Correct me if I am wrong but a number of comments recently added by the editors of BMG to various posts make me think that after the initial glow has worn off the real Obama (for them) may not have quite the same sizzle as when the brightness was first seen. Hardly a scientific poll but an interesting study of political junkieism (something I think all of us who feed at the trough here are addicted with)
So it got me to consider this:
20,000 at a Wisconsin rally for Obama experienced all the intimacy of sitting in the back row at a Rock concert or Football stadium so the Mass mentality is the experience rather than the real deal.
And yet the intimate Obama of Debates is far more grounded with having someone to interject the Yes we can BUT??? And the general consensus of the punditry is he never seems to fair as well.
The Tidal wave is an interesting analogy in that it is mighty and seemingly irrepressible but once it breaks on the shore (and we will intentionally ignore any reference symbolically of the damage a real tidal wave does) it back washes into the waters it came from and you would never know it was there in the first place
A river is a better analogy of inevitable success as its keeps flowing (even after the floods recede)
So lets consider Hillary’s campaign as a river for with all the pollution dumped into it, with all the twist and turns, the obstacles that direct its path that it has encountered, with the sluggishness it may be feeling as it spreads onto the tidal flats it could pick up speed as the tidal wave sucks the waters from the oceans edge and in the aftermath it is the river that keeps flowing long after the tidal wave has spent its energy.
Just my two cents but I wonder if why the Obama wave may look large is that it is at the moment before it breaks, leaving the jumbled foam to wash upon the shore.
why the editors took their endorsements off the masthead, and removed the obama fundraising thingie from the page. frankly, i though the fundraising thermometer was embarrassing because last i saw, only 4 people were recorded as contributing. however, i would have expected them to leave a donate button up there.
<
p>so i’m asking the editors, any changes of heart, or tidal subsidences, as freshayer might call them?
to our endorsements after the MA primary, since to the extent anyone cared at all about them, that was their expiration date, and they didn’t need to be cluttering up the top of the page any longer.
<
p>Can’t speak to the Obameter — not my department.
Interesting how little the Hawaii and Wisconsin primaries has been in the news. This Tuesday, WI is allocating 74 delegates, and Obama’s lead is consistently 3-5 points. All the momentum in the world doesn’t seem to be budging those numbers, and that momentum is of limited value as he media has shifted away from politics to the tragedy in Illinois. As for Hawaii’s 20 delegates, I couldn’t find any polling at all.
<
p>Obama is storming around the Badger State, yet Hillary keeps ping-ponging between Ohio and Texas. My guess is that Clinton is organizing like mad on the ground, and will claim a shift in momentum with a “surprise”, whether it be outright victory or close finish. If she loses, they can shrug it off as nothing ventured, nothing gained.
<
p>Two primaries, two Hillary-friendly states. Is Obama going to keep the streak, or is there a surprise in store?
The various radio shows i’ve heard this week all dismiss HI as no contest in favor of Obama. Reason being that he was born there. But they never quote any surveys. It makes me wonder if they make this grand assumption because, other than knowing that Obama was born there, they know absolutely nothing else. Well, other than it will be a caucus, Obama’s forte.
I thought it was a primary. Even with Akaka’s help, Hillary doesn’t stand a chance in Hawaii. Now, if it were a primary…not least of all because the only ethnicity who favors Hillary more than Latinos is Asian Americans.
Well, Asians are the largest majority in HI. According to the US census bureau:
Asian 40%
White not Hispanic 25%
Bi- or Multiracial 19%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 9%
African American 8%
<
p>If Asian Hawaiians caucus in proportion to their population density and trend Clinton, she could win this caucus.
It is Latino/Hispanics that are 8% of population, not A-As. A-As make up only 2-3% of HI’s population.
Caucus dynamics notwithstanding, Asian-American participation in electoral exercises runs lower than that of any other significant ethnic group in the US.
Since I happen to be in Hawaii at this moment, let me see if I can add any information.
<
p>US Senator Dan Inouye is supporting Clinton as is Colleen Hanabusa, Hawaii state senate president. Chelsea Clinton is in town as a surrogate. Clinton is fundraising quite well here, at about 85+K as noted in the local paper. Generally this is quite good for Hawaii which is normally ignored in electoral politics as irrelevant or reliably Democratic. John McCain has raised a similar amount of money.
<
p>Unfortunately for Clinton and McCain, Barack Obama has collected over 400K in support from Hawaii residents, so far. His honorary Hawaii co-chair is US Rep Neil Abercrombie. Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng is his family surrogate. Obama has taped Hawaii specific radio ads where he addresses local concerns like mass transit and energy independence (Hawaii is completely dependent on imported fuels of all kinds).
<
p>Curiously the other two members of the state’s national delegation Senator Akaka and US Rep Mazie Hirono have not endorsed anyone. This is unusual since the Clintons helped Akaka in his re-election bid. There are a number of high profile normally Clinton-leaning politicians who are also sitting this one out.
<
p>While the Asian American demographic in California voted for Clinton, it is not clear to me that will be duplicated here. Hawaii Asian Americans pride themselves in being different from Mainland Asian Americans. (Hawaii folks of all ethnicities pride themselves in being different from their ethnic groups on the mainland or their ethnic groups in the old country.) There is a strong element of unique identification for locals here in being from Hawaii, as Barack is.
<
p>My informal conversations indicate surprising support for Obama, because he is “the local boy.” My mother, who is an ancient Republican, enthusiastically supports Obama, whom she calls “that nice boy from Punahou.” She can’t wait to cross party lines and vote for him in the general.
<
p>Every news article in both the morning and afternoon papers here preface mentions of Obama with “Hawaii-born Barack Obama” or follow with “Obama, who was born in Hawaii”. There is enormous pride in the fact that Obama was born and raised in Hawaii. That he attended a local high school is really important measure of “localness”.
<
p>While it has been listed as a closed primary, there was an article in one of the local papers this week about how registrations for the Democratic caucus are being flooded with new voters, including a number who are switching parties from Republican to Democrat to vote for Obama.
<
p>The thing Clinton has going for her is the support of the Hawaii Government Employees Association which is making phone calls on her behalf. I don’t know if this can counteract local pride, however, since Hawaii people love people from Hawaii.
It’s a Caucus. The Primary is in July.
I think Obama is a superior choice to Clinton for the reasons discussed in my endorsement.
<
p>I also think he will win the nomination.
<
p>Support, however, does not mean blind allegiance. When Obama does things that I disagree with, like for example refuse to debate, I’ll criticize him.
<
p>I took the donation thermometer down because we had blown through our initial goal and raised more money for Obama than for any other candidate we have ever tried to raise funds for by a huge margin. I’ll put it back up later on if the situation warrants.
<
p>Here is my 16 December endorsement:
<
p>
<
p>I think it is significant that Obama ultimately received the support of all three BMG Editors. That is the way coalitions are built. I predict that you too, reader, ultimately will support him.
<
p>While there is much to be liked about Obama the unknowns are staggering, the “Hope Talk” express is looking like the “Politics as Usual’ local and there is slight aristocratic smugness to him (that probably explains why bread and butter demographics don’t go for him) that is a bit off-putting.
<
p>History tells us that Rock stars have a habit of becoming one hit wonders.
<
p>Your comment reminds me of this.
<
p>History also tells us that the sort of “regular guy” president with whom people would like to have a beer is dangerous and embarrassing. Let’s hope the American electorate has gotten over its infatuation with inarticulate, ill-informed, and incurious spoiled frat boys-cum-cowboys.
… be it “W” or Reagan but the point I was making was along the lines of when at conference at how the electronic age could benefit the worlds poor a few years ago, various information age CEO’s talked about how putting a computer in every village would be the answer. Then maverick, successful entrepreneur Ted Turner took the stage and lambasted them all saying these people do not have decent food, shelter and water but you think by sticking a computer in their grass shack you are helping them????.
<
p>Someone I know referred to this as the over educated but under experienced class trying to solve real world problems with their intellect rather than seeing the reality a $50,000 income and under struggling family sees it.
<
p>How do you think we get Cowboys you like to drink beer with in the White House in the first place?
<
p>Also Vietnam got started by a WWII Hero, escalated by the educated son of privilege (who gave great inspirational speeches), blown out of proportion by a Cowboy back room brawler and run full circle by a conservative commie hating career politician with no ethics.
<
p> Hard to figure (in the above résumé’s) who really qualifies as the President who ends up being “Dangerous and Embarrassing”.
<
p>My first choice is still a woman with experience over an idea that sounds good. Second Choice?? Jury is still out.
…but not here.
<
p>The choice for Democrats is not between Obama and a
.
<
p>My choice is the really smart, tested and qualified woman in the race.
Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate– although not as impressive as Obama — but the fact that she is a woman is not in itself a reason to vote for her, in my opinion. History has plenty of examples of unappealing women.
<
p>The reason to vote for Hillary is because of her positions on the issues, her performance in speeches and debates, the way she campaigns, and so on.
<
p>Just as people who make highly partisan arguments (cf. John Edwards) ultimately doom their campaigns when they seek to appeal to broad swathes of the population, so too do people why rely on identity politics to make their case.
are you telling all those black (and other) people to lay off the obama ballots when they openly report that they’re voting for him because he’s black? it’s all well and good to tell clinton supporters to leave identity politics behind…
The reason to vote for Obama is because he is a better candidate than Clinton — assuming one agrees with that proposition — not because of his appearance. Strategically, that’s an idiotic rationale because most voters don’t look like Obama, or at least don’t seem to think that they do, which for purposes of such an inane consideration amounts to much the same thing. Practically, it makes even less sense because people’s appearance is rarely a good indicator of how they will govern. Just look at Willard’s wretched performance — most people think he’s pretty good looking … at least, as measured by hair quality.
to vote for obama or anyone else, but fact is lots of people are doing just that.
First, the reason I said I was voting for the woman in the race is because I was responding to a comment about choosing either Obama or a “sort of regular guy president with whom people would like to have a beer”. Of course, I am not voting for Clinton just because she is a woman…
<
p>which leads me to my second point:
<
p>
<
p>I couldn’t disagree with you more.
I’m not sure why you leaped to the conclusion that I was excluding Clinton as one of the choices. All I was saying is that I’m hopeful the American people have figured out that a dolt playing cowboy is not a good choice for president. Indeed, my comment was directed at the notion of anti-intellectualism, hence my link.
<
p>Personally, I’m fine with either Obama or Clinton. I voted for Obama in the primary, but will happily support either one as the nominee.
…and we can agree that we are both hopeful that the American people have figured out that a “dolt playing cowboy is not a good choice for president”. Although, I still can’t understand why they didn’t figure that one out after the first four years!
inherently have a bit of the doltish cowboy lurking inside them? I do agree that anti-intellectualism is a huge problem in this nation, and it will affect our competitive viability in the future.
<
p>At any rate, Democrats are in a good place this year. I’m a peace. Hope you are, too. 🙂