As it stands now, I think Hillary takes Texas due to a new trend among Republican crossover voters. (1 Viewer)

Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize winner, just resigned from Obama's campaign.

Hillary is probably on the phone trying to hire her as we speak.

2008 will go down as the biggest political fumble ever. Great year to be a Democrat!
 
Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize winner, just resigned from Obama's campaign.

Hillary is probably on the phone trying to hire her as we speak.

2008 will go down as the biggest political fumble ever. Great year to be a Democrat!

In fairness even off the record it was stupid for her to call Hillary a "monster" to a reporter. This is one of the times where the inexperience of the Obama team shines through.
 
Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize winner, just resigned from Obama's campaign.

Hillary is probably on the phone trying to hire her as we speak.

2008 will go down as the biggest political fumble ever. Great year to be a Democrat!

Now the Clinton campaign needs to fire Wolfson and identify the schmuck who circulated the Somali garb photo. Someone call me when that happens.

Obama needs to rein in his people. As brilliantly as his campaign has been run, the last two weeks have been Amateur Night.
 
In fairness even off the record it was stupid for her to call Hillary a "monster" to a reporter. This is one of the times where the inexperience of the Obama team shines through.

Actually, it's the other stuff she said in the same interview that was incredibly stupid imo. The 'monster' comment pretty much sums up the consensus of opinion among Obama Democrats. Saying that we -blanked up- in Ohio when he never had a chance there was incredibly dumb. The 'monster' comment only matters if you think Hillary's minions are open to Obama winning the nomination and supporting his candidacy in November. That ship already sailed some time ago.
 
Obama needs to rein in his people. As brilliantly as his campaign has been run, the last two weeks have been Amateur Night.

Yep. When the realities of the delegate math became apparent, Obama and Co. went into cruise control mode apparently forgetting the nature of the still twitching opponent.
 
In fairness even off the record it was stupid for her to call Hillary a "monster" to a reporter. This is one of the times where the inexperience of the Obama team shines through.

I don't think you can say this characterizes a campaign as inexperience. Hillary's surrogates have gone off as well. I will say one thing for them, they tend to use buzzwords when they do it.

"Ken Starr"
"Cocaine"
"Karl Rove"
"Drug dealer"

Now they've got the public thinking about Obama being in all of those terms.
 
I don't think you can say this characterizes a campaign as inexperience. Hillary's surrogates have gone off as well. I will say one thing for them, they tend to use buzzwords when they do it.

"Ken Starr"
"Cocaine"
"Karl Rove"
"Drug dealer"

Now they've got the public thinking about Obama being in all of those terms.

That's my point about inexperience. There are ways to attack and have it appeal to your audience. Hillary's folks are experts at that. Calling her a monster was going to win you no points and expecting it wouldn't be repeated because it was "off the record" was straight up amateur night. A mistake Clinton's more seasoned team wouldn't have made.

A Clintonian staffer would have said "Obama is very Rovian in his willingness to do anything to win". This would have translated to "monster under the bed" to the Democratic base but not had the direct connotation that calling him a monster would have.

Wordsmithing is part of political experience.
 
That's my point about inexperience. There are ways to attack and have it appeal to your audience. Hillary's folks are experts at that. Calling her a monster was going to win you no points and expecting it wouldn't be repeated because it was "off the record" was straight up amateur night. A mistake Clinton's more seasoned team wouldn't have made.

A Clintonian staffer would have said "Obama is very Rovian in his willingness to do anything to win". This would have translated to "monster under the bed" to the Democratic base but not had the direct connotation that calling him a monster would have.

Wordsmithing is part of political experience.

I think you are overestimating the control any candidate has over his/her underlings. Obama's staff is chock full of Clintonian staffers, seasoned politicians, and experienced campaigners. When one maverick goes off with an aside to a Canadian consulate official, or a wacky interview, or a crazy introduction, or a bizzare email - don't assume that they've been given the green light to do so by McCain or Clinton or Obama. It's the guilt by association game. You don't hear about McCain's inexperience when one of his wacko supporters goes off because of public perception. Otherwise, there's no difference.
 
I think you are overestimating the control any candidate has over his/her underlings. Obama's staff is chock full of Clintonian staffers, seasoned politicians, and experienced campaigners. When one maverick goes off with an aside to a Canadian consulate official, or a wacky interview, or a crazy introduction, or a bizzare email - don't assume that they've been given the green light to do so by McCain or Clinton or Obama. It's the guilt by association game. You don't hear about McCain's inexperience when one of his wacko supporters goes off because of public perception. Otherwise, there's no difference.

I'm not assuming they have been authorized, just the opposite. You really don't see any of the experienced people on Obama's campaign making these kinds of mistakes. However, he does surround himself with a large contingent of people who have never been involved in a Presidential campaign before. To me that's a good thing because one of the things I want to get away from is that typical core group of people the Clinton's and Bush's hand back and forth like indentured campaign servants and financial backers.

However, new people equal inexperienced people and inexperienced people make mistakes.
 
Sometimes it's the experienced people who make the greatest mistakes.

Very true. Their mistakes are often not as blatantly obvious as evidenced by the Clinton campaign which has made far more nuanced mistakes than Obama's inexperienced campaign.
 
Very true. Their mistakes are often not as blatantly obvious as evidenced by the Clinton campaign which has made far more nuanced mistakes than Obama's inexperienced campaign.

And it's because the 'experienced' are given so much leeway. We can call it the Dick Cheney principle.
 
Looks like the final delegate count in Texas is going to be 100-93, Obama wins. At the very least 98-95. I hope this will be reported as vigorously as Clinton's 'win' was a few days ago.
 
Very true. Their mistakes are often not as blatantly obvious as evidenced by the Clinton campaign which has made far more nuanced mistakes than Obama's inexperienced campaign.

More on this from Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager -

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/08/politics/horserace/entry3919668.shtml

Those nuanced mistakes made by Clinton's campaign combined with the smart strategy of Obama's team have resulted in the insurmountable delegate lead.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom