2008 Obama Speaks: “The Eyes of the World Are Watching to See if We Can”
posted by on March 4 at 21:05 PM
I know I’m going to get flamed in the comments for not quoting from Obama’s speech tonight as liberally as I quoted from Clinton’s. But it was very similar to his stump speech, which I’ve already written a lot about.
New and notable additions:
• Obama, like Clinton before him, evoked the idea of the 3 a.m. call. He said it’s important that the person answering have good judgment and the wisdom to know when to send American troops into harm’s way—and when he or she does that, to send them to “fight on the right battlefield.”
• And there was a new focus on the idea that “the world is watching.” I see this as a ratcheting-up of pressure on voters to help him close the deal, and a linking of the urgency of finishing up the Democratic contest with the sense of urgency among Democrats in restoring America’s international reputation.
But at the end of the speech, Obama still has only one win (Vermont) to Clinton’s two wins (Ohio and Rhode Island). And Texas is still too close to call with Clinton holding a slim lead in the primary.
Obama will very likely come out of tonight still ahead in the delegate count. But the mantra on TV right now is “You can’t win by losing.” Meaning: Obama needs both wins and delegates to finish this up. Meaning: Showdown in Pennsylvania.
The world's watching us didn't work too well as a theme.
You can't guilt swing voters in Ohio and Florida into voting for someone for president because he is the guy the rest of the world wants to see.
In fact, that argument would have the opposite effect, and likely repel our beloved voters, who are not exactly the most internationalist folks in the world, unlike us her eon Cap Hill or down in Berkely or in Cambridge, etc.
realistically, she'll need something like a 30 point win in Pennsylvania to win the nomination, unless she wants the supers to get her the win against the popular vote. it's already being thought that her win will spike the supers to start coming out for Obama, so that no one thinks that she can pull it off.
Eli, you should really correct the title of your post. When Obama speaks 'Yes We Can,' theirs an implied (Elect Me) that really shouldn't be left out.
Eli,
Dont be wilfully ignorant. Obama will certainly come out of tonight ahead in the delegate count. The question was not could she get a victory or two or three, but could she amass crushing victories sufficient to give her a chance to overcome his lead and win out in the end. She wont' have done that.
Did anyone see 60 minutes this weekend? The interviewed a diverse group of Democrats from Ohio. Central among them was this guy, a second generation unskilled union worker who was losing his job at the end of the year. He was crying because his wife had MS and he was going to lose his health care coverage when he lost his job. He wasn't sure about voting for Obama because "He didn't know the words to the national anthem & he didn't know the bible" (because he was 'Muslim')
This is Hillary's 'base'
'Tis truly said that when Pres Hillary finally takes that 3 a.m. call (Dave Ross stopped counting after six rings), she'll scream into the handset, "Wash your crotch, Bill, and get home NOW!"
@5: If I remember correctly, that man said he was still "leaning toward Obama," despite believing he might be Muslim. Not quite Hillary's base.
You're regurgitating spin.
It's highly improbable, especially after tonight, that Clinton will come out with a higher pledged delegate count by the summer, even if they count Florida and Michigan. By not winning Texas and Ohio by 10+% margins -- granted, nobody expected this -- she'll have to win out the remainder of the states by a 20% margin. She only gets the nomination if the superdelegates give it to her or Obama has an improbable meltdown.
I do think this increases the chances that Clinton will hold out until PA, though.
For better of for worse Clinton will (most likely) pull it all out in the end. This is why the Obama camp was calling for Clinton to withdrawal. They fear the inevitable swing towards Clinton. It is something unexplainable almost evil but I feel a lot more comfortable that Clinton is better on the gay issues. I must admit there are so many reasons I would like to see Obama win. First, his recent rhetorical about gays was “pretty cool.” Socially conservative African-Americans that are against gays have really bothered me for decades since personally I have been behind and fought for the rights of “blacks” since I was a small child in South Carolina back in the 70’s. It is nice to see Obama take them to task. Also, recently while I was traveling around the world inside some rather homogeneous countries I come in contact with people “concerned” about possibly electing an Afro-American to be president. WTF! What does his fucking color have to do with this ability to run the country. (However, he is from Hawaii and socially they are conservative as fuck for some reason and I don’t trust that but that is a whole ‘nother issue entirely). Oh well, politically the State of Ohio is HUGE. Every politico knows that. We’ll see how things go from here.
DCrowe@5: Even if you're slightly misquoting I'm inclined to agree -- America would rather have a woman than a black man with a "funny name" as president. In the end I think most of these "Democrats" would just swing over and vote for McCain.
Things are scary here in the U.S.
Why is nobody talking about the fact that Billary is only winning the areas that vote Republican in the general?
In Ohio, Hillary won the trailer-park set, and lost in nearly every urban center (save Cleveland, where she basically tied).
In Texas, she's getting her ass handed to her in every city, but winning the tumbleweed demographic by double-digit margins.
I think this means that people in flyover country really *are* stupid.
This is what we know.
1. Obama will likely win due to his lead in delegates.
2. Clinton is a close second.
3. Clearly Obama has a problem and is not without flaws and limitations. how could he not win TX OH NJ NY CA MA FL MI etc.
4. Clearly Clinton has problems too and is not without flaws and limitations.
5. The people and the party is / are split and there is no wipeout of one candidate by the other.
Gotta admit: winning 3 tonight (TX is 73% in, HRC 3 pts. ahead and holding) after losing 11 and after being outsepnt on TV by liek 2:1 shows some real grit in our gal Hillary.
6. To achieve unity going forward the best outcome is a ticket with both of them on it.
MSNBC just called Texas for Clinton. Blowhard Matthews is still blowing the line that she's "three for four", but she's going to pick up a net margin of TWO delegates in that primary, and she's going to give them back, and many more in the caucuses. I see them even on delegates for the night. Obama's lead is intact.
@11
you are seeing the result of Obama getting like over 80% from African Americans who tend to be concentrated in cities after decades of Jum Crow and lynching pushing them out of the rural areas.
And Democrats should win those "trailer park" folks you derisively mention. IF you mean rural white working class folks, handing them over to the GOP means...Democrats lose in November.
Btw, did you want a venti mochafrappacino or what?
I was paraphrasing - he did say he was 'thinking' about voting for Obama was wasn't sure because of the reasons I quoted.
Anyway the original video is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3897988n
And if that doesn't work it's on 60 minutes website - about the third one down called "All Eyes on Ohio"
@5, that guy crying on the teevee is MY base. He'll vote for me, along with all of the people described @11. After Senator Clinton's campaign finishes off Obama, I'll win the general in a cakewalk.
Cindy has her eye on some nice china patterns for the White House...
clinton can't keep claiming michigan; obama and edwards weren't even on the ballot! argh.
@ 12: well, the reason he didn't win michigan is that he wasn't even on the ballot. and no one campaigned in florida, which gives an advantage to the person with best name recognition.
A Non Imus, your facts are wrong. Cuyahoga (Cleveland) has swung over to Obama, and should continue to do so. In Texas, Obama is not winning in ALL the big cities, just Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Houston. Clinton is winning in San Antonio and El Paso, Laredo -- all the border cities. Hispanics v. blacks, dontcha know.
I think Obama is going to end up with more delegates from March 4.
@14:
Fuck me, that's a tired insult. In case you haven't noticed, Starbucks sells venti frappuccinos in every mall in flyover country.
I think there's another, equally plausible way to look at the lopsidedness of her win, and it's far less charitable to the rubes in hickville: Billary's base consists of people who simply can't vote for a black man. Know where those people tend to live?
(Here's a hint: not in the major cities.)
Those people who think Clinton will "pull it out in the end"... I just don't get it.
All the momentum and spin in the world won't undo the math. Clinton already missed the opportunity to walk away with the majority of the delegates in February. After tonight, at best, she will have cut 20 delegates into Obama's 150+ delegate lead. A huge win in Pennsylvania won't do it. A big win in Ohio tonight wasn't enough without another in Texas -- and even then, her chances wouldn't have been much improved.
I'm not against Clinton being the Democratic candidate, but I don't see how it will happen. Chock it up to the audacity of hope? After the dust clears, I'm betting you'll see a lot of press in the next week about the delegate counts and the significant improbability of a Clinton nomination. If Brokaw's right about those 50 superdelegates waiting in the wings for Obama, then it's over before Wyoming.
@17
u r quibbling. Obama failed to win the majority of big states and only won (a) his home state and (b) GA.
That is a problem. A flaw. A limitation. His message does not overpower Democrats in the biggest states with the most electoral votes.
If he's the nominee, he better work on that and fix it. And: we need to help him.
One idea: put Hillary on the ticket.
You know, the one who won CA NY TX FL OH MI NJ MA and maybe...PA??????
You know....unity?
Duh.
@9 and other Clinton supporting gays: You're all aware Hillary is "authentically" against gay marriage?
sorry, unPC, but clinton does not equal unity. she's a divisive stake in the heart of the country.
@19:
You might want to re-check. Obama is winning Austin, Dallas and Houston -- by 60/40 margins or more.
Of the four largest cities in Texas, Hilary has a 60/40 lead in one: San Antonio.
In Ohio, Obama is leading 52/47 in Cleveland, with slightly more than a third of the vote counted. So it's swung a bit toward Obama since the last time I checked, but it's still a statistical tie.
Gay Seattle@9: I don't know why gays have this false belief that Hillary cares about us. She talks the talk but she also supported DOMA, might heed her husband's advice and says she's "authentically" against gay marriage.
Wake up people. She is NOT our friend. She is a politician who will do anything to win.
Only won IL and GA, or has won 26 primaries so far? Smaller states can't be dismissed. That's part of how O created his lead.
According to CNN's exit poll data, 20% of Ohio voters said race was a factor in their decision, and over 60% of those voters went for Clinton. So to underscore A Non Imus' point, 10% of the votes for Clinton in OH were at least partly based on that Obama is black. Depressing.
@20
we need those votes in trailer parks to win. I don't care why they didn't vote for Obama. If he can't get their vote, he may not be someone who can win in November. They didn't vote for Dukakis, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Gore or Kerry. Advocating a candidate while saying he can't get those votes is not a path towards winning the general election.
Thanks for spelling frappucino correctly, I didn't know how.
@27
Yes that data is consistent with what we all know: there are more racists among whites than among blacks.
Depressing. OK, can we get back to winning the general election? I have not dismissed O's 26 states I've said he is ahead in delegates (duh, due to those 26 states) and is the likely nominee and has a problem to solve:
how to win in big states like Ohio -- whre he was the loser in the primary.
solution:
unite the kind of folks who voted for Obama with the kind of folks who voted for Clinton by putting Hillary on the ticket. Urban centers plus trailer trash. That's a winning combo.
Um this used to be called the Democratic majority.
Perhaps you have studied winning Democrats like FDR?
Or the JFK-LBJ combo ticket? OR LBJ in 1964? These tickets got all the urban northerners and midwesterners and all the rural trailer trash. that's a winning combo.
@28,
Those trailer park voters who handed Ohio to Clinton are Democrats. This is a Democratic nomination. Virtually all of those Democrats will vote for Obama in the general election.
Clinton is a Senator from New York. How could Obama managed to win that state? Florida and Michigan didn't have real primary contests. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. How do you win a state when you're not on the ballot?
Texas will not go Democratic in the general election. Clinton's managing to get barely half of the Democratic vote in Texas will meaning nothing in the general election.
California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey and solidly blue states. They will vote for the Democratic nominee for president no matter who he or she is.
No, it isn't. Those Democrats will vote for him in the general election. Polling has overwhelmingly shown that virtually all Democrats who voted in the primaries would be fine with either candidate.
Yet, again, the "trailer park" Democrats who voted for Clinton will vote for Obama. Just as they voted for Dukakis, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry. (Certainly not for McGovern, who would vote for him?) The trailer park and assorted other Republicans and Independents overruled their votes in all of those elections.
The question is who can get the votes of Independents and moderate Republicans. Hint: it's not Hillary.
Math of the Moot Point:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751
@31: ouch, i didn't realize it was that bad. she really should drop out. it's silly to throw all this money at an election she realistically can't win.
@25: where did you study your cherry-picking technique? It's brill. You're still wrong, of course.
Clinton won the Texas cities with lots of Hispanics, and Obama won the ones with more African-Americans. In Ohio, Obama won Cleveland handily (big lead, still only 44% of the vote in), but you missed Toledo, which went Clinton.
@33:
Whatever you say, asshole. Can you not read the stats on CNN.com? I can. Hillary won every goddamn county in the state of Texas, except for the cities that I mentioned, where she's losing 40/60, just like I said. If you want to interpret that as "winning the hispanic vote", then you go ahead and do that.
Anyway, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about -- we both agree that Obama won the urban centers, and Hillary won the hicks -- so if you want to dominate the politics-geek contest that you seem to have such a hard-on to win, then fine: you win.
Now, go back upstairs and have dinner with your mom. Remember to wash the spooge off your hands before you eat.
I wonder what would happen if everyone started phoning Sen Clinton at 3 am their time ...
And recording the result for a video.
"hello! It's 3 a.m. Something's happening!"
Huh, voice mail ... again.
Guess that was just a lie ...
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).