Letters to the Editor
-
Obama could become electoral poison down the ticket
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/politics/26ticket.html?hp
-
YOU ALMOST GOT IT RIGHT...
The Obama campaign strategy from the get-go was what I call a "Field of Dreams" strategy: "If he wins it, they will come." Well, guess what? They didn't come in Ohio, Texas, Massachusetts, to name a few, and now Pennsylvania.
Krugman is absolutely correct: Obama's campaign has never been about wooing over white, working-class Democrats whether they live in small towns or urbans ring cities. He was most effective in the Caucus states for one clear reason: They had a ground game to register and bring new voters and activists into the process to dilute and overwhelm those frequent-going, regular Democratic caucus participants, many of whom were those white, working-class men and middle-age women that their polling told them would not support Obama.
They can say they lost the big states because they were "running a 50 state" campaign, but the reality is, with the often 30 day voter registration deadlines many states have, they couldn't register enough new voters to offset the party regulars and independent voters who wanted to have a say this time.
The strategy was simple: Hit the small, smaller caucus states with new voters, stay close in the large states (who else was on the battot after February?), and take the Southern states with their predominantly African-American Democratic populations, show enough of a math model to declar victory, and start declaring the race over before anyone figures out you don't have the support of the core Democratic constituents needed to win in November. Obama's campaign was not manufactured for a long battle. "Smoke and mirrors" is a more apt description than Bill Clinton's choice of words, fantasy.
Unfortunately for Obama, the wheels have started coming off the Magical Mystery Tour and it's beginning to looking more like the grey-haired consultants behind the curtain in Oz holding a calulator in one hand, a sign with the word "hope" in the other. We "hope" no one figures this out!
Clinton stumbled when her campaign forgot they first had to run a Primary campaign and had general election on the brain. Then the Obama campaign shocked them back on their heels with their contrived charges of racism as Obama slipped into his Martyr Coat, complete with Chips-on-the-Shoulder inserts.
Early on, Obama declared war on "something or someone" with their us vs. them mentality. Here we thought he was running against Republicans, and instead it turns out he declared war on his own Party!
Clinton needs to be the nominee. For all his inspirational messaging, delivery, and beautiful platitudes, we think Americans will be more inspired by a better standard of living than watching Obama's silly symbolic gesture of hiring Republicans to work in his White House.
-
I'm familiar with both Ohio and Pennsylvania
...having grown up in Ohio over the last 50+ years. And I know more than a bit about the rural and Appalachian parts of Pennsylvania, since my parents grew up there and we vacationed in their home town several weeks each year during my childhood.
There IS, and probably WILL BE for some time, much inherent racism in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania. I don't care what polls happen to say, due in no small part to the reluctance of people to admit to racist opinions when queried by pollsters. Such racism, whether you want to call it the Bradley Effect or not, DOES EXIST. It ain't pretty, and it's too deep-seated to root out quickly. It almost has to die out, in a literal sense. When my generation is gone, it will have gone a LONG way to erasing this part of our country's inherent racism.
Mr. Koppelman, you happen to be wrong about this topic. I wish you WERE right, but it's simply a statement of fact -- you're wrong. Far too many people outside the largest cities of each state ARE RACIST, even if they won't admit to it and say otherwise to pollsters.
-
and it's not just your people, RichEmery, mine too
and that was my instinctive impression of krugman's anti-barackity. jews however will *never* admit to it - and are too verbal to get caught, but still, i think that when, seemingly for no reason, a white person adamantly opposes a black one, ockham's razor points to the right conclusion - it's in black and white.
-
@sonofloud
what's wrong is that obama is all style over substance
some of us have been arguing this from the beginning.
sure obama looks and sounds good but we need a president who can fix problems. not just give us pretty words that make us feel all warm and fuzzy.
i'll say it again....obama would make a much better vice president then he would a president.
-- sonofloud
Where's the substance in your thinking? We would all agree that Obama is eloquent, but this doesn't necessarily lead to the conlusion that he's incapable of fixing problems. In fact, he's accomplished an awful lot in his life, and has a very smart, detailed platform.
Having a Vision Statement to go with his Mission Statement isn't a bad thing.
Eloquence and high ideals aren't bad things in and of themselves. Or hope, for that matter.
Of course, nothing's inspiring like watching the Rovian/Clintonian Smear Machine in operation...
That Hillary's campaign is based on a slew of similarly absurd smears and trivia explains why voters think she's slimy, and also why Obama is having a harder time talking about issues that will actually affect America (unlike flagpins, etc.).
-
His argument is the same as David Brooks
It is silly. These guys are trying to say that because Obama's campaign message has evolved that shows he has a serious problem. Remember when Hillary was the "above the fray" candidate because everybody thought she would sail to the nomination? Krugman could just as easily write an article about her message changing.
If Obama was a one-note hopemonger he would not be winning. His arguments have to become increasingly sophisticated and fresh as the electorate gets to know him. He is proving that he is not an "empty suit" but in fact the winner and the person best likely to hold off the Republican machine in the general election.
Any so-called lefty like Krugman who agrees with David Brooks is problematic.