On Tuesday, Kentucky Congressman Ben Chandler endorsed Barack Obama - and received a lot of slack for it. A quote from Courier-Journal.com:
Denis Fleming, Chandler's chief of staff, said that the congressman's offices in Lexington and Washington had received about 300 phone calls opposing his decision -- and only five in favor -- by about 2:30 p.m. yesterday.
Some of the calls, he said, were "racially insensitive," while other callers simply said that Chandler should have waited until after Kentucky's May 20 primary or should have endorsed Clinton.
The "racially insensitive" remarks didn't bode well for the Obama supporters. An article on the Daily Kos was written and it sparked an outrage. What Obama supporters did, is what they have been doing all along, and that is fund raising. Within 40 minutes of posting the news and asking for donations for Chandler's campaign, Obama supporters (with the help of ActBlue) raised $2,500. Just under 12 hours later, that amount reached $15,000 and it continues to rise thanks to Obama supporters.
As of 9:45 AM Mountain Standard Time today they have raised a total of $20,125 for Ben Chandler's campaign.
I highly encourage you to read the article on the Daily Kos, it is something else!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
On Tuesday, Kentucky Congressman Ben Chandler endorsed Barack Obama - and received a lot of slack for it. A quote from Courier-Journal.com:
Politico is reporting that Congresswoman Lois Capps announced that her superdelegate vote will be for Barack Obama. Capps, who has in the past been a supporter of the Clintons, says “Barack Obama is the better choice because of something larger and perhaps more important. Simply put, he has made a call to the better angels of our nature." This is a big endorsement for Obama. Capps has been a long time health advocate and serves on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. One thing that is also very good for Obama: Capps is the Democratic Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues. Although Hillary has been getting a majority of the women's vote in just about every state, do you think this could turn the tide a little bit for Obama?
So far in endorsements today: Obama has picked up 3 superdelegates while Clinton has only picked up 2.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Since the Pennsylvania primary in which Obama lost to Clinton, he still has momentum. I don't really care about the whole Rev. Wright story, sure it might make a couple voters think twice about him, but the media has blown it way out of proportion. The Clinton News Network (CNN) had a guest, Lanny Davis I think his name was. He is probably one of the most stuck up and idiotic guys I have ever seen called a political analyst (and I've seen a lot of them). If there is any reason to not vote for Clinton, I think that he is the main reason not to. His statistics were completely wrong, and his arguments didn't make any sense.
Anyway, I digress. Obama made progress today with his conference denouncing Rev. Wright's astonishing comments. And even with the current events, Obama has picked up more superdelegates than Clinton has. (It was 7 to 3 about Midday Tuesday as I write this post... with some other superdelegate saying they will cast a vote for Edwards)
The superdelegates are making their voices heard, and Clinton hasn't picked up any momentum since her win in Pennsylvania.
Why do you think Clinton can't pick up any momentum? Why can't she take advantage of the situation at hand?
Friday, April 25, 2008
So, this has become quite a topic over the past couple of days. Hillary Clinton is claiming the lead in the popular vote because she is counting Florida and Michigan. The Obama campaign is basically saying "Whoa there! You can't count those." And they do have a point. Michigan and Florida both are being punished by the Democratic National Committee because they broke the rules. (I believe it's because they moved up their election dates, no?) Both Hillary and Barack (and also the other democratic candidates) agreed not to campaign in Florida since the delegates and votes wouldn't be counted in the Primary. Well, now Hillary wants to count them. Now the funny thing is, she also wants to count Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
Last night on MSNBC, there were people discussing that Obama should make an offer to Clinton. "We both campaign in Michigan and in Florida, and whoever wins there by votes, not by delegates, gets the nomination." I'm not sure if this would really help Obama. Florida has a lot of retired, older people - and Clinton does well with that age group. (I'm not sure about the demographics of Michigan)
I also want to touch base over the superdelegate debate. So, we know that Hillary most likely won't be able to get more delegates than Obama. In every article, newspaper and on every station they are talking about how if Clinton possibly wins because of superdelegates and takes the nomination away from Obama, who has the lead in delegates and the popular vote, that this would cause an uproar. (One station, not sure which, was making the comparison of them taking the rightful nomination away from a Black candidate.)
Would you approach Clinton with this if you were Obama? Do you think that the votes and delegates in Michigan and Florida should count in the election? What do you think will happen if the superdelegates all side with Hillary?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Over the past couple of days, the media has been doubting Obama has his bid for the White House. Three super-delegates have said otherwise. Oregon Rep. David Wu, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, and Audra Ostergard (Assoc. Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Committee) have all endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Clinton has raised approximately $10 million since the Pennsylvania Primary. With all of this debate going on on whether Obama should drop out, or Clinton should drop out, you can see that neither campaign's fan base is giving up on their candidate.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was on Larry King last night arguing for Obama. To me, this was shocking to see. I mean... CNN having someone on Obama's side being interviewed? It almost seems appalling. He said that the Clinton supporters think that "they are a dynasty" and they are "clinging to the throne."
After all of this, I woke up this morning and read that Hillary Clinton is claiming that she is in the lead of the popular vote. Sure, that is if you include Michigan and Florida. Michigan didn't even have Obama's name on the ballot, and neither candidate was allowed to campaign in Florida. If she wants to claim the lead and include those two states, then it should be done just how all of the other 50 states have done it. Both of them campaigning, both of them on the ballot, and both of them going after each other. Until that happens, you have no right to claim the popular vote lead.
So now that Clinton has some momentum going, do you think she will be able to do well in North Carolina and Indiana? Do you agree with Bill Richardson's comments? What is your opinion on Michigan and Florida?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
First off, I want to admit I made an error with my calculations of the results in Pennsylvania. Mark (who pointed out in my last post), pointed out CNN's calculations were faulty. I'll just calculate it myself next time instead of relying on what is supposed to be a reliable source.
I also see there is disagreement with my last post. So, why do you all agree or disagree with it? I admit my views may be wrong, and that is the reason I started this blog. If I am going off a cliff, hopefully some people can set me back on the path.
I look forward to your comments!
We are two weeks away from the next two important states in the Democratic Race for the nomination. After Clinton took a convincing win in Pennsylvania by 9 points, Obama now needs to focus on Indiana. Only leading by 5 points in the latest polls, he needs to make sure that Clinton doesn't catch up to him, or even take the lead. It would be even better if he could widen the margin to 10 or so points. Obama has to keep his cool, and not make any slip ups while addressing issues brought up by the two front attack. He can't do what Clinton did in Pennsylvania and lose his lead, and make it come close. (He currently leads in North Carolina by 13 points)
Speaking of the two front attack, here is something to think about. Do you see John McCain attacking Hillary Clinton? Nope. You see him attacking Barack Obama. With this, you can see that McCain and his campaign, as well as the Republican Party are wanting to face Hillary Clinton since she will be the easiest to beat come November. They are worried about Obama and his momentum that he carries for long periods of time.
So, when you go to the polls for your primaries (if you are one of the few states left to do so), and you really want a democrat to be in office (or just don't want McCain in office), you should vote for Barack Obama. With McCain worried about him, he is obviously worried that Obama can beat him come November.
-- Just a note today --
Barack Obama Received 49 more endorsements today, a lot of them super-delegates.
Edit: Discuss why you agree or disagree in the post above.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
I have to say, I'm truly sorry for Obama supporters. I was really rooting for him tonight. All major stations have projected Clinton to win Pennsylvania tonight, but by how much? Obama currently is fluctuating between 4-10% behind Clinton. If he can keep it under 10%, I still think he is in good standing.
What Clinton is doing to the democrats by dragging this out longer, is making it more likely that Republicans will take office come January. Obama leads the popular vote by 800,000, and has won more states than Clinton. A commenter on the Caffetry File tonight said that the only thing Clinton leads in is the number of pantsuits. (That made me laugh)
Obama currently leads by 18 points in North Carolina... not sure about Indiana where he is holding a rally tonight. With Clinton's campaign in serious debt, she will have to spend wisely in order to gain support.
Do you think Pennsylvania will have a big impact like the media is spicing it up to be?
Today in Pennsylvania, we all know that if Hillary Clinton somehow doesn't win, she will be pressured to step down from the race. (But, she is 9 points ahead of Obama in the latest polls... but not everyone is surveyed of course.) Obama, I think has a chance to win Pennsylvania. There have been almost 23,000 new voter registrations (if I can recall the statistic well from last night), and as proven in other states, Obama has taken the majority of the new voters.
I really think Hillary Clinton hurt herself yesterday on Larry King Live. She made some very idiotic comments, trying to portray herself as Barack Obama. She called herself "the image of change" which is what everyone has been calling Barack Obama over this whole election series. Then, at the end of her interview, she told a story about a man who has been disabled for some time who told her that she was the reason that he will vote for the first time. I mean... do these sob stories really work? I can remember a while back when Clinton was falling behind, she broke out into tears at some breakfast or something... then her ratings started to rise again. Then, she comes out and attacks Barack Obama like there is no tomorrow (at yet continues to fail doing so). It's almost as if she is undecided as to what kind of campaign she wants to run.
I was hoping that the interview would have lasted longer. I was really looking forward to hearing more about her in comparison to Barack Obama. Maybe she would have put out there that she is the reason that there is hope for our country. (Wait... that's Obama's reasoning!)
What are your thoughts? Do sob stories work on you?
Another general question: Does anyone know a place on the web where I can find a "schedule" of sorts for when debates and interviews will take place? This way I don't miss any of them... I almost missed the one last night.
Monday, April 21, 2008
So right now, I am watching Hillary Clinton on Larry King (CNN). King just showed her a clip of Obama saying it's time for change, etc. Hillary responded by saying "I am the image of change." I mean... what the heck? Clinton has been in politics for 20 years, and has been a senator the whole time throughout the George W. Bush era, and has YET to prove that she is capable of change. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, hasn't made any solid argument against Bush until she saw that the country was unhappy with how things were being run. It's like John Kerry all over again! She's going with the "popular" vote of the country, and I bet if one day the country says they are all for the Iraq war, she will be for the Iraq war. I really don't want another few years of not being able to make up your mind for yourself.
I will probably edit this post as time goes on throughout this interview. I sent in a question to be asked, but it's a 1 in a million shot that it will be selected. (One can hope)
For those of you watching this interview, or seeing bits and pieces as well, what do you think?
After six some odd weeks since the last primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to see who wins Pennsylvania as the voters go to the polls. According to recent polls of voters, Clinton has expanded her lead on Obama, but Obama has been behind in polls before and came in and won. It has even been reported that Obama has been controlling the airwaves in Pennsylvania over the last week.
One thing Obama needs to do in order to win, is to get the small town votes. As we saw with Texas, Obama won a lot of the big city regions, but Clinton won the state by taking all of the smaller counties. Clinton needs to do the same, but in my opinion, I don't think she has done enough to win over the voters.
One of the main arguments recently has been health care. Clinton's plan supposedly covers everyone, while Obama's leaves out 15 million people. However, if people chose to opt out of Clinton's health care plan, there would be garnishment of wages, or other penalties. This would not pass in Congress (or at least I hope not), and then she and her advisers would have to sit down and think of another plan, while Obama's plan is more likely to succeed. It's funny how Clinton attacks Obama for leaving out people, while her plan won't even pass, and it will take longer to get set up.
While Obama and Clinton keep fighting for delegates, John McCain is cruising along trying to secure his votes for the general election. This is hurting the democratic party with their hopes of securing the presidency. Something needs to be done so they can get on with the general election, and work harder on promoting their candidate. It's kind of hard to do that when two of them are fighting, don't you think?
So, on this Pennsylvania eve, who do you think will win?
Today, CNN reports that Barack Obama is still going strong on funds, totally $42 million. ($52 million overall.) This can't be said for Clinton's campaign. According to reports, Clinton only has $9 million in spendable cash for the primaries, while carrying over $10 million in debts.
Being the most crucial part of the race, and with it down to the wire, I believe that this will hurt Clinton's campaign greatly. She already borrowed money from herself for her campaign, and is carrying so much debt... I just don't think it is possible to get the win for the nomination.
Just a note in comparison: John McCain was behind both democratic hopefuls in fund raising for last month.
Obama really has the momentum, nothing is seeming to hurt him much... do you think this will be the "final axe" that knocks Clinton out of the race?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
So I've read a lot today on McCain since I didn't know a lot about his policies. I've come to one conclusion. His plan is flawed for our economy. McCain wants to cut taxes, which will stimulate the economy, yes... but how much? Most of the money we would have used to pay taxes would (should) go to paying off debts that we already have and not go back into the economy. He is not worried about balancing the budget. I mean, come on. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt thanks to President Bush. Here is a quote from The Raw Story (which I found to be a very enjoyable site by the way) "'The goal right now is to get the economy going again,' the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting said on ABC's "This Week," adding that he would put the country "on a path to a balanced budget" by attacking wasteful spending." Okay, so let's attack wasteful spending. Let's get the majority of our troops out of Iraq. (We all know McCain won't do this, he is happy with the war and it seems that if he is president, our presence will be known in the Middle East for the minimum of 4 years that he will be in office) The Iraq war has cost us trillions and trillions of dollars, and I think it's time that we try to ween the control over to the Iraqi government.
McCain's senior policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, can even be quoted saying "It will make deficits expand up front, no question." (Quote from the Washington Post website) In conclusion, McCain, who has said that he is happy with the progress the economy has had under President Bush, has to get some better ideas under his belt for the economy, or a lot of people aren't going to be happy. (Especially since if this happens, the dollar will continue its downfall)
Sources: The Raw Story and The Washington Post
So I read this article yesterday called "Hillary the unelectable" by Mark Goodman. (Article can be found here) He raises some interesting points. The media is buzzing about Barack Obama's gains in momentum throughout this election, and people keep jumping on the bandwagon everyday. Both Bill and Hillary have been slinging everything they can at Obama, and nothing works. (I think it was on CNN that I read a quote from Obama saying that Clinton has been throwing everything they can at him to see what sticks) Even though Hillary won't admit it, we all know she has been pushing Bill to be the more controversial one in her election, he's even been seen pulling the racial card. Heck, Bill even tried to lie to cover up the "sniper fire" incident in Bosnia (as stated in the article above).
Not to mention with all of this, we have seen much remodeling done in Clinton's campaign. People stepping down because of outrageous comments, people getting demoted, people getting moved around... it's like Clinton is unhappy with her own campaign, and these are supposed to be people that she trusts and knows well. If she gets elected, what are we to expect to happen to her cabinet? She obviously doesn't know her friends and colleagues as well as she thought she did. It will be like the Bush administration with shuffling, and people being forced to step down. I know I don't want to have to listen to that every night on the news.
As you can probably tell, I'm leaning more towards Obama at the moment. Do the things happening in Clinton's campaign worry you at all?
So one of my friends was over last night, and she is a big time Obama supporter. We both like to play around a bit with Photoshop, and she found a couple images of Hillary Clinton that she thought were too good to pass up. (This is when she was having her moment at a news conference saying "Shame on you Barack Obama!") I thought I would share them with you all just for a laugh. Feel free to comment! (This in no way reflects my opinion of Hillary, I'll try to get some of Obama and McCain up when I get time, ideas are welcome!) By the way, I thought of a few topics last night that I'll be posting on throughout the day today. So stay tuned!
This is my favorite one... it looks more realistic than the one below.
Original pictures from CNN.com, edited with Photoshop.
*Edit- for those of you using Internet Explorer and are having trouble viewing the photos... you can view them here and here. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
First off, I want to thank god that New Mexico wasn't a "sought after" state in the primaries. We only had a couple ads here and there on T.V. from both Clinton and Obama, and they were only 30 seconds each. McCain has had ads launched here for about a month now, a waste of campaign funds in my opinion... but I digress. Clinton and Obama have been fighting in what seems a death match for Pennsylvania to hopefully gain momentum going into the last leg. Obama keeps reminding Clinton of her death-defying moment when she was caught in sniper fire and Clinton keeps bashing Obama on his health plan. (Both parties have negative ads running about their opponent's health care plan) From my point of view, neither of their health plans look very appealing. Heck, NONE of the candidates' do.
According to CNN Obama is controlling the airways in Pennsylvania for the majority of the time up to the primary on Tuesday. Do you think this will help him out? Do T.V. ads have any influence on you at all, or do you just fast forward through them with your DVR/TiVo?
With the backing that Obama has gotten in Pennsylvania, I think he has the upper hand, but you never know. After all, Bush was never supposed to win New Mexico in either election, and look where that lead him.
Yesterday, longtime friend and former cabinet member to Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, endorsed Obama. "His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding," Reich continued. "His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers ... He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming."
Now, I don't really pay attention to endorsements much. Usually they are senators or congressmen being pushed to take a side, or celebrities trying to get on the front page. But in these types of cases, where longtime friends to a candidate endorse his/her opposition, it tells you a lot. Having been a longtime friend, they know things others might not know. In this case, Reich probably knew (or had an inkling) that Clinton wouldn't be able to handle the job.
Do you pay attention to endorsements? Do they have any effect on your choice for president?
Friday, April 18, 2008
You need to be careful with what you say on the campaign trail. There are tens of millions of people just waiting for you to goof up. The most recent case is Barack Obama twisting McCain's words, (McCain had said on a television interview that we have had great progress with the economy over the past seven and a half years), to say that he is pleased at how the economy is going under George Bush. In my opinion, Obama hit the interpretation right on the head. McCain has been known to back President Bush on many subjects, [The war in Iraq (Hey, he'd even be happy with the troop levels for 100 years)], why stop backing him now?
Barack Obama is using McCain's slip-ups to his advantage, and I see that as a good campaign strategy. Although it may be frowned upon by a majority of the conservative voters, I cannot remember a time when a candidate didn't twist someone else's words or actions.
Do you agree with these types of strategies? Why or why not? Can you recall any "memorable" times this has happened?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
So, I think that it is appropriate that I let you all know a little bit about my political standings, to get a better understanding of my reasoning.
I am a registered republican (it wasn't my first choice either, but then independents don't get to vote in the primary elections here in New Mexico.) Speaking of New Mexico, that is where I currently reside.
I am very independent with my political thoughts. My parents nor my friends have an influence on who I vote for. Using food as an example: I won't vote for Pizza just because it is the most popular, I have to have my reasons to vote for it. (Pizza would get my vote, just so you know.)
I pay very close attention to debates, current events, television ads to see if any of the candidate's thoughts and comments make sense. Bashing a candidate on false pretenses in television ads or something that happened what seemed centuries ago and has no real impact on the candidate as a person -- goes down as a negative in my book. Debates are fun to watch. I remember a couple years ago in the 1st congressional district, Patricia Madrid was running against incumbent Heather Wilson. During a debate, Wilson asked Madrid a question relating to tax increase; Madrid then stumbled and failed to answer the question. (You can view the question on YouTube here... I promise, it's pretty funny.)
I do, however, listen to what people around me have to say. If someone has a valid argument, I take into consideration what they have to say, but do my research first before coming to conclusions. (You know how biased people are when rallying for their candidate.)
I do not vote by party. That is probably the dumbest thing you can do. During the last election when the democrats took over the House and Senate, a lot of people probably just voted straight democratic, just because they were upset with the Bush Administration and how the republican controlled congress had handled the war. (Which by the way, we are still in.) Some democratic candidates might be better than the republican opposition, and vice versa.
Hopefully this will help you understand my thinking, though it may not always be clear.
Just a little introduction to what I hope to be a successful blog.
I recently turned 18 years old, and, as you know, there is a presidential election coming up. Being my first election, I'm weighing the pros and cons of each candidate to see which one I should vote for. I refuse to vote by party, or affiliation. Just because someone may be a republican doesn't mean I won't vote for them, or for them. No bias is taken.
In this blog, I will post about news on each candidate, and share my opinion. As we all know, the media seems to think that what a candidate says and does affects a good many of the voter's decisions. I may be unique, I may not be. Something that one of the candidates say may tick me off beyond extreme, it may not even have an impact on my feelings about them.
The best thing about this blog, in my opinion, is that comments are welcome about the events that occur on the campaign trail. Share my opinion? Disagree? Tell me why; you may have a valid point.
So, here's to November and hopefully a better four years than the last four have been!