Obama's Campaign Manager Makes The Case

In a conference call with reporters today, Barack Obama's campaign manager gave a detailed brief for Obama's viability in Iowa and the primaries through Jan. 5. He spent considerably time gently eviscerating (thanks, Mark Leibovich, for the phrase) John Edwards's chances after Iowa, contending that he has no organization to speak of in most of the states following Iowa and is severely limited as to what he can raise and spend.

The timing of the call isn't unusual, but some more skeptical wags will suggest that Plouffe might have been trying to pre-but the campaign's nagging snese that the Des Moines Register poll out tonight may include unfavorable news for Obama. (Does it? I have no idea.)

Plouffe asserted that Obama "has the dominant field organization in Iowa" and is well positioned to win "with even the most aggressive turnout models." And Obama is strong outside the cities, Plouffe said. "We believe we're going to be viable in every county, in every precinct."

Internal research, Plouffe said, showed that Obama is the strongest second choice preference among those Democrats most likely to caucus.

Plouffe was forward looking. On the Feb. 5:

"Sen. Edwards will have no operation to speak of in the Feb. 5 states. I believe Sen. Clinton has political or field organizations in five or six of those states. We have, I believe, 17 of the 22 states covered."

## Plouffe said his campaign number crunchers estimate that John Edwards, who has accepted federal financing and its attendent caps, can spend only $17M more between now and Democratic National Convention.

## He insinuated that the campaign's internal polling shows Obama leading in New Hampshire.

## Plouffe said that the campaign estimates turnout among African Americans in South Carolina will be well above 50%. "We don't think there's any way it's going to slip below 50," he said, referring to public polls suggesting a black voter turnout of less than 45%.

## "We believe that by Feb 6., we'll be turning our attention to the general election."

A power point presentation accompanied Plouffe's: here are the most interesting slides:

Comments

it seems Obama has no reason to vote for him.

which is it.. does Edwards have too much outside money or not enough.

I guess people are realizing negotiating with corporations like Cigna is stupid and prefer Edwards over Obama as their representative

Posted by Outside the Beltway | December 31, 2007 10:44 AM

Obviously the sense we all get is that Edwards has the momentum in Iowa, Hillary to a slower extent and Obama probably will have bad news tonight.
However, and I don't want to sound like a crazy Obama-boy, but is it possible that the students and youth that he is counting on are still away for the holidays and only coming back on the 2nd and are therefore not counted in those polls ?
Mind you, that's a big problem with his strategy - there is no way to know if they will come back at all - but can't it be possible that those numbers may make a difference ? And that in a caucus environment their enthusiasm could woo a lot of people in their group when they reorganize ? Or then maybe they will antagonize the older caucus-goer ?

Posted by Benjamin | December 31, 2007 10:47 AM

Have you been paying attention?There's no way in hell HRC can win the GE. First, half of the electorate is already dead set against her. Second, she can kiss the black vote goodbye because of the racist, stereotypical slurs she threw at Obama. She could have at least shown some respect to a sitting senator, who by all objective accounts, has done better legislative than she has.It would have been ok to go after his record, but for her to send her henchmen out there to denigrate him is beyond the pale.Black people have had enough of this B.S. and should not put up with it anymore. The democratic party big wigs want to shove HRC down our throats by trashing the same people they usually beg for votes. They pretty much take the black vote for granted. They should be taught a lesson once and for all: in case HRC or JE is the nominee, blacks should not take part in the elections. The most regrettable thing is none of the race peddlers out there came out to even defend Obama. If those slurs came from the republican side, there would be an outrage. The moral of the story is: Only democrats should be allowed to be racist.I truly hope that HRC or JE will not be short 1 vote in the GE, if either is the nominee. They've already lost mine.

Posted by Joseph Pierre | December 31, 2007 10:48 AM

The Iowa caucus IS NOT an election in the traditional sense of American (Australian?) balloting.

It's a house by house, county by county, negotiation for a candidate.

Anything can happen.
Watch the household turnout.
The weather will play more of a role than the pundits and polls.

If Obama can duplicate his "crowd" turnout into a caucus turnout, he'll take off.

Posted by Jay | December 31, 2007 11:12 AM

Obama is the only top Democratic candidate who strongly opposed the Iraq war before it started, has an actual legislative record of fighting corporate lobbyists and has the natural ability and inclination to bring Democrats, Republicans and Independents together who may not agree on the size and shape of our government but do agree our government should be better, more transparent, more ethical and more fair. That is our common ground we need to unite around to end an era of divisive politics and take back our country from corporate special interests.

Obama has been a public servant all his life, from a community organizer in the rough South Side of Chicago, to a civil rights lawyer, US Constitutional Law Professor, Illinois State Senator and US Senator. Obama turned down big Wall Street offers after graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and president of the Harvard Law Review to return to Chicago and practice Civil Rights law and to teach US Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq, close Guantanamo Bay, end divisive politics and restore our Constitution and trust in America.

Posted by Todd Smyth | December 31, 2007 11:14 AM

Looks like Ovbama is creating a post-Iowa firewall.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 31, 2007 11:14 AM

Barack Obama for President.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by PulSamsara | December 31, 2007 11:29 AM

The polls only count people with land line telephones, which is why Obama does so much better on Internet polling which accounts for the 23 million eligible voters who have never owned a land line phone. (It was about 8 million in 2004). So worst case, if all of that is youth, which shows up to vote in the low 30%, that's still nearly 8 million likely voters that are completly off the pollster radar. Hopefully a lot of them are in Iowa. Obama also has a slice of Republicans switching over to caucus for him as well as the Independents.

Posted by Todd Smyth | December 31, 2007 11:29 AM

It seems that many of these polls track "likely" caucus goers, and Obama is doing well with them against his competitors. What the polls seem to be leaving out is those that never attended a caucus (correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, they are not registering all the progress Obama has made building a base of first-time caucus goers. If he is successful among first-timers, that could put him over the top by a good margin.

In the end, we don't know what is going to happen. Even if people have caucused before, Iowans change their minds all the time, so you don't know if a previous caucus goer who says they're going to caucus for you will show up and, if they do, are you still their first pick?

Iowa is really difficult to poll. Right before the Iowa caucus in 2004 Dean and Gebhardt still lead the polls in the high/mid 20's, with Kerry and Dean trailing at between 5-10% (in some polls in the mid teens). On caucus night, Kerry won 37% of the vote and Edwards came in 2nd with 32%. Iowa is a funny state. No one knows what's really going to happen.

Posted by Ava | December 31, 2007 11:35 AM

I meant to say that Kerry and Edwards were trailing before the Iowa caucus, not Kerry and Dean.

Posted by Ava | December 31, 2007 11:37 AM

The fact that Obama's been whining about Edwards's outside support from union lead groups completely undercuts his own money centric argument.

Posted by AJ | December 31, 2007 11:39 AM

Obama and his employees should not get away with such loose arguement. Any intellectual should point out a few things.

1) They are cherry picking one poll - the 2 week old Zogby poll - to make their case on the electability issue. There have also been polls showing Edwards fairing best, and polls showing Clinton doing better.

2) They ignore the states in favor of the national numbers when talking about electability. This is because recent polling ha shown that Clinton seems to be the only one who puts certain states - like Virginia - into play. Recent polling also shows Obama doesn't fair well in Minnesota. Ohio is a weakness for him as well.

3) This crowd stuff is weak. Think Howard Dean here when we talk crowd size. Dean drew big crowds. Heck Bill Richardson drew 400 or 500 the other night as reported by 'First Read'. Does that mean he is going to win?

4) Lastly, independent voters don't decide who the Democratic nominee is.

Obama is going to be suffering from "Joementum" come Friday morning if this is the best he and his campaign can do.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | December 31, 2007 11:41 AM

Polls don't track the youth vote accurately, nor do they track first time caucus goers, undecideds or independents/republicans who can switch over on the day of the caucus in Iowa.
That is why David Yepsen still has egg on his face for declaring that Dean would win the day of the Iowa caucus in 2004.

I do see upward movement with Edwards but mostly its media hype because he was shut out for the month of Nov/Dec because of Clinton's mudslinging at Obama. The national media didn't start playing attention to Edwards again until John Trippi had that fight with Mark Penn on Chris Mathews.

Actually, I think Obama has pulled off an amazing thing, he has positioned himself as the center not only in the Democratic party but in American politics (that is why he pulls more Independents and Republicans who are disappointed in Bush). Clinton who thought she was been centrist, is more to the right and Edwards is flanking Obama to the left. The left is vocal but I don't know if this will really translate into votes. Populism and anger only gets you so far. Edwards has the union in Iowa financing the 527's which is causing some rank and file members infighting.

As I said, there are too many variables and the polls are all over the place. Who wins Iowa is going to depend on weather and who has the best get out the vote ground organization. With this in mind, I still give the edge to Obama.

Posted by sonya | December 31, 2007 11:56 AM

I still remember what it felt like when Dukakis had a 17% lead on Bush according to the polls - before Lee Atwater et al went to work on him.

The Republicans seem to me to prefer Obama as the opponent they want to run against - I think they have ideas how to take him down.

Posted by Horselover Fat | December 31, 2007 12:10 PM

horselover, it's been reported that the Republicans establishment fear Obama so much, because rank and file members aren't threaten of him, some will vote for him and he wins a majority of the Independent votes which usually has gone to Republicans. Operatives have tried to dig up stuff and the only thing they have is the Muslim smear and race baiting. Republicans think Edwards is a flip floping, hedge fund manager lefist and they have a whole bunch of stuff on Clinton especially Bill's post election trysts.

Posted by sonya, atlanta, ga | December 31, 2007 12:40 PM

I am a strong Obama supporter, despite the fact that as a greencard holder I can not vote in this country. I admit that my nerves are lying blank. My feeling is that Edwards has a shot at winning Iowa, but after that his campaign will get stuck.
My hope though is that Obama comes out of the Iowa caucus with a huge lead.
Where does this hope come from? It comes from the numbers of crowds he is consistently drawing. It comes from knowing that his grass roots in Iowa (and other states) are underestimated. It comes from the fact, that Obama draw first time voters, independant and republicans like no other candidate.
If Obama wins Iowa, he is unstoppable.

Posted by Petra | December 31, 2007 12:42 PM

To a great extent the 'Edwards surge' is a result of media hype, just as the Clinton inevitability' was a mirage of media hype. The fact that this hype is coming just before the caucus is a little unfortunate for Obama, but in the the end it won't mean as much as the press are predicting: Iowans don't like an angry man, and they don't like campaign shenanigans, which the media is hyping again in the case of the 527s. Those who are on the fence and are thinking carefully know that Edwards has no long term viability, and are adamantly agains Clinton. I believe in the caucus they will side with Obama and we will see a victory.

Posted by katharine | December 31, 2007 1:23 PM

"pre-but?"

Noooooo! Noooooooooooo!

We do not "pre-pone." This is no "updation."

And we do NOT "pre-but."

Posted by Stephen | December 31, 2007 1:23 PM

The campaign manager's words don't hold water. May I remind everyone that this is an election, not an auction. John Edwards gives people solid reasons to willingly come out and vote--health care, education, Iraq, and jobs.

Most other candidates you have to push, push, push the people to come out to vote for, so you need much more money and hire buses/pay wages to bring in manpower.

John Edwards has spent a tiny fraction of money compared with other candidates in Iowa, yet he leads. He has a tiny fraction of Hillary's and Obama's money, yet 527 ads magically emerge from the woodwork for him. His volunteers materialize within Iowa and from across the country, paying their own way.

Posted by CyberCitizen | December 31, 2007 1:38 PM

Iowans should remember that Obama has been
consistently pro ethanol production. Clinton voted against ethanol production, but has since switched her position.

Posted by Mr. Unite Us | December 31, 2007 1:47 PM

Iowans should remember that Obama has been
consistently pro ethanol production.

One more reason to vote against him. The economic and environmental ramifications of government-supported ethanol production are dire.

Posted by Green | December 31, 2007 1:52 PM

You are all losers,like me.

HRC/Her Majesty will win. Think of Shaheen; Think of Bill on Rose and Bill chasing Register female editors; Think of Penn on Hardball; Think of Kerrey endorsement of HRC.

All points to these 3 items:

- Obama is a muslim.
- Obama sells drugs.
- Obama is a risky choice for America.

It is obvious. During those mid-Dec. times, 8% of voters thought that these 3 items were true.

Get it? Now we are late Dec. early Jan. This number is closer to 20%.

Who is the biggest loser? The US Press. The freedom of press is down the toilet.

No one in the Press had the courage to call Clinton on their bad behavior.

No one. No one. No one.

Posted by eorse | December 31, 2007 1:55 PM

Let's counter this IGNORANT Obama campaign talking point about John Edwards.

This is what will happen, and when it comes to these things, I'm almost always right.

If John Edwards wins Iowa, Clinton and Obama will both "TANK" in New Hampshire, and Edwards will surge there and win NH, and then it's basically guaranteed that Nevada labor unions will rally to him and he'll easily take Nevada, and SC will come back around to their "hometown boy" (John Edwards).

In the meanwhile, after an Iowa win, money will pour into John Edwards' campaign from MANY FORMER BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTERS, as well as John Edwards' supporters and other Democrats out there. The liberal media (online blogs and magazines like "THE NATION", and AirAmericaRadio) will begin saying it's time to rally behind John Edwards and dump Obama so that all of that "anti-Clinton" vote is behind one candidate.

Edwards will easily raise around $15 million in the few weeks, and will have more than enough money for the long haul, limitations or not.

The Obama campaign, KNOWS, that this is what will happen, which is why they preemptively started this "VOTE EDWARDS, GET HILLARY" crap.

They think they're smart, but I'm smarter.

Posted by framecop | December 31, 2007 2:04 PM

Isn't Edwards limited in the amount of money he can raise because he has already agreed and have been receiving public funding?

Posted by sonya | December 31, 2007 2:09 PM

This is a lie:

Obama is the only top Democratic candidate who strongly opposed the Iraq war before it started...

Posted by Todd Smyth | December 31, 2007 11:14 AM

I know Obama supporters believe that they have a winning issue here, but they are fooling themselves.

First of all, when asked early in his Senate campaign whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War Resolution that he now criticizes other Democrats for supporting, Obama said "I DON'T KNOW." Doesn't sound like "STRONG" opposition to me.

Secondly, Barack Obama got to the U.S. Senate in 2005, and proceeded to vote for EVERY SINGLE IRAQ WAR FUNDING BILL that was set before him. Bush wanted money to CONTINUE the war in Iraq, and Obama gave it to him. Obama BOUGHT OWNERSHIP of the mess in Iraq, as much as the other candidates did for voting to begin it. What's even worse is that when Obama got to the Senate in 2005, Iraq was already a bloody mess, yet he voted to CONTINUE a war that he claimed to be against? If you OPPOSE something, you don't keep funding its continuation.

The only Democrat who has always been against the Iraq war in Dennis Kucinich because he voted AGAINST the resolution to start it, and he voted AGAINST funding it.

Obama voted to fund Iraq from 2005 until Spring 2007, when he saw that other candidates (Edwards and Kucinich) were about to start talking about Democrats continuously funding Bush's failed policy in Iraq.

Third, and lastly, Barack Obama voted against the 2006 Kerry amendment that was intended to force Bush's hand to end the war. If Obama was so against the Iraq war, then why didn't he VOTE TO END IT? I believe that was a Kerry-Feingold amendment.

Obama voted 100% just like Hillary Clinton on Iraq from his first day in the Senate. At least John Edwards admits his mistake.

Obama doesn't think it was a mistake to keep giving Bush money to keep screwing up in Iraq.

Posted by framecop | December 31, 2007 2:16 PM

This is a lie:

Obama is the only top Democratic candidate who strongly opposed the Iraq war before it started...
Posted by Todd Smyth | December 31, 2007 11:14 AM

I know Obama supporters believe that they have a winning issue here, but they are fooling themselves.

First of all, when asked early in his Senate campaign whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War Resolution that he now criticizes other Democrats for supporting, Obama said "I DON'T KNOW." Doesn't sound like "STRONG" opposition to me.

Secondly, Barack Obama got to the U.S. Senate in 2005, and proceeded to vote for EVERY SINGLE IRAQ WAR FUNDING BILL that was set before him. Bush wanted money to CONTINUE the war in Iraq, and Obama gave it to him. Obama BOUGHT OWNERSHIP of the mess in Iraq, as much as the other candidates did for voting to begin it. What's even worse is that when Obama got to the Senate in 2005, Iraq was already a bloody mess, yet he voted to CONTINUE a war that he claimed to be against? If you OPPOSE something, you don't keep funding its continuation.

The only Democrat who has always been against the Iraq war in Dennis Kucinich because he voted AGAINST the resolution to start it, and he voted AGAINST funding it.

Obama voted to fund Iraq from 2005 until Spring 2007, when he saw that other candidates (Edwards and Kucinich) were about to start talking about Democrats continuously funding Bush's failed policy in Iraq.

Third, and lastly, Barack Obama voted against the 2006 Kerry amendment that was intended to force Bush's hand to end the war. If Obama was so against the Iraq war, then why didn't he VOTE TO END IT? I believe that was a Kerry-Feingold amendment.

Obama voted 100% just like Hillary Clinton on Iraq from his first day in the Senate. At least John Edwards admits his mistake.

Obama doesn't think it was a mistake to keep giving Bush money to keep screwing up in Iraq.

Posted by framecop | December 31, 2007 2:19 PM

Reading all of the above comments, I cannot help but note the transparent slickness of the Clinton enthusiasts (Obama = "Jomentum") and the shrillness of the Edwards supporters.

Really folks, we need to move forward as Democrats and as a nation. I sincerely believe that Barack Obama can win in the general election and do so without the nasty partisanship and false slickness that continues to wound us as a nation. We have a historic opportuntiy before us.

Posted by Moderate Dave | December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

Framecop, just a hint, describing an argument made by experienced professionals based on polling data as ignorant (in all caps!) and going on to describe a scenario based entirely on speculation and a few leaps of faith doesn't make that strong of a rebuttal. (I must admit, however, your assertion, "They think they're smart, but I'm smarter," nearly persuaded me. I am humbled in the face your rocket surgery-esque intelligence.)

First, any surge from Iowa for either Obama or Edwards going into NH is very questionable. Sure, Kerry benefited in 2004 from his victory there, but in retrospect Dean's implosion seemed to be a larger factor: once Dean placed third in Iowa and had "the scream" dominate the airwaves for a week, the supposedly unbeatable front-runner was seen as nothing more than a paper tiger. Since neither Obama nor Edwards is seen as a prohibitive favorite in Iowa, a decent second or even third place performance (i.e., within five points of first) could realistically be spun by either campaign as a solid support. Both can argue that they are the underdogs and the strongest candidates in Iowa (remember, Edwards has essentially lived there since 2006, and Obama's financial and organizational advantage is noteworthy). I get the hunch Iowa, barring a flame out by any of the top three, shouldn't change much.

From what I have heard, Edwards' organizations in NH and SC are pretty bare-bones compared to Obama's, and the "hometown boy's" inability to gain much traction in SC suggests the ride won't be as easy as the scenario you proposed. NV seems like an obvious win for JE, however.

Also, remember that that most Obama donors contribute to him because of his candidacy and not because he is the anti-Hillary or a prohibitive front-runner. We had the option to donate to Edwards well before Obama entered the race, and he hasn't persuaded most of us. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for him in the general if he's our nominee (unlike the case if HRC is our nominee), but I wouldn't contribute to him until Obama is out of the race. I can't see either one bowing out before Feb. 5, and I imagine Edwards will end up relying on AFSCME et al quite a bit.

Posted by Sam | December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

I don't believe Edwards can compete after Iowa, even if he wins there. I think his campaign can explain away a loss in New Hampshire, which hasn't been a good primary for southerners, but it won't be able to explain away the bad loss that's coming in South Carolina.

He might hang on until tsunami Tuesday, but it will be clear his campaign is over, at a time when he'd need super-human fundraising and organization to make up for the headstart Obama and Clinton have in the bigger states that follow soon after.

I'm pretty sure we're down to just Obama having the ability to beat Clinton for the nomination, and Obama's margin for error is much smaller than Clinton's.

I'm not sure if its true, but I understand the analysis of some that a Clinton win in Iowa means game over. An Obama win in Iowa provides momentum which probably will also lead to wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina. This sets up a battle royale on Feb. 5. If I was in Iowa and undecided, I'd probably caucus for Obama just to keep the option open. That gives a much larger number of party members from other states another month to observe the respective campaigns.

But then I'm not undecided (decided for myself Obama was the way to go a while back, and electability was a big factor for me - so guess I'm not completely objective here).

Posted by Paul | December 31, 2007 3:20 PM

The only clear thing to me is that I don't trust Obama. He is fooling crowds who get easily excited and become blind to the emptiness of his agenda. He is surely a good representative for African Americans but will never be capable to unite the nation (whatever unite may mean). Americans are practical people, I cannot imagine you can feed and fool them with big words for too long.

Although I support Hillary, I don't mind if Edwards win Iowa, but I have doubts he can go all the way to nomination.

Posted by Mati | December 31, 2007 4:06 PM

This is the argument the Obama Campaign should have made months ago AFTER it pulled out of Iowa. They should have just let John Edwards have the state and focus on South Carolina. No candidate of color should be compelled to compete in one of the most non-diverse states in the country, and that includes NH as well. There is no way in hell that John Edwards can win the nomination; he is not going to pull any measurable percentage of African American, Latino or female votes from Senator Clinton. Obama could have merely shrugged off an Edwards win by saying its a reward for living in the state for four years. Now, he's in a no win situation. Losing Iowa will be the death knell fo his campaign and all guarantee the nomination to Clinton. I just have to decide if I want to make my last recurring monthly donation to the Obama Campaign before or after the Caucus. I'm relucant to kick him while he's down, but I don't like putting my money down on a guranteed losing bet.

Posted by Dee | December 31, 2007 4:17 PM

The slides are inaccurate.

Independent polls of battleground states show that Hillary would wipe out any Republican challenger in the electoral college, except McCain which is a dead heat.

Obama would get waxed by McCain or Rudy.

Posted by Richard | December 31, 2007 5:32 PM

This is trully a deadheat by the top three candidates. Obama would have won it in the first round, based on his stand against lobbyists and special interests, but for the fact that even Iowa farmers have special interests that they will seek to protect via their their first round of voting.

But.. 'damn the other groups that get special treatment'.. thinking, by the caucus goers, will be the determining factor in the outcome of the second round of caucasing.

Robert Evans
http://barcamp.pbwiki.com/DocuDramaBayArea

Posted by Robert Evans | December 31, 2007 6:12 PM

Plouffe sounds a little freaked. Laying the groundwork for the big "Okay, so we didn't win IA, but we're going to be unstoppable later." Plouffe obviously has an inkling Edwards will win IA. He is praying Obama is not third.

Regarding the most common misstatements made by other posters:

(1) The "organization rules in IA" argument is a fable, proven wrong almost as often as it is repeated. If boots on the ground mattered, Dean would've won convincingly four years ago. The two guys with the weakest field orgs -- Kerry and Edwards -- dominated. Sorry, but the field myth is 98% spin created by (guess who?) field guys! Message and media, paid and earned, win. Everywhere, every time.

(2) "We'll win by skewing the voting universe young and adding new caucus-goers" is tantamount to the opening lines of your concession speech. College students and previously disinterested voters don't clear poll screens because they're not voting! See Dean (Primary '04) and Kerry (GE '04).

Edwards will win IA. HRC will be a close second. Obama will be further off the lead lap than expected. Edwards will vault into a statistical tie with HRC in NH within 48 hours. Game on.

Posted by flyingkimura | December 31, 2007 7:37 PM

According to Hillary Clinton's staffers, all the other candidates may as well go home. Hillary has something special planned for Iowans. Staffers say Hillary won't use her voice to sum-up in Iowa, because it's still duck hunting season. She'll perform a two-minute pantomime using interpretive dance, and bodily and facial movements to convey to all why she's the best candidate instead. Broadway's leading costume and set designers have been tasked with creating the multimillion-dollar mini-extravaganza, in which husband Bill will perform aerial stunts. Madeleine Albright also delivers a stunning performance, diving 100 ft. into vat of fire. As Madeleine climbs the narrow ladder, oil is ignited sending billowing clouds of smoke skyward. Critics lavish advance praise on, Madame Hillary, calling it a brief but scintillating mixture of panache and politics, not seen since Evita. Come-on everybody, lets give it up for the girl: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 31, 2007 9:51 PM

It appears the Hillary coronation has
been preempted...

Posted by JIM WHITTAKER | January 1, 2008 11:41 AM

As a fairly conservative Republican I can just tell you that we Republicans, on the whole, actually like Obama as a person and really can not stand Hillary. There is NO way she can unite this country. I hope Dems have a desire to bring this country a bit closer than we have been since the 90's. If so, Hillary is NOT the way to go. I like Romney but I'd take Obama hoping the divide we have in this country will center on issues rather than personalities.

Posted by Bob Isitt | January 1, 2008 1:15 PM

Interesting to read this story now that a new poll shows Obama with a commanding lead in Iowa.

Obama will win Iowa and the presidency. There is no stopping us now.

Posted by Lioness | January 1, 2008 1:54 PM

No more drama, vote for Obama!
The world can't wait for Obama in 08!

I thought Hillary knew about foreign policy, until she said that Mushariff is on the ballot in Pakistan's election. Duh, Mushariff was elected in October, how dense can you be Hillary. This isn't old news, but recent and I don't think you know jack about the democratically electoral process in Pakistan, this election was for parliament. Duh, Ms Foreign Policy experience candidate.

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:11 PM

Bring some tissues yourself, Obama is gonna landslide and take it to the White House.

Don't hate the messenger, hate the messages that have come from DC for the last twenty five years of Bush Clinton, Bush ? I don't think so.

The same old song, but with a different meaning.
You can't make a silk purse out of Bill Clintons Rear.

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:15 PM

18 Presidential candidates trying to dig up dirt since his speech in the Democratic National and not one smear of crap they put out has stuck. That's because he's clean. Didn't you hear Biden.
He ment that as a clue, that if you want to take down Obama, you better have some facts. The man is intelligient, articulate, and cute. His experience is in the results he's able to achieve by bringing everybody to the table to talk it out and make solutions of compromise for the betterment of the American People.

My suggestion to Clinton is stop catering to special interest in time to run Chelsea, in 2016.

If they keep it up, their legacy as dirty dealers will continue and stop her chances at making a change for her generation after Barack and Edwards reign.

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:23 PM

If anyone has seen the Obama crowds and the snow they've gone through, just to hear him speak, you can bet no amount of snow will stop Obama supporters from caucusing for him.

Second, in regards to a comment above about Blacks staying home if Hillary or Edwards wins the nomination, I disagree. Everyone needs a voice and when you stay home on election or caucus day you are throwing away your right - a right that was fought for by soldiers, by Susan B. Anthony and others like her and for the countless people who fought to give blacks the right to vote!

Third, yes the press will lose in all of this. I imagine many of them -especially CNN will be holding their tails between their legs. Barack Obama is going all the way to the white house and the press are all going to act surprised - but they needn't be...if they had followed us closely all along - if they really understood the power behind our grassroots movement or tried to cover it unbiasedly. But unfortunately, unless you are an Obama supporter you really don't have a clue as to how powerful we are as a community that wants change more than anyone.

Posted by Kerri, Archbald, PA | January 1, 2008 2:28 PM

You think so, I'm Obama supporter and I will vote Huckabee first before Hillary. See as African American, my vote has always been ignored anyway so what's the point in voting for a behind doors crook who refuses to show her past record, God knows they've been all through Obama's kindergarden, teen years and DNA religious tactics.

God stop being so stupid, if the change doesn't come from someone I can trust this time, after the way the Clintons screwed us out of jobs with NAFTA AND CAFTA, moving our jobs overseas, You can bet I'll vote against her. Mark my words on this day January 1st 2008. And I have just the kind of political pull to do it in my communities when the dust clears.

No more drama! Vote for Obama!
2008, the world is in wait for Obama!

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:33 PM

yea, but I'm not betting on a dead horse, but a winner. He has had a year to gain support. I like Kucinich, but like in 2004, he still hasn't been able to garner support. I have to go with a winner and Obama is the winner, whether you in particular like it or not.

I operate the Southside for Obama campaign here in Richmond VA, and Hillary in our communities, isn't fairing too well there.

She is too out of touch and to prove it one of her own endorsers said she doesn't know how to connect. Now if she has been working for change for the middle class all her life, don't you think she should have nailed that aspect of campaigning by now? Duh!

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:38 PM

No he doesn't think it is wrong to keep funding bullets and food cost and equipment to the troops while the president holds them hostage with a powerless congress that doesn't have enough votes to pass gas, let alone legislation to bring the troops home safely. This stubborn Jackass of a current Commander and Chimp has been using his veto pen even when it means certain life or death on the ground, if they don't recieve the money.

Smart leadership, protects the lives of those on the ground, even when the leader in charge, is acting opposite their laws.

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:43 PM

Whatever!
You shill mongers are pethetic and blind to the direction Independents and Republicans are calling for. REAL CHANGE, BY A REAL PRESIDENTIALLY DIGNIFIED CANDIDATE, WITH NO DIRT UNDER HIS NAILS WHEN PRESSURED.

Mature, coolminded and intelligient. If you want to waste your vote and join the losers of HRC and Bill, then go right ahead. But when you have to take your head out your stuck up arses, and see the light of day, you'll recognize change when you see it.

Toodles!

Posted by Kim Jones Richmond Va | January 1, 2008 2:52 PM

Kim Jones - You go girl!!! And I'm sorry if you took my comments the wrong way... I don't want blacks - or anyone for that matter - throwing away their vote if Obama didn't get the ticket...Vote for anyone BUT Hillary - that is what I will do, but don't stay home because that's exactly what Hillary would want you to do if you're not going to vote for her...Write Obama's name in, if you have to, but don't stay home! I had actually thought that's what I'd do (write Obama's name in) but then I'm afraid I'd take away a vote from whoever is running against her! But, Kim, let's face it - you and I and everyone in this grassroots movement knows our strength and Obama is going straight to the white house and someone is going to have their panties in a bunch about it! :)

Posted by Kerri, Archbald, PA | January 1, 2008 8:54 PM

Its time Obama put Hillary and Bill Clinton in their place. Hillary claims 35 years of experience. Her's and many others 35 years is what has brought America to its knees. I call that malfeasance. Hillary needs to apologize to and ask forgivness of the American people. Then withdraw and join Monica Lewinsky and her philandering,lying,immoral husband who she apparently can't satisfy sexually.

Posted by Jonn | January 23, 2008 2:23 PM

Hi there,
Please inform, how I can send a personal message of appreciation etc. to the manager (management) of B.O.'s campaign ? (Name, title etc.)

Thanks, YY

Posted by Yosef Y | February 12, 2008 10:42 PM

Hi there,
Please inform, how I can send a personal message of appreciation etc. to the manager (management) of B.O.'s campaign ? (Name, title etc.)

Thanks, YY

Posted by Yosef Y | February 12, 2008 10:46 PM

Insatiable Greed

What hurts most: The pain at the pump,
or the insult to your intelligence?
If a shortage of raw material
can cause record profits,
someone please show me the relevance.

Using that kind of “logic”,
McDonalds will be thrilled,
When they have no French fries to fry.
Lumber mills will welcome forest fires,.
And Blue Bell will love it,
when their cows go dry.

Exxon Mobil’s CEO got 400 million,
and uses a corporate jet for free.
ConocoPhillips bought Burlington Resources
for 35.6 billion and yes, that is a “b”.
Does that sound like hard times to you?
Sounds like a lot of crude to me.

The “raw material shortage” excuse,
was intended to mislead.
Big oil raised retail prices,
much more than was the need.
The hike is not about shortage;
It’s about gratification of greed.

©2006 Daniel Morris Albright

Posted by Dan Albright | April 30, 2008 9:41 PM