There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’bama 🙂
Categories
Tag: Pennsylvania for Change
So all eyes are on PA, at least in the media’s eyes anyway… We all are too well aware of the fact that the race will continue after that, and that is something Obama’s campaign seems to be doing this week, as he should pulling a win out in Indiana would be a big blow to Clinton and is possible so I say go for it. His campaign also has lowered expectations here in PA, the polls haven’t been favorable showing anywhere from a 14-20 point lead for Senator Clinton, Obama himself said that if he can pull within 10% on primary day he would see that as a win for his campaign… We’re also told by the pundidts how this state is Hillary’s Country, with the Major Catholic background of the state and white blue collar workers… yada yada yada… One person even said PA is more like OH than OH is… That in itself has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard… And while yes in the historical sence these pundits are right… They also seemed to have noticed that things have changed in PA. Major manufactoring here in this state for the most part has come and gone, while States like OH and MI are still behind in terms of their economy adapting to change… PA actually has been ahead of the curve (well at least their curve)… PA is much more liberal than OH is, one only has to look at the last two presidential contests to see that… OH went to Bush twice, PA went to Gore then Kerry… Although it was close it still shows that this state has become blue-er over time we haven’t been red since since 1988 for Bush I. There also been an explosion of afluent liberal minded people in the suburbs of Phl and the Lehigh Valley and also in South Central PA (Lancaser Co stretching back to the state’s capital in Harrisburg), also in terms of college areas there are alot of young voters (which have favored Obama) in area’s around Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and of course in Centre Count there is Penn State’s Main campus…
With all that said there are some things going against Obama here besides the polls. 1) largest Catholic Population in the country (Clinton has shown strength with these people) 2) I hate to say it but in my mind I worry that there is failry large problem with racism in this state, one thats under the surface but in the minds of many people… (mainly in the “alabama” middle of PA) 3) And this is a big one, the state Democratic party is behind Senetor Clinton so she can just take her Clinton machine and plug right in.
Those are some imposing problems but not impossible to overcome, the 3rd one many would think is more or less a nail in the coffin, but one only has to look to our Governor Ed Rendell to see that it is possible to not have that machine behind you. In 2002 he was up against Bob Casey in the democratic primary for the Governor spot on the democratic ticket. The states democrtaic party was beind Casey and Rendell was behind in the polls, indeed Rendell only won only 10 out of 67 counties in the state but it was still an overwhelming win for him, what he did was run up the score where he won. A little background…
The 2002 Pennsylvania gubernatorial slugfest was a battle between two titans of the Democratic Party. It pitted the son and heir apparent of the former Governor Casey against the liberal, urban, upstart Rendell. Casey (Clinton?) was the prohibitive favorite with deep roots in state politics, a political brand name second to none in Pennsylvania (the advantage of his own and his father’s victories), and widespread Democratic Party establishment support. Rendell (Obama?) was a politician of vague and uncertain outline to a majority of state voters, a brash upstart from a city many Pennsylvanians regarded as the citadel of sin and corruption.
Yet in the end and contrary to most expectations, Rendell scored an impressive victory beating Casey by some 150,000 votes. How he did it is of more than passing curiosity. In fact if Obama is going to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania, he must follow closely the Rendell electoral roadmap hacked out in 2002.
Rendell did it by accomplishing three things:
Massive Concentration of Effort–Pennsylvania has 67 counties, and Rendell managed to lose 57 of them. But the counties he won were the big counties, and he won them big, for a 54 to 46 statewide victory. Key was the impressive percentages he recorded in Philadelphia and the four suburban counties. He rolled up 75% in Philadelphia and more than 80% in the suburbs. Rendell ended with 300,000 votes in the Southeast, twice his necessary statewide margin.
Iron Control of the Swing Vote–Rendell topped off Philly and the suburbs by winning the Lehigh Valley and much of the southcentral part of the state, capturing 60% or more in many of those counties. Rendell’s regional dominance in eastern Pennsylvania was critical. Nine of the ten counties he won were east of the Susquehanna.
Managed Statewide Turnout–Finally Rendell also was able to turnout a higher percentage of Democratic voters in the Southeast than voted in the Southwest. This was accomplished in part by increasing Democratic registration–including luring some Republicans across party lines, but mostly by exciting the voters in the Philadelphia TV market that overwhelmingly favored his candidacy.
Measured against Rendell’s 2002 template, Obama’s chances are not unpromising. He is positioned to emulate the Rendell strategy to a greater extent than is generally recognized. Essentially he must win the same ten counties Rendell won in 2002, while reducing Clinton’s margins in her strongholds. Currently he leads in Philly and will likely win the city decisively, making the suburbs a major battleground. The Democratic voters there largely mirror the upscale, affluent voters Obama has been attracting nationally: they are the most liberal in the state, strongly oppose the Iraq War, and have a low regard for President Bush. For insurance Obama needs to join the Philadelphia suburbs to the two pivotal swing areas, the Lehigh Valley and Southcentral, where the Democrats are moderate to liberal and where he currently polls well against Senator Clinton. Beyond this managing turnout will be crucial for him.
Click this link for larger image: http://i28.tinypic.com/2n9xd2q.jpg
Rendell in 2002 was able to turnout a higher percentage of Democratic voters in the Southeast than voted in the Southwest. This is central to any Obama victory. To win he must push his turnout higher in the Southeast. Here enthusiasm and Obama volunteers could make a big difference. The Obama campaign has already begun a major voter registration drive to add Democrats to the roles. The current Democratic pickup is 65,000, most of whom will be Obama voters.
The stakes in Pennsylvania are high for both candidates–but perhaps highest for Obama. A Pennsylvania victory virtually assures him the nomination. It also would help inoculate him against an unfavorable resolution (for him) to the sputtering messes in Michigan and Florida. And a Pennsylvania victory gives the lie to the argument Obama can’t win in an Electoral College battleground state.
After the Democrat Foster’s win in Illinois, Democratic leaders are beginning to evaluate the length and strength of Barack Obama’s coattails.
From “The Hill”
by Alexander Bolton
Democratic lawmakers are becoming persuaded that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have a more positive impact on other Democrats on the November ballot than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Obama’s advantage over Clinton would be most pronounced in the Southern and Western states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004, say lawmakers interviewed by The Hill. In total, 32 members of Congress from these “red states” have endorsed Obama. Twenty-two lawmakers from those states have backed Clinton.
Obama will “bring new people into the process in Southern states, there’s no question about it,” said Rep. James Clyburn, the House Democratic whip from South Carolina. “In these Southern states he’s bringing out more people, young people, African-Americans. They’re being energized by him.”
Clyburn, who has stayed neutral in the primary, said Obama at the top of the ticket would “certainly” do more to help other Democratic candidates, citing South Carolina and Mississippi specifically.
Bush won both South Carolina and Mississippi by nearly 20 points.
A Southern House Democrat who faces a difficult reelection this year said Obama “has the potential to bring more folks to the polls and swell the ranks of Democrats.” The lawmaker, who has not endorsed either candidate, declined to speak on the record because Clinton may become the nominee.
Lawmakers have begun looking more closely at how the nominee may affect their own reelections or influence races in their states. Sensing this, Obama supporters have pushed their colleagues to consider how Obama and Clinton would impact Democratic candidates in November.
Thanks to onegreatamericancountry for sending us the video he created.
Here is the link to his other Youtube videos:
have fun watching!
Categories
Spying and FISA and Telecom Immunity
This is why we need accountability and transparency in the White House, the very values and qualities that Barack Obama has.
From the Washington Post online
Barack Obama left the campaign trial to vote “Ney” on the most recent Senate version of FISA. His opponent skipped out on the vote and continued her campaign. Barack Obama shows good judgement.
Categories
Out of Many, One
Today, Barack Obama will take back the delegate difference between him and Hillary Clinton. Hillary will need to win 64% of the vote in each remaining State in order to win the nomination. Barack Obama only needs 46% of the vote.
There is no place in the Democratic Party for racist comments. Even the European press is discussing Geraldine’s remarks.
h/t Europeanview for the link.
Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrats’ 1984 vice-presidential nominee and an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, has triggered the latest campaign firestorm by saying Barack Obama has been successful only because he is a black man.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ms Ferraro told the dailybreeze.com political website. She added: “And if he was a woman (of any colour) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
The Obama campaign called the remarks “outrageous and offensive.” They emerged on the day of the Mississippi primary, where Mr Obama is heavily favoured because the majority of the state’s Democratic voters are African American.
Susan Rice, Mr Obama’s foreign policy adviser, said: “I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications…then she ought to repudiate this comment.”
Last week another foreign policy adviser to Mr Obama, Samantha Power, was forced to quit his campaign after calling Mrs Clinton a “monster”. Aides to the Illinois senator said Ms Ferraro’s comments were “far worse”.
Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman, said of Ms Ferraro: “We disagree with her.” Ms Ferraro was chosen by Walter Mondale as his running mate in 1984, the only women to represent a major US political party on a presidential ticket. They lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior.
The latest controversy involving Mr Obama’s race came the day after John McCain, the Republican nominee, was forced once again to denounce remarks by a supporter that focused on the Illinois senator’s middle name of “Hussein”.
Steve King, a Republican Iowa congressman, said on Friday that terrorists will be “dancing in the streets” if Mr Obama is elected president.
Mr King added, in comments to a radio station: “When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected president of the United States – I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?
“I will tell you that of he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this war on terror.”
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for Mr McCain, said: “The senator rejects the type of politics that degrades our civics, and this campaign will be about the future of our country.” She said that Mr McCain “could not be clearer on how he views these types of comments, and obviously that view extends to Congressman King’s statements.”
Mr McCain has twice in recent weeks been forced to disavow remarks by supporters who implied Mr Obama is a Muslim. The Illinois senator’s Kenyan father was Muslim, but not religious. He left the family when his son was two. Mr Obama is a Christian and has never been Muslim.
Meanwhile, Mr Obama for the first time directly accused the Clinton campaign of leaking last month a photograph of him wearing traditional Somali dress – including a turban – that he donned during a 2006 visit to the country.
He had previously downplayed the controversy and in a debate said he took Mrs Clinton at her word that as far as she knew the photographs were not leaked by her campaign.
He told a rally in Mississippi: “When your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m travelling overseas to make people afraid, that’s not real change.”
The day after Mr Obama accused Mrs Clinton of trying to “hoodwink” voters with suggestions that he could be her running mate, he also went after her on her claims to have greater foreign policy experience.
His campaign released a memo saying: “There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed ‘the Commander-in-Chief test’…Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.”
Organizing for Change 
