that it's the NCGOP's call on whether they should run it. Instead of doing that, he tried lecturing Republicans:
McCain called the ad "offensive" and said it "degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats."Sorry, Sen. McCain, but this isn't part of your business. If the North Carolina GOP wants to tie Rev. Wright to Democratic gubernatorial candidates, then they should do so without getting lectured by an outsider, even if that outsider is the GOP presidential nominee. PERIOD.
"From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well," McCain wrote in an e-mail to Daves, asking her to pull the ad.
I'd further ask Sen. McCain what he finds offensive about the ad. The fact that it's causing Sen. Obama grief tells me that it's worth running. I'd also suggest that the Pastor J-Wright issue is important to alot of people. Just because John McCain doesn't want to hit Obama hard on the character issue doesn't mean that those issues are off limits. I suspect that the North Carolina GOP is attempting to put the Democrats' candidates for governor on the defensive for endorsing Sen. Obama. I suspect that they're trying to say that his judgment isn't solid and that these candidates have exercised poor judgment in endorsing him.
I also suspect that this ad is having great effect in North Carolina because it's a solidly red state. Pastor J-Wright's anti-American diatribes won't sit well with North Carolina voters.
That's fair game as far as I'm concerned.
Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 2:41 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 25-Apr-08 10:33 AM
I heard the Republican Party of North Carolina chickened out.
Part of their problem was at least one station called the commericial offensive even though I didn't see anything offensive.
The other thing is and maybe this is what I hope the spin is with all the attention the ad got the North Carolina Republican party achieved it's aim without actually having to spend thousands of dollars for it. Not to mention come October when Mccain might not be paying attention a new version can be aired then when it could have a similar impact. At least that's what I hope is going to happen.
Walter Hanson
Minneapoolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-08 10:46 AM
Walter, The AP reported that the NCGOP had pulled the ad. The reality is that they didn't cancel the buy; two TV stations, one in Charlotte, the other in Raleigh, have refused to run the ad.
That's censorship at it's finest.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 25-Apr-08 06:46 PM
Not only was the ad not pulled, but the NC GOP is raising money in buckets to put it on the air. It is EXACTLY the kind of ad that the Party apparatus should be airing, while the candidate keeps his ruffled shirt clean. I hope all the State parties realize what they need to do, like NC has.
My NFL Mock Draft
With Miami already having signed Jake Long, here's how I see the rest of the first round shaking out:
2. St. Louis takes Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
3. Atlanta takes Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
4. Oakland takes Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Chiefs take Chris Long, DE, UVA
6. Jets take Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
7. Patriots take Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
8. Baltimore takes Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
9. Cincinnati takes Keith Rivers, MLB, USC
10. Saints take Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, CB, Tennessee St.
11. Buffalo takes Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State
12. Denver takes Chris Williams, OT, Vanderbilt
13. Panthers take Derrick Harvey, DE, Florida
14. Chicago takes Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Fighting Illini
15. Detroit takes Aqib Talib, CB, K-State
16. Arizona takes Jeff Otah, Pittsburgh
17. Kansas City takes Branden Albert, OG, UVA
18. Houston takes Jonathan Stewart, RB, Oregon
19. Philadelphia takes Mike Jenkins, CB, South Florida
20. Tampa takes Gosder Cherilus, OT, Boston College
21. Washington takes Philip Merling, DE, Clemson
22. Dallas takes Felix Jones, RB, Arkansas
23. Pittsburgh takes Kentwan Balmer, DT, North Carolina
24. Titans take Limas Sweed, WR, Texas
25. Seattle takes Brandon Flowers, CB, Virginia Tech
26. Jacksonville takes Jerod Mayo, MLB, Tennessee
27. San Diego takes Quentin Groves, DE, Auburn
28. Dallas takes DeSean Jackson, WR, California
29. San Fransisco takes Kenny Phillips, S, Miami
30. Green bay takes Antoine Cason, CB, Arizona
31. Giants take Lawrence Jackson, DE, USC
Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 2:23 AM
No comments.
Minnesota 2020 Is a Rural Minnesota Think Tank?
That's what Paul Janda claims in this SC Times editorial . That's insulting. Mr. Janda's use of Minn2020 information is done to rip on Gov. Pawlenty and Rep. Steve Gottwalt:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, both campaigned under the banner of "accountable and responsible" government. Both also specifically opposed the creation of "new taxes" as an example of being "fiscally responsible."What a lovely myth. Minnesota 2020 is the creation of the DFL's disgraced former AG candidate Matt Entenza. 'Studies' from Minn2020 aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
As such, they respectively vetoed and voted against the transportation bill. Instead, they would have preferred to rely on the old method of shifting the burden to our local governments.
The truth is that Steve Gottwalt didn't oppose raising the gas tax by a nickel per gallon. He opposed the Transportation Bill because of all the other tax increases in the bill.
Mr. Janda then praises Larry Haws and Tarryl Clark:
Without the decisive, forward thinking, progressive action of legislators such as Sen. Tarryl Clark and Rep. Larry Haws, Minnesota's businesses and work force would have faced the long-term negative economic repercussions associated with these problems. We would have saddled our children with the results of our failed policy.Let's rewrite that with what Tarryl and Larry really believe in:
Real accountability and fiscal responsibility mean that we pay as we go rather than live on credit, and strive to leave our communities better places to live and work. I salute Clark and Haws in keeping their focus on Central Minnesota and working to make this a reality.
Real accountability and fiscal responsibility mean that we pay and pay and pay and pay as we go. Tarryl voted for every tax increase and every unsustainable spending increase last year. Larry Haws voted for most of the tax increases . He also voted for 'supersized' spending increases, too.
If we played word games, fiscal reponsibility would be the last phrase I'd think of when talking about Tarryl Clark and Larry Haws. It's obvious that Mr. Janda is a propagandist spreading his misinformation.
Originally posted Friday, April 25, 2008, revised 20-Nov 9:27 PM
No comments.
Censorship In North Carolina?
ABC's Jake Tapper just posted that the Pastor Wright ad that the NCGOP planned on running won't run, at least in a large part of the state. The people at those stations are kidding themselves if they think that this stops the so-called controversy. First, let's identify the stations:
ABC Charlotte affiliate WSOC-TV and CBS Raleigh affiliate WRAL-TV are refusing to air the North Carolina Republican Party TV ad featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an ad condemned by both the RNC and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz .Mr. Pomilla's saying that the ad has racial implications is insulting. This ad doesn't have anything to do with race except with people who think that everything is racial. This has to do with highlighting Sen. Obama's relationship with extremists. That's fair game.
"I just don't think it's appropriate to be on our air," Joe Pomilla, general manager for WSOC-TV, told The Charlotte Observer. "I think it's offensive, and I'm not real comfortable with the implications around race."
There's another question that begs asking, namely, would they have refused to run this ad if Hillary was making this buy? I suspect that they would. If they would've run this ad had it been Hillary's buy, then isn't that censorship?
It's worth questioning Democrats' objections to the ad based on this statement:
The North Carolina Democratic Party has called the ad racist. Jerry Meek, the chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party, told the Winston-Salem Journal that the ad is attempting to exploit racial bias among white voters.What's funny to me is that this just highlights Obama's relationship with a racist. Whether the ad runs or not is irrelevant at this point. It's been shown on TV. pundits have discussed it extensively. That's before considering that the ad's bouncing around the internet.
"It clearly is the case that this is part of the 'Southern strategy,'" Meek said. "It's been around for a long time. This is a page directly out of something that Jesse Helms would do."
It isn't that I think the ad is that effective. It isn't effective for the NC GOP, though I'm betting that it's put a smile on Hillary's face. I'm convinced that it's helping her there.
The biggest thing that I'd be worried about if I were directing the Obama campaign is that I'd worry that the Wright videos has decimated his ability to attract blue collar workers in Pennsylvania and Michigan. That's where Reagan Democrats came from.
Sen. Obama isn't the only one worrying about that. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Howard Dean is drinking Maalox in unprecedented quantities. I'm betting that state party chairs are worried, too. They were hoping for a huge Obama turnout helping them win extra state legislative seats as well as extra House seats for Speaker Pelosi. The bloom is off that rose. People have noticed that Sen. Obama isn't a great postpartisan healer of all things political.
People see that he's just another smooth-talking politician.
Posted Friday, April 25, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Apr-08 08:03 AM
Apparently the ad WILL run, it was never withdrawn, and the NCGOP is raking in money by the bucketful to put it on the air. That's right. It's already been seen by millions but has yet to air. Way to go, NCGOP!
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 26-Apr-08 09:37 AM
I think you missed two points for why this was an effective add
* One, a lot of conservatives who want to fight have given the North Carolina Republican party money. I'm one of them.
* Two, while at the end the chairman of the North Carolina appears on film foolishly it points out that the two Democrat candidates for governor in North Carolina had endorsed Obama and raises the question of their judgement. Part of the goal of this ad is to hurt the Democrat nominee for governor when it's determined. That is achieved!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
