Obama’s race against the clock

A couple of weeks ago, David Corn had a really interesting item about Barack Obama’s highest hurdle on Feb. 5. It’s not necessarily Hillary Clinton, it’s the way in which the timing of Super Tuesday moves the campaign away from his strengths as a candidate.

“With Obama, it’s not about his career highlights, it’s about him,” Corn argued. “To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him — must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.”

As I argued at the time, I think Corn’s analysis is largely right. Obama seems to excel when he has time. In Iowa, for example, voters got to “kick the tires and look under the hood” of a large Democratic field. Candidates showed up at their homes. They got to ask questions, get answers, and interact with the field the way voters in other states can’t. These folks, after getting up close and personal with all of them for almost a year, and looking each of them in the eye, preferred Obama to Edwards and Clinton in a big way.

Come Tuesday, the dynamic is reversed — so long retail politics, hello wholesale. For Obama, this creates an even more daunting challenge. First, he faces a candidate with all the benefits of an incumbent in nearly two-dozen contests in which she starts out with a lead (Illinois is the exception). Second, as Corn explained, “At this stage, the candidates will be reaching voters mainly through commercials. A television spot is a fine medium for a candidate to share his or her resume, to list his or her accomplishments. It is much tougher to convey the intangibles of hope, faith, and transcendence in a 30- or 60-second spot. The bottom line: advantage to Clinton.”

With this in mind, this front-page WaPo piece was especially interesting.

Sen. Barack Obama has two opponents: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the clock, which is rapidly running down.

With three days to go before Super Tuesday, when roughly half the delegates in the Democratic presidential contest will be awarded, Obama is racing around the country, still trying to introduce himself to voters, speed-dating style.

Whether this will work, or even can work, will probably go a long way in dictating who wins the Democratic nomination.

The WaPo piece seems to reinforce what a lot of observers, including me, tend to think about the state of the race going into Tuesday — Obama has post-South Carolina, post-Kennedy endorsement momentum, but is fighting uphill. Voters tend to like Obama more when they see him more, but the nine days between South Carolina and Feb. 5 make that impossible.

The compressed primary calendar presents a challenge for all of the remaining candidates, as they try to visit as many as possible of the more than 20 states holding elections or caucuses on Tuesday. But the time crunch is particularly acute for Obama, who, for all the hype around his candidacy, remains far less well known than Clinton. Obama vaulted into contention against her by spending week upon week in Iowa before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. He engaged in an intensive grass-roots effort and visited the smallest towns and the most remote county fairgrounds to introduce himself to voters, who rewarded him with a big win over his rivals.

Now, with far less time and broader territory to cover, he must make do with a radically truncated version of that outreach, relying on a single final visit to big cities to win over voters to whom he remains little more than a first-term senator with an exotic name and a reputation for oratory.

His efforts appear to be paying off, as his standing in polls inches closer and closer to Clinton’s. The question is whether he has enough time to make up the gap. […]

If a few extra weeks would help Obama, the opposite is true for Clinton, whose advisers would be happy with just a few extra days, they said in interviews Friday.

So, what are we left with? Going into Tuesday’s 22 contests, Clinton enters as the favorite in most, but the delegate distribution is proportionate, not winner-take-all. Obama doesn’t have to “win” Super Tuesday; he needs to minimize Clinton’s success and keep the race going. Noam Scheiber suggests carrying eight to 10 states and about 45% of the delegates should do the trick.

After Feb. 5, though, the landscape should get even more interesting, and may return to a pace Obama finds more favorable.

There’s not a day on the primary calendar between Tuesday and the convention that has more than four contests scheduled. Even on March 4, which the Post says could be a decisive day, Ohio and Texas are really the only two games in town. (Vermont and Rhode Island also vote that day, but, you know, they’re Vermont and Rhode Island.) And there are two weeks between March 4 and the previous primary day. Since, as MacGillis and Kornblut point out, Obama tends to do better the more time he can focus on a specific state, I see this slightly benefiting him.

Bottom line: It may be to Obama’s advantage to have one massive primary day (Feb. 5) followed by a bunch of two-state affairs, since, if he can just survive the former, he’s got a great shot in the latter. Conversely, it would have been much trickier for him to have several six- and eight-state primaries every week, since it would have been impossible to focus on one or two particular states but, unlike February 5, the press wouldn’t keep giving him a pass.

All of that sounds pretty persuasive, but here’s the catch — if Obama “survives” Feb. 5, but Clinton has a 250-delegate lead on Feb. 6, when does Obama catch up? Given that the rest of the contests also distribute delegates on a proportionate basis, the pressure would be on for him to do very well through the spring.

Stay tuned.

  • Right now, the thing feared most by the denizens of Fortress Hillary is time; the gnawing leviathan than has allowed Obama to come within striking distance. They counted on 2/5 for a sweeping knockout punch (given all the Obama-phobic taunts that pointed to 25-plus-point Clinton leads as recently as the beginning of last week); all they’re getting now, in a best-of-best-case scenarios, is a single-digit lead when those polls open next Tuesday.

    They might not even get that.

    When a candidate has the major dailies lined up, those newspapers begin to generate “phantom” appearances. Obama might be somewhere in Texas, but the Bee effectively becomes his “Sacramento Surrogate.” If the broadcast media starts doing such yeoman duty for him—broadcasting news and campaign-bytes—then they, too, become extensions of the campaign itself. That, of course, would be sheer irony—as it is exactly what Clinton has used for the past year to drum up her campaign.

  • It occurred to me that a person could be middle-aged and to have never voted in presidential election where there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot. I think that enough is enough.

  • Obama wouldn’t even say no when Rezko cooked up a deal to help the newly elected senator buy a gracious $1.6 million dollar Georgian-revival home right next to black slumlord slumlord & mafia connected Rezko’s own. That spells ‘bought & paid for’

    How anyone buys Obamas & Clintons altruistic acting is beyond me.

    Check out Ron Pauls campaign ideas.

  • I’m not sure I buy into this particular paradigm. Obama isn’t some unknown coming into view for the first time in any of these states, and his commercials that I’ve seen so far express his vision of hope very well. Clinton may have had the name recognition advantage at first, but I don’t think Obama is any less well known at this stage of the game unless a particular voter just hasn’t been paying attention at all.

    The contest is still wide open and anything can happen. We’ll see which candidate fortune favors at the end of the day.

    BTW, I’m really pleased that the two of them are making nice these days. It must frustrate the hell out the wingers because they’re not getting any ammo to launch wedge attacks with. Nice work, Bar and Hil. 🙂

  • Check out Ron Pauls campaign ideas.

    Which ones? The ones where he thinks black people are inferior? Or the ones where he wants to eliminate the government? Because, and I’m just speaking as me here, both are kinda problematic.

  • Obama isn’t some unknown coming into view for the first time in any of these states — Curmudgeon
    Recognizing the name and knowing the person are two different things.

  • Jeff #4: The Rezko story was debunked a long time ago. If you’re going to libel Obama, at least come up with something original.

  • I never thought that my vote would still have any meaning, since I’m in VA, where the primaries come a week after the Super Tuesday. But it now looks as if it may, I’m happy to see.

  • Curmudgeon:

    I canvassed in San Francisco today and met multiple registered Dems who had never even heard the name Barack Obama. I met a bunch of others who had heard his name but had no idea who he was, what he was about, etc. I talked to a lady on the phone two days ago who said she’d assumed she was gonna vote for Hillary until she saw Obama’s commercial Tuesday night, and now was interested. “Who is this guy?” I talked to her for 30 minutes…she didn’t know he was of mixed heritage, she didn’t know about his emphasis on positivity and bridging divisions (turns out her daughter has mixed-heritage too), really liked the sound of his healthcare policy, didn’t know he was a community organizer and really liked that…she left the conversation leaning Obama. And this wasn’t some rube, mind you: she said she’d been planning on reading all Hillary’s policies this weekend, that she always reads all the candidates’ policies, but she’d just been putting off dealing with it this year.

    But the ad about Obama’s mom struggling with her insurance payments resonated with her and she wanted to learn more. This was, mind you, two days ago.

    No, he’s not a known quantity in the least. And what’s more, every single state and the national polls all bear out the dynamic described. Iowa shows a Hillary lead for months, before a steep Obama climb. NH shows a big Hillary lead for months, before a steep Obama climb. Nevada shows a big Hillary lead for months, before a steep Obama climb. SC shows a big Hillary lead for months, before a steep Obama climb. Nationally, we see a big Hillary lead for months, before a steep Obama climb.

    Why might that be? Well, I’d say that once voters start “tuning in”, between 2 months and 2 weeks before the election, they actually get to know Obama and realize that they really like him.

    Most voters make their decisions on much less rational ideas than you realize, I think. I had a guy say to me today flat-out that he doesn’t make his decision based on any information or anything, and won’t decide until he’s in the booth. Then he’ll vote his “gut”

  • Don’t be surprised if John endorses Hillary after Super Tuesday. Like John, she is a life-long Democrat. Obama is a Obamacan Republican. It’s time for disappointed Edwards people who lean toward Obama to cash in their 5 cent can of hope and get informed about his politics. This explains why corporate media fawns over Obama: The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics
    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/the-audiology-of-hope-dogwhistle-economics/

    Compromising with Republicans, as Obama is too willing to do if he is president, will be just another crushing boot on the neck of lunch bucket Democrats who John and Hillary champion. Glenn Greenwald explains it: What “bipartisanship” in Washington means
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/index.html

  • Lowdowndog, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but calling Obama a Republican is just silly IMO. Just because a person is willing to sit and listen to another person doesn’t mean his believes what they say. But if one DOES stop to listen, REALLY LISTEN, he will find that on at least a few things they can find common ground. THAT is what Obama is talking about. Finding a fiscally conservative Republican who happens to be pro-choice….or a conservative Christian who happens to believe a healthcare change is desperately needed. This is what Obama means when he talks about finding common ground. NOT that he supports everything Republicans do.

    The politics of shunning anyone with a an R after their name or vise versa is outdated. What theis country needs is a progressive leader who can be a stateman and find common ground.

  • There was a loud rally for Obama in downtown Seattle today. I noticed a lot of young people in the crowd but the speakers were a lineup of sixty something longtime well known, well regarded (by liberals) and accomplished Seattle activists including a black former mayor, a black incumbent county councilman, a Hispanic social activist and a Filipino housing activist. These men have been fighting for social justice all their lives and their enthusiasm for Obama was obviously genuine. Surrogates like this will be a huge help for Obama in the liberal community. But will that be enough.

    I consider myself an independent voter so do not participate in the primaries because I refuse to declare for either party’s ballot. But I loathe the Republicans and merely have utter contempt for the Democrats so I always vote against the Republican. Some democracy eh?

  • obama is the best candidate. the name clinton is too old. bush and clinton had been running this country for the past 20year. dam sheet. clinton didn’t have any experient b4 he became pre. obama expi is far better than the one clinton had. GOD WILL STAND FOR HIM AND HE WILL WIN IN THE NAME OF JESUS. AMEN
    bush senior=4
    clinton=8
    bush jr=8
    total=20
    you tell me what else do this clinton what from the white house. what does she want to prove the husband. one ans that they are equal?

  • I guess in lowdowndog’s world, McCain is a Democrat, b/c, even though he pretty much always votes with the Republicans, he also co-sponsors bills with Feingold and Kennedy and says things that sound good to most independents and some Democrats and pisses off his conservative base.

    Right?

    So, Obama is a Republican and McCain is a Democrat. Obama, the guy who turned down a cushy consulting job to make 10K doing community organizing in Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods, is gonna put the “boot” to the neck of the working class. Right.

  • Lowdowndog has a point. I too fear that the Republicans will view even the act of listening by Obama as weakness. From the Greenwald link above:

    In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:

    To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

    GOP – 48-0

    Dems – 12-36

    To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

    GOP – 0-49

    Dems – 24-21

    To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

    GOP – 46-0

    Dems – 7-40

    To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

    GOP – 49-0

    Dems – 8-38

    Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

    GOP – 46-2

    Dems – 30-20

    To condemn MoveOn.org:

    GOP – 49-0

    Dems – 23-25

    The Protect America Act:

    GOP – 44-0

    Dems – 20-28

    Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:

    GOP – 48-1

    Dems – 16-33

    The Military Commissions Act:

    GOP – 53-0

    Dems – 12-34

    To renew the Patriot Act:

    GOP – 54-0

    Dems – 34-10

    Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

    GOP – 54-0

    Dems – 18-25

    Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

    GOP – 48-1

    Dems – 29-22

    On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

  • I have great doubt that Hillary is a champion of “lunch bucket” Democrats. She’ll be better than the republican but it will be a marginal difference. Let’s not forget that she supported the invasion of Iraq as a political calculation. She has demonstrated that she is willing to sacrifice people’s lives for her political ambition.

    If Obama had been in the senate when that war resolution was voted on there is a good chance that he too would have supported it. Marie thinks that God will stand for him but I don’t see him standing against torture and calling for the reinstatement of habeas corpus.

  • *** Seattle Liberal

    With all due respect you are wrong. Obama calls for a moratorium on practicing torture and calls for re-instating habeas corpus. His background as a community leader, a Constitutional lawyer, a civil rights attorney, a state senator and a US senator proves he fights for the people. Legislation he has co-sponsored and/or written is further proof. Moreover he has never compromised his values or principles in finding common ground.

    Obama is a visionary who knows how to get from point A to point B and on to Z if need be. He wants to unite the country. His track-record proves he connects and unites people of all stripes: age, colour, gender regardless of party affiliation. It also shows he can work across party lines. Actions speak louder than words. Obama is the best candidate we’ve seen in a really long time.

    Obama wants to change the mind-set: change the thinking [that got us into war in the first place]. A president sets the tone of the country. With someone like Obama as president just think of what we can accomplish.

    The voice of hope is alive. His words are inspiring and his vision is something that we all share. Moreover Obama is a man who acts on his convictions.

  • The Pendulum Swing:
    Hillary Clinton will make a better president at this point in time for a number of reasons. The one I would like to present here is the pendulum swing analogy that has been aptly applied to describe a variety of situations throughout time. I suggest that the election of George W. Bush to the White house was an enormous pendulum swing to the far right. That swing was a giant mistake following Bill Clinton’s presidency as we are all clearly aware of at this time.

    The far right, as we are also aware of, hated Bill Clinton. They despised him like I despise Karl Rove and Dick Chenny. (I don’t know if I can even muster up hatred for Bush any more as I tend to find him so pathetic these days that it seems wrong to feel hatred for him). They hated him because he was a slick, intelligent politician that ended their “we adore Ronald Reagan” years. He also fit their stereotype of the 60’s, pot-smoking, rally-holding, idealist that they didn’t think should be anywhere near actually running our country. And he beat them … twice.

    In response, they set out to bring him down. In an unprecedented process, they used millions of tax-payer’s dollars to bring up every situation Bill Clinton had every been part of that would, if played right, make him look like a dishonest, greedy and/or immoral person. They flashed these matters repeatedly across our TV screens, played them endlessly on radio stations and filled the citizens of the United States with an image of him, and by association, Hillary as very, very bad people. In the end, the Clintons were exonerated from every charge that was brought against them but, the effect took hold and persisted through the 2000 and 2004 elections and still persists today as is evidenced, I believe, by the Hillary hating members of both parties. I could add that none of the things either of them were accused of were immediate threats to national security or put the interests of the citizens in peril. Unlike those acts perpetrated by our present White House occupant … but that is another story.

    What the far right failed to realize was that Bill Clinton was as centrist a president as they could really hope for in a democrat. He was fiscally conservative by today’s standards, worked tirelessly to better how this country was viewed in the world and brought prosperity to a larger cross-section of the nation than perhaps has ever been achieved.

    If they had recognized this, they would not have sent the pendulum swinging so far to the right. They would have supported someone like John McCain and potentially have kept the White House and the Congress longer. But, their personal disdain for Bill Clinton, clouded their judgement.

    The democrats should take head of their mistakes. We want the pendulum to swing back but I would argue that we don’t want it to swing too far, if we do – we might suffer the same fate as the fractured base of the republican party. For this reason, I believe Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president than Barack Obama. Do I believe he is as far left as he has been painted of late … I do not. But, the truth is he doesn’t have enough substantial evidence on which to judge. His recent association with Ted Kennedy will hurt his record I believe because if there is anyone who is disliked by the right as much or more than Hillary Clinton, it is Ted Kennedy. Hillary Clinton espouses the same basic principals of Barack Obama and will lead the Democratic Party towards a new political agenda. She will, however, have the background to do this in a more centrist way.

    Mr. Obama is untried in so many ways. We do not know what will be thrown at him and how he will respond. We do not have a great deal of concrete examples to feed into our “looking ahead mentality”. I think we can better anticipate the type of work Hillary Clinton will do. She is a proven entity. She is not beholden to anyone … not even Bill. She is her own woman and will stand for what she believes in. You might argue that Barack will do the same but … he has had less time, and experience to hone those beliefs. Let’s keep the pendulum on the middle left for now. When things settle down a bit, we can pull it farther left and Barack can take us forward from there.

    Sixteen years is what I’m looking for, sixteen years at least!

  • Dennis @ 3: I agree with your concerns about our two party system turning into a two dynasty system. However, in all fairness, a conscientious voter who was born in 1959 would have turned 18 in 1977 and been first eligible to vote in 1980, when GHWB was a vice presidential candidate. That would make the oldest person to have never voted when a Bush or Clinton wasn’t on the ballot 49 this year. Still pretty scary, but is 49 middle age? I hope not, but maybe so.

    Jeff @ 4: I’m a small-l libertarian, and I am increasingly uncomfortable with Ron Paul’s racist and misogynistic history. He has some interesting — not necessarily valid, but interesting — financial and foreign policy ideas. But I don’t think anyone serious could vote for a guy who either thinks blacks are inherently inferior or who is so out of the loop in his own organization that he lets other people write that in his name. That’s either scary or incompetent, and we’ve had plenty of both the past 8 years, thank you very much.

    lowdowndog @ 13: Lots of implication and suggestion there, but doesn’t the record indicate that Hilary is much more willing to go along to get along with the Republicans? And where did this “John and Hilary” thing come from? Haven’t most of the unions who endorsed Edwards now moved on to Obama? Did they all get that wrong?

  • The argument that Fortress Hillary represents the “lunch bucket Democrat” is only partially correct. Although I seriously doubt that she’ll represent the Democrat, she will, indeed, represent the lunch bucket.

    How do I know this?

    Because of those three little words on the bottom of the lunch bucket:

    “Made in China.”

    I think that the United States has had its fill of “presidents” who invest their time and authority in building coalitions ONLY beyond the borders of this Republic. It is time to apply that concept inside the United States as well—and the only candidate demonstrating the political audacity and propensity to undertake such a task is Obama.

    The Republican mainline seeks to form coalitions beyond our borders, but at the same time realizes that the only way they can maintain power on the domestic front is through divisive polarization. In this, Hillary Clinton is no different.

    The “Republican alternative”—Ron Paul—seeks a path of nationalistic isolationism; a path little different from the regimes of North Korea and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge.

    The only candidate still standing who possesses the experiential wherewithal to accomplish that which must be done, in order to preserve the Republic itself, is Barack Obama.

  • Brooks

    Sorry to alarm you, but we are middle aged. At 42 I consider myself such as 42+42=84 (well into the senior citizen years if still kicking at all, I’m afraid, with the equidistant number on the other end of 42 being 0 🙂 )

    And, indeed and alas, I’ve never had the pleasure of voting in a presidential election without seeing the name Bush or Clinton or on the ballot.

    And libra, this Virginian gemini shares your excitement. Back when it was Bush vs. Gore I watched the exit polls and waited til the final call to go in and vote Nader. Wanted to make sure I wouldn’t be casting a spoiler vote against the Democrats while still putting in my progressive two cents. (AS IF, in those days Gore would have ever had a fighting chance in our “Great Commonwealth”) BTW if it had been remotely close I would have voted Gore, and don’t condone putting Republicans in the Whitehouse by splitting the progressive vote with third party candidates.

    Happily, times look like they might be changing and if it can happen in Virginia, methinks it can happen anywhere. So, I proudly sport my Obama bumper sticker and will go to the polls Feb. 12 with the thought that maybe, just maybe, my vote will count for something. And if, after all is said and done we find another Clinton on November’s ballot I will hold my nose and press the button for her. However, I refuse to cover my Obama bumper sticker with the name Clinton; guess it will be a “Mark Warner for senator” one. Which, BTW, since he seems a virtual shoo-in, gives me yet a little more hope for the incremental enlightenment of our Commonwealth’s citizens.

    Alas, we have those %#&@% Diebold machines here so I’m still more than a little skeptical about how much our votes will REALLY count.

  • p.s.

    This is my favorite blog though I’ve never posted before today. And I can’t help but wonder:
    WHAT’S UP with all the Ron Paul trolls on this site over the past few weeks?

  • Me?
    I ain’t exactly excited about the Cult of Personality aspect of Obama’s candidacy.
    Aren’t we just on the brink of (hopefully) dispatching one of those, next January?
    Why would/should we (want to) replace one Cult of Personality with another?

    “Hope” in one hand. Pee in the other. Which hand you gonna wash before you handle food?

  • Most of you participating here have my admiration no matter who you support. I would much rather disagree with someone who has thought deeply about this election and feels strongly about their chosen candidate.

    Having said that, I wish those of you who who do not support Obama would stop describing him as some kind of hope peddler with no substance. That just is not true. Serena1313 sumed it up pretty well on #20: “Obama calls for a moratorium on practicing torture and calls for re-instating habeas corpus. His background as a community leader, a Constitutional lawyer, a civil rights attorney, a state senator and a US senator proves he fights for the people. Legislation he has co-sponsored and/or written is further proof. Moreover he has never compromised his values or principles in finding common ground.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    You may still decide to support Hillary Clinton, and I respect that choice, but please stop trivializing Obama’s life experience. The fact is their are two strong, capable candidates still running for the Democratic nomination. The fact that Obama inspires hope should not be trivialized. Hope is bringing tens of thousands of new people to the polls to vote Democratic. Hope stirs the heart. Each presidency sets a tone and an overarching vision for the direction the nation will move. Wouldn’t it be great to feel a little bit of that hope AND have a capable leader in the Oval Office?

  • Most of us are aware that there are great transformations ahead for our world. Many of us are doing many things on many levels to make sure that this process is most evolutionary and that the end result is positive for all humanity. But right now in America there is a process under way that may determine the level of obstruction that we will face as we work to regain our greatness and heal our planet.

    For the first time in our lives many of us have opportunity to vote for someone who has a chance to win that we can actually believe in. For the first time in my life I feel inspired in the American political process and in the opportunity it presents for change. The voices calling for change are, for once, carrying hope in their tone rather than anger. The bubbling of energy feels like it is coming from among us rather than at us and it is giving us a glimpse of what we can do together.

    If you stop for a moment you will feel it. Yet we know from history and our own experience that this opportunity for change is the result of a collective awakening. It is born of a more profound source than one individual. It is not Obama that is going to bring about change. We are. Yet he is a rare soul that we can call upon to embody the leadership that will help bring about a wiser more prosperous nation and peace in a healing world. But it is up to us to make it happen and we must know that, as with any truly profound change, there will be rising obstacles and powerful forces that will stand in our way.

    Each of us, in our daily lives and in our subtle and profound ways, is making this change possible. We are removing the obstacles that come with such a challenge and what once seemed impossible is within our grasp. So let’s make sure that we remind ourselves and those around us who may have forgotten, that it is up to us to make a stand at this moment and make our voice heard. We must seize this opportunity and say, ‘Yes we can!’

    Here is a video that I hope will inspire you as much as it did me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&feature=related

    Send a note to everyone you can. Talk to those who you come across and offer them our simple message.

    Yes we can!

  • Latest poll data for super tuesday states from RealClearPolitics. Things are getting real tight in most of these states.

    Alabama:
    SurveyUSA 01/31 – 01/31 586 LV Clinton 47 Obama 47 =Tie
    InsiderAdvantage 01/31 – 01/31 424 LV Clinton 46 Obama 40 =Clinton +6.0
    Rasmussen 01/31 – 01/31 576 LV Clinton 46 Obama 41 =Clinton +5.0

    Arizona:
    Mason-Dixon 01/30 – 02/01 400 LV Clinton 43 Obama 41 =Clinton +2.0
    Rasmussen 01/31 – 01/31 537 LV Clinton 45 Obama 39 =Clinton +6.0

    California:
    Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 01/31 – 02/02 1141 LV Clinton 41 Obama 45 =Obama +4.0
    Mason-Dixon 01/30 – 02/01 400 LV Clinton 45 Obama 36 =Clinton +9.0
    Field 01/25 – 02/01 511 LV Clinton 36 Obama 34 =Clinton +2.0
    Rasmussen 01/29 – 01/29 807 LV Clinton 43 Obama 40 =Clinton +3.0

    Colorado: note: taken bfore Edwards dropped out
    Denver Post 01/21 – 01/23 LV Obama 34 Clinton 32 Edwards 17 Obama +2.0

    Connecticut:
    SurveyUSA 01/30 – 01/31 679 LV Clinton 44 Obama 48 =Obama +4.0
    Rasmussen 01/27 – 01/27 899 LV Clinton 40 Obama 40 =Tie
    Hartford Courant 01/09 – 01/17 403 LV Clinton 41 Obama 27 =Clinton +14.0

    Georgia:
    Rasmussen 02/02 – 02/02 542 LV Obama 52 Clinton 37 =Obama +15.0
    Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 01/31 – 02/02 940 LV Obama 48 Clinton 28 =Obama +20.0
    Mason-Dixon 01/30 – 02/01 400 LV Obama 47 Clinton 41 =Obama +6.0
    InsiderAdvantage 01/30 – 01/30 301 LV Obama 52 Clinton 36 =Obama +16.0

    Illinois:
    Chicago Tribune 01/29 – 01/31 500 LV Obama 55 Clinton 24 =Obama +31.0
    Rasmussen 01/29 – 01/29 631 LV Obama 60 Clinton 24 =Obama +36.0
    Research 2000 01/21 – 01/24 500 LV Obama 51 Clinton 22 =Obama +29.0

    Massachusetts:
    SurveyUSA 01/30 – 01/30 575 LV Clinton 57 Obama 33 Clinton +24.0
    Rasmussen 01/28 – 01/28 1023 LV Clinton 43 Obama 37 Clinton +6.0
    Western NE College 01/20 – 01/26 151 LV Clinton 43 1Obama 5 Clinton +28.0
    State House News 01/09 – 01/12 400 LV Clinton 37 Obama 25 Clinton +12.0

    Minnesota: note: prior to Edwards dropping out
    Minn. Pub. Radio 01/18 – 01/27 478 LV Clinton 40 Obama 33 Edwards 12 =Clinton +7.0
    Star Tribune 09/18 – 09/23 Adults Clinton 47 Obama 22 Edwards 16 =Clinton +25.0

    Missouri:
    Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 01/31 – 02/02 877 LV Clinton 44 Obama 43 =Clinton +1.0
    Mason-Dixon 01/30 – 02/01 400 LV Clinton 47 Obama 41 =Clinton +6.0
    SurveyUSA 01/30 – 01/31 664 LV Clinton 48 Obama 44 =Clinton +4.0

    Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread
    Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 01/31 – 02/02 868 LV Clinton 43 Obama 42 =Clinton +1.0
    Monmouth/Gannett 01/30 – 02/01 718 LV Clinton 50 Obama 36 =Clinton +14.0
    Mason-Dixon 01/30 – 02/01 400 LV Clinton 46 Obama 39 =Clinton +7.0
    SurveyUSA 01/30 – 01/31 642 LV Clinton 51 Obama 39 =Clinton +12.0
    GQR (D) 01/30 – 01/31 600 LV Clinton 44 Obama 38 =Clinton +6.0

    New York:
    Rasmussen 01/31 – 02/01 799 LV Clinton 51 Obama 30 =Clinton +21.0
    SurveyUSA 01/30 – 01/31 950 LV Clinton 54 Obama 38 =Clinton +16.0
    WNBC/Marist 01/30 – 01/31 409 LV Clinton 54 Obama 38 =Clinton +16.0
    USA Today/Gallup 01/23 – 01/26 767 HT Clinton 56 Obama 28 =Clinton +28.0

    Oklahoma:
    Sooner Poll 01/27 – 01/30 405 LV Clinton 41 Obama 17 =Clinton +24.0
    SurveyUSA 01/27 – 01/27 714 LV Clinton 44 Obama 19 =Clinton +25.0
    SurveyUSA 01/11 – 01/13 650 LV Clinton 45 Obama 19 =Clinton +26.0

    Tennessee:
    InsiderAdvantage 01/30 – 01/30 463 LV Clinton 59 Obama 26 =Clinton +33.0
    Rasmussen 01/30 – 01/30 448 LV Clinton 49 Obama 35 =Clinton +14.0
    WSMV-TV 01/28 – 01/29 402 LV Clinton 36 Obama 31 =Clinton +5.0

  • anybody that seriously thinks or has ever said that the bush administration has been one of the worst in the history of this country needs to take a long hard look at why they are supporting someone who hasn’t even’t served three years in the senate. the man is simply not qualified to clean up junior’s mess.

    hillary clinton is obviously the most qualified person in this country to clean up junior’s mess. this election is for grown ups. what you hope for and believe in is foolish. listen to your elders who remember that depsite his flaws and the millions spent to smear him, clinton was effective at running the government. hillary will be even more effective than bill. people see that. this is simple. we want good, effective government. we don’t want some stupid movement. clinton = good government, look it up.

  • God when will these people get off the idea that Hillary supported the “invasion of Iraq” as Seattle liberal suggest. Bush was going to invade Iraq irregardless of what the senate decided. Biden practically begged Bush to allow the senate to vote to approve just so it would be legal in this country.

    Hillary, like many others voted for an authorization to use military force…but as a last resort. after all other tactics had been tried etc…I get so tired of having to repost this stuff. It’s not a deal breaker. ***Marie***stay off the net after taking your meds will ya?
    ***Serena 1313*** you are projecting what you want to believe onto your candidate. You have no more idea that this is what Obama would do than I do. This is not truth but merely what you surmise.
    ***Marian***great comment and I am uncommitted so far.

    You know, before Hitler became the monster we know he had absolutely inspiring rhetoric, promising a thousand years of peace and prosperity. I have to have some particulars to sink my teeth into because I know what actors are capable of when it comes to performing in front of an audience. I want to be cautious and deliberative enough to believe that such inspiring words can be grounded in reality. Truth has its own ‘ring’ to it. Sometimes we are intuitively led but without leaving space for openmindedness we fail to hear the voice of intuition. In this case i am grateful we have 2 candidates who would both be good presidents, so I win which ever way I decide, on which I consider to be best suited.

  • hillary’s aumf vote takes away mccain’s advantage on national security for all those millions of voters right in the middle that made the same mistake she did. she is obviously not as crazy as mccain and obviously knows we have to get out. in fact she will have us getting out within 60 days, so she has obama outflanked on that.

    they can’t call her weak in the general. she can’t be outflanked by a hawk. obama has his pants down around his ankles. they will say he was against the war before he was for it and that will be that, end of obama.

    checkmate hillary.

  • Comments are closed.