While talking msn heads tell us that the world is watching, and ADORES Obama, I am reminded that wherever Bill Clinton went in the world, they loved him as well. In fact, he was always welcome, because everybody ON EARTH new that when Clinton got involved, everybody would benefit. This same political sense makes Ed Rendell effective. Hillary offers that very quality. We saw that Bush didn't travel. Probably couldn't cope emotionally with rejection. In the same vein, we don't see BHO campaigning in states where his ICONIC IMAGE doesn't work; Like Michael Jackson, king of pop and so into his trip. We've paid our dues to know better and have the skills to win elections. Projections aren't what gets hooked fish into the boat. Fantasies about red states in the blue column only work when the process is respected and ALL rules are observed. By trumping the Convention process, pressuring Super Delegates into a premature decision for the sake of fundraising for the General, the funding is compromised along with support for the Candidate. This cannot be a party unity issue. This is a serious question that treats Mrs. Clinton and her supporters as though she were a fringe candidate with lukewarm support. If it was all about money, then the actions of the DNC to pose as Lobbist-rejecting, Public Finance rejecting DIY experts, then SAY it's about money. Here in Pennsylvania, we should know better: the Obama Campaign outspent (but didn't outwork) the Clinton Campaign more than 3 1/2 to 1 and just couldn't sell this guy. He can brag about the money being raised by the campaign - but it isn't a guarantee that the money will buy the votes. For the party leadership to be asking people who have been cavalierly dismissed by the Party to go door to door for "their" hand-picked unknown defies political realism. No matter how you skew the polls, you cannot dismiss the strong support for Clinton as though she were just another unknown on the ballot that will be easily forgotten.
Posted by SWPAnnA (not verified) on July 2, 2008 - 9:08am.
While talking msn heads tell us that the world is watching, and ADORES Obama, I am reminded that wherever Bill Clinton went in the world, they loved him as well. In fact, he was always welcome, because everybody ON EARTH new that when Clinton got involved, everybody would benefit. This same political sense makes Ed Rendell effective. Hillary offers that very quality. We saw that Bush didn't travel. Probably couldn't cope emotionally with rejection. In the same vein, we don't see BHO campaigning in states where his ICONIC IMAGE doesn't work; Like Michael Jackson, king of pop and so into his trip. We've paid our dues to know better and have the skills to win elections. Projections aren't what gets hooked fish into the boat. Fantasies about red states in the blue column only work when the process is respected and ALL rules are observed. By trumping the Convention process, pressuring Super Delegates into a premature decision for the sake of fundraising for the General, the funding is compromised along with support for the Candidate. This cannot be a party unity issue. This is a serious question that treats Mrs. Clinton and her supporters as though she were a fringe candidate with lukewarm support. If it was all about money, then the actions of the DNC to pose as Lobbist-rejecting, Public Finance rejecting DIY experts, then SAY it's about money. Here in Pennsylvania, we should know better: the Obama Campaign outspent (but didn't outwork) the Clinton Campaign more than 3 1/2 to 1 and just couldn't sell this guy. He can brag about the money being raised by the campaign - but it isn't a guarantee that the money will buy the votes. For the party leadership to be asking people who have been cavalierly dismissed by the Party to go door to door for "their" hand-picked unknown defies political realism. No matter how you skew the polls, you cannot dismiss the strong support for Clinton as though she were just another unknown on the ballot that will be easily forgotten.