Two weeks ago, The New Republic favorably compared Barack Obama to Howard Dean, saying Obama was matching People-Powered Howards's movement while learning from Dean's mistakes.But while this morning's Washington Post declares, "There is, without doubt, a nationwide wave building behind Sen. Barack Obama," there are also some eerily familiar red flags:
[Obama] fell well short of the clear win that some of his supporters could not help but fantasize about as he shot up in the polls in the past week. He lost in New Jersey and Massachusetts after appearing to threaten upsets in the two states, where Clinton maintained solid leads until recently. [...]
[T]here is a hard-to-explain disconnect between the muddled results and the near-delirious enthusiasm at Obama's recent rallies, which far exceeds anything at Clinton's smaller, more sedate events.
As Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall puts it this morning, "The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off."
It goes without saying that Obama is twice the candidate Dean was, with much stronger appeal across party lines and a vastly smoother style on the stump. And there are plenty of reasons to think Obama will do well in upcoming contests, not the least of which is his rabid support here in Virginia.
Do Raising Kaine's many Obamaniacs think any changes are needed to further translate enthusiastic support into dominance at the polls? Or will we look back on Super Tuesday as simply a checkpoint in Obama's ascendancy?
Which leads me to my one suggestion--between now and our primaries next Tuesday, EVERY SINGLE Obama supporter possible MUST be IN THE STREETS, ON THE PHONES, and doing what needs to be done to elect him. I think the enthusiastic support among young people, particularly, needs to translate into more ACTION for this to really take root, and have Obama continue building momentum enough to secure the nomination.
But, come on, let's think about who and what Obama was up against in this election (the Clinton Dynasty) and acknowledge how much he and this movement have actually ALREADY changed things. It's not insignificant.
Barack Obama is one of the best candidates to come along in years--inspirational and empowering--but candidates don't determine who wins elections, and it's not the MSM, either. And hopefully no one will be offended if I point out that it's not the blogs that win elections, either. :) At the end of the day, it's the individual voter who gets to make a decision, so if we want to really influence this primary, we need to talk to as many voters as possible in the very short time we have left. VOLUNTEER. PHONEBANK. CANVASS. Please don't sit on your hands or on your rump at your keyboard assuming that someone else is going to win an election for you--be proactive volunteer today.
But the so-called MSM only carried so much of what really mattered, just enough to build a momentum for him (as opposed to Kerry) and then swoop in for the "kill," wherein they took him apart limb-by-limb. Dean was a real straight talker, as opposed to the pretend one wearing that PR mantle as we speak. Even Republican Diane Sawyer (she worked in the Nixon White House), said an injustice had been done by the media in the wake of the manipulative, sound-engineered "scream." With more people getting their news from non-commerical TV than ever, it's a bit harder to get away with the same thing now. But it still could happen. For all the co-called"debates," and all-talk all the time cable "news," the idiocy of people like Chris Matthews illustrates how precariously our political information system is perched.
Second, I think Obama has been careful to learn the lessons of not peaking too early, and using every second to drill into the discussion corrections to false claims against his record.
But, again, it's misleading to say that what happened in 2004 was just that Dean failed, though he ultimately did. We all, the whole party, failed to have the courage to select a candidate who, from the beginning, stood strongly against an immoral war. Like lemmings, the party went for the convenient the supposedly safer path. Instead of standing strongly with conviction against the administration, Mrs. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and to a less extent, others,pummeled Dean for both perversions of some of his positions and also for his statements that were, in hindsight, exactly right. There was unbelievable character assassination too, much of it too unfair, untrue, and ugly to trot it out again. The Senatorial presidential Dems back then, at least a couple of them, engaged in the filthiest campaign tactics, such as equating Dean to OBL in ads, much the Republican Saxby Chambliss did to Mac Cleland. None of the Hillary naysayers (of which I am one) has done that. Nor would we. But Hillary's people probably would (use these tactics against a Dem).
Meanwhile, Hillary's support may be less deep than people think. This time, millions of women voted for Hillary primarily because she's a woman. As a feminist, I cringe at this. We are citizens with the right, indeed, the duty, to vote for the best candidate, not a re-tread of times past, not the merely familiar, but rather the one who most closely stands for the values we hold dear. Not some shadow of our values, some glimmer of incrementalism, or some cautious learning from "old mistakes," but rather someone who is on the right path from the beginning. On policy matters, we don't need someone always playing defense. And we need one who gets that we need to inspire new generations to take up the banner.
The media are, as we speak, manipulating the messages of the candidates for public consumption. They've lied about Barack Obama by telling Democrats he runs to the right of Hillary to scare off progressive Democratic voters. Just wait till we see how the media will change their tune in the general. They'll then lie that he's "too liberal to win." Most of all, they are engineering as we speak the campaign of the so-called maverick, the so-called straight-talker (who isn't). And if we are not ready, neither our candidate (Barack), or Hillary will be standing the day after the General Election.
We have to begin TODAY, disabusing fellow citizens of the myth of John McCain. When the learn the real McC., they won't believe how they have been had. The question is, will it be too late. It is up to us. And this time the disaffection will be based on facts. They took Howard Dean out because he opposed a war in Iraq. They took Howard Dean down with a rigged scream, but these same folks will cover for John McCain's real temper, his (Joseph) McCarthy-ite statements, his willingness to occupy Iraq for even a million years (that's right), and his coining a preemptive war strategy (without imminent threat) three years before Bush. The man is plain dangerous. Some of you here jumped all over MoveOn.org when they took issue with Gen. Petraeus. But it is telling how McCain reacted. He said Moveon.org would be kicked out of the country. And now he pretends to respect the fact that there are differences in this country. Talk is cheap. He's already proven he does not tolerate dissent. That is unacceptible and unConsitutional of him. John McC simply must not win in Nov.
Hillary thinks because she fought the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she'll hold up under the new onslaught of the second coming of Bush (surrogate). That's not a foregone conclusion. Of course, there is also the most important fact, that, on the issues, Barack Obama isn't offering a warmed-over DLC platform, but rather a fresh one.
Be the change. Let's give this the very best fact-checking effort we've got in us. Lowell is fact-chacker par excellence. But we need everyone here at RK (and the rest of the progressive blogosphere) getting the word out, not just on the blogs, but outside the blogosphere. Instead of ho-humming, we have to assertively rebut every single false claim against our candidate airing. And start right now taking on the not-straight-talking jalopy. Actually, he's more like a train-wreck. We can't afford a term of Bush policies and surrogates. Enough is enough!
And that's a whole other diary -- is Limbaugh's opposition actually helping McCain among moderates and independents?
So one has to ask, what are they up to? I think they are trying to keep independents and Republican moderates from Obama. They read the numbers and I think they are trying to mislead those disaffected by 7 years of Bush and keep them from defecting to us (especially any "Reagan democrats).
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) loaned her presidential campaign $5 million at the end of last month, a cash infusion sure to stoke speculation that her once-vaunted fundraising operation is losing steam.[...]
How Clinton's loan fits into the overall campaign narrative is hard to say. On the one hand, voters tend to be unconcerned about where a candidate's campaign cash comes from and aren't likely to be following the story all that closely. If Clinton needed the money to ensure much needed wins in places like California, New Jersey and Arizona, then it was money well spent.
On the other hand, Clinton's loan could well be painted as a sign that the campaign is struggling to stay competitive with Obama financially with a drawn out nomination fight still to come. If that story line comes to dominate, it could upset the current 50-50 balance of the race coming out of Feb. 5.
Uh oh.
By the way, my pre-primary prediction was:
Obama 854 pledged delegates
Clinton 834 pledged delegates
Just sayin'... :)