Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, February 5, 2008 04:22 AM

  The future or the past - and the power of the press

  Whether MS. Walsh described the mix of the crowd in Oakland correctly or not, there is one missing element in her analysis: the potential importance of the last minute endorsement of Obama by the principal Spanish language newspaper in California. Then there is , Obama's sudden "surge" in endorsements from Latino and Latina public. Add to the mix, Obama's emerging superiority in financial resources.

  The real downside for Obama is the pre-primary date mail in votes which may reflect the status of the campaign in the first week of January rather than the first week of February. Although touted to be as much as half the vote, my guess is that with all the enthusiasm generated by the campaign, it may be substantially less.

  Except for Hillary's votes on Iraq AND Iran, there really is a George Wallace's "not a dimes bit of difference" between them on the issues. Health care will be determined by the Congress and the White house.

  So what’s the difference: the future and the past. IN 2004, MoveOn and similar web based resources played a key role in some states such as PA but couldn't carry the day in either Florida and Ohio. In 2006, the Web defeated Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut but failed in the General Election.

  Obama's edge in financing is web-based. MoveOn has endorsed him and is banging the drums with its members.

  I don't think these factors received a sufficient analysis in your analysis for a simple reason: We really won't know until tomorrow AM whether Hillary's regular Democratic roots can finally dent the Obama momentum.

  In the end, that may be the only issue that counts: the power of the past politics versus the power of the new politics.

  If Obama wins CA, the rules will be changed for good, and the parties old guard will not be able to stop it.

  --------

  PS: I can't believe that any one "cool" enough to read Salon could actually refer to thye editor as "Mrs. Walsh" Not that its an insult or anything, but hey, its 2008. Whether there is a Mr. Walsh or no, Ms. is correct. IN fact, I have even gotten to the point of dropping Mr. & Mrs. & Ms. from my correspondence whenever possible. For writing androgynous corporations, I have adopted a French affectation: “Dear Sirs and Mesdames.” May not be PC, but it’s kind of fun.

  http;//Johnklotz.blogspot.com

  —NewYorkLawyer Read NewYorkLawyer's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel