|
Post by FatalDST on Feb 14, 2008 11:18:56 GMT -5
I know they are pissed!! LOL www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/14559/1355David Wilhelm, who was Bill Clinton’s campaign chairman in 1992, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. Mr. Wilhelm lives and works in Ohio, which will be a major battleground for the Democratic candidates come March 4. After Mr. Wilhelm helped him win the election, Mr. Clinton made Mr. Wilhelm the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Now a venture capitalist who focuses on neglected regions of the country, Mr. Wilhelm is also a superdelegate and said he expected the Obama campaign would want him to get on the phone to lobby other superdelegates. He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it "masterful." "He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her," Mr. Wilhelm said. "I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model" of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are at least three ways to assess this endorsement. First, he's an unpledged delegate, so it's a number in the Obama column. Second, he's in Ohio, so it's an important local endorsement, since Wilhelm is an important figure in Democratic circles. Most important, however, is the symbolism. In 1992, Bill Clinton's campaign was the innovative, cutting edge operation. DNC chair Ron Brown had rolled out "coordinated campaigns." Starting with Doug Wilder's gubernatorial win in VA, Democrats pooled resources and combined efforts on field and voter contact. The Clinton "war room" and rapid response were innovations, hitting the Republicans and the Bush campaign hard and often. And Clinton's campaign often went around the national media to reach directly in to local media markets, greatly enhancing their local coverage. Wilhelm's endorsement conveys his belief that the disciplined, innovative campaign of this cycle is not the Clinton campaign, as it was in 1992. His endorsement conveys that he believes the operation most capable of delivering the White House for Democrats is the campaign of Barack Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Feb 14, 2008 11:53:04 GMT -5
Obamas campaign is innovative for Democrats only. It's a strategy I wished the Dems would employ for years.
Every year, the Republicans battle it out for the nomination using the issues as their subject matter. Then, they switch gears and find an emotional topic to be their platform in the general election. One year its abortion, one year is gay marriage....
The Dems have learned that it's not about the issues...at least that's not what get's people to vote. What gets people to vote is emotion.
Obama has managed to excite not only the Dems but also Independents AND to a large degree, a portion of the REpublican party. People want a leader who can INSPIRE and spark self love and esteem in each citizen.
The Dems have the most eclectic membership of any major party. They needed to stop being so cerebral and start reaching out to the masses in a way that inspires them. Bill Clinton did it in 1992 and Obama is doing it today.
Hillary is just not inspiring. Sorry...she ain't.
YES WE CAN!
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 14, 2008 12:08:39 GMT -5
Her rallying speech in El Paso, Texas sounded like "I'm saying this because I have to say this" optimism. If Hillary can't make a strong showing in states with primarily Democrats voting - how is she going to beat McCain?
If Obama can break loose in Texas, if he can break through there, he has a good chance of being the nominee. The more states he wins, the more momentum he has
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 14, 2008 12:10:38 GMT -5
But he can still lose EVEN if he gets the more states right? What would happen then?
|
|
|
Post by Blu on Feb 14, 2008 12:14:56 GMT -5
Superdelegates may end up making the decision if neither can reach the amount of delegates needed. Thats when the trouble begins....
|
|
|
Post by kingdelta on Feb 14, 2008 12:15:39 GMT -5
They are campaining now to get the nomination basically. If he keeps winning all these states, the party has to (well not really but..) give him the nomination. That's when the real work begins!
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 14, 2008 12:17:52 GMT -5
But what if they dont?
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 14, 2008 12:17:59 GMT -5
...that's when the party will have to decide what's most important...appeasing the Clinton family, or getting in the White House...because if Obama wins more pledged delegates, as well as remains ahead in some of these other barometers (popular vote...electability polls...etc), but the superdelegates come in and make Clinton the nominee, they will alienate a LOT of Democratic voters. Superdelegates may end up making the decision if neither can reach the amount of delegates needed. Thats when the trouble begins....
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Feb 14, 2008 12:18:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Blu on Feb 14, 2008 12:32:51 GMT -5
I agree. These Superdelegates better listen to the people they represent or there is going to be TROUBLE, TROUBLE... ...that's when the party will have to decide what's most important...appeasing the Clinton family, or getting in the White House...because if Obama wins more pledged delegates, as well as remains ahead in some of these other barometers (popular vote...electability polls...etc), but the superdelegates come in and make Clinton the nominee, they will alienate a LOT of Democratic voters. Superdelegates may end up making the decision if neither can reach the amount of delegates needed. Thats when the trouble begins....
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 14, 2008 12:37:25 GMT -5
I think it would be the worst mistake in the world for the Super Delegates to tip the balance in Hillary's favor if Obama has more pledged delegates. I think it would disenchant alot of people (I would be one of them)
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 14, 2008 12:39:17 GMT -5
I agree wholeheartedly! I just don't believe in the Democratic Party's ability to make prudent decisions anymore after seeing how they've operated over the last 8-10 years. I think it would be the worst mistake in the world for the Super Delegates to tip the balance in Hillary's favor if Obama has more pledged delegates. I think it would disenchant alot of people (I would be one of them)
|
|
|
Post by Blu on Feb 14, 2008 12:40:12 GMT -5
I'm curious to see if their going to try and give Hilary the Florida and Michigan Delegates. Thats another riot waiting to happen
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 14, 2008 12:46:53 GMT -5
Yeah...I'm curious to see how that plays out as well. If they mess around and just give her the delegates from the primaries already held in states where she was either the ONLY one campaigning, or the only one on the ballot, that's a riot waiting to happen to! I think they should leave both states as-is...they KNEW when they agreed to move their primaries that their delegates wouldn't count as a result...it's BS to make exceptions now. If they DO decide to make those states' delegates count, they would have to hold new elections with each candidate having adequate time to campaign to avoid another riot situation. I'm curious to see if their going to try and give Hilary the Florida and Michigan Delegates. Thats another riot waiting to happen
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 14, 2008 12:46:54 GMT -5
There'd be no fair way to do it. Neither Edwards nor Obama were even on the ballot in Michigan. If anything she should be punished for not withdrawing her name from the ballot like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 14, 2008 12:55:16 GMT -5
Oh lawd, please not another riot. But, if what Nupey asked does happen, all I can say is Jesus help us.
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 14, 2008 12:58:03 GMT -5
Juicy note this day, if it happens, I'm smitting EVERYONE.
<----Has already been smitting those that said they might vote for hillary
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 14, 2008 13:21:26 GMT -5
You can smite, I'mma be somewhere under one of my beds at home hiding, lol!
Better yet, my attic, with some bottle water and can food!
|
|
|
Post by Blu on Feb 14, 2008 13:26:05 GMT -5
I think we will have to worry about alot more that being smited if that happens lol Juicy note this day, if it happens, I'm smitting EVERYONE. <----Has already been smitting those that said they might vote for hillary
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 19, 2008 11:25:46 GMT -5
I don't think there will be riots. Sadly I don't. I think far too many people lack actual concern about the political process and how it affects us/them. Hell, I'm not as diligent as I think I should be concerning the political process, understanding the complexity of the superdelegates, etc. In fact, unti Super Tuesday, I thought that both parties held winner take all primaries. Luckily for Obama, that's not the case.
I think that people will complain and perhaps even have healthy debate, but by no means do I think the "troops will be rallied."
I do think it's important that at this point, seeing that this may come down to the Superdelegates, we as Average Joe citizens (or whatever power/authority you may have in your life) begin writing our Representatives, Senators, Governors, etc who are superdelegates. I've sent off a letter to Gov. Bredesen, Rep Tanner and Cohen. I encourage you to do the same.
|
|