Obama's Ground Game Advantage
Obama's ground game -- an army of helping hands. (Reuters).
By Peter Slevin
CHICAGO -- Political campaigns play to their strengths, and one realm where Sen. Barack Obama has excelled is the ground game.
When the campaign began one year ago, Obama was far less known nationally than his principal rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards (D-N.C.). Since then, the freshman senator from Illinois has benefited enormously from the work of legions of grass-roots organizers who are giving, heart and soul, to his White House bid.
Obama's successes in the early primaries owe much to the tactics and initiative of young field organizers in places like Estill, S.C., Elko, Nev., and Waterloo, Iowa. Looking ahead to Super Tuesday, where voters in 22 states will choose Democratic delegates, the Obama campaign is again counting on a superior ground game to peel away delegates in very competitive districts.
More than 500 paid staffers have been deployed to the Feb. 5 states, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe reported in a conference call with reporters today. He said the campaign has what it calls 75,000 "active volunteers" making telephone calls, knocking on doors and otherwise helping out.
To show what a difference the organization can make, Plouffe pointed to Saturday's South Carolina primary, where Obama won 44 of 46 counties and more than doubled Clinton's vote totals amid record turnout. He said 13,000 volunteers reported for duty on Election Day.
That works out to one volunteer for every 23 voters who cast a ballot for Obama.
"This is a place," Plouffe told reporters, referring to the ground game, "where I think we have a dominant advantage."
With vast territory to work and only seven days left, strategists for the surviving candidates are racing to decide how to apportion the campaign's money and time, not to mention the energy of the candidates and their surrogates. Plouffe said the Obama camp is now running radio or television ads in all 22 Feb. 5 states, except Illinois, where a recent poll shows Obama leading Clinton by a 2 to 1 margin.
Although polls show Obama trailing in some of the biggest Feb. 5 states, Plouffe said the Obama campaign has raised $5 million online since the South Carolina polls closed. The campaign says it has registered more than 600,000 donors so far, with fewer than 3 percent having contributed the maximum allowable amount.
Surrogates are on the air for Obama in their own states, including Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Sen. Kent Conrad in North Dakota and Gov. Janet Napolitano in Arizona. Advertisements with other prominent supporters are in the works, Plouffe said.
An example of Obama's unorthodox decision to deploy organizers to unlikely states is Kansas, where he visited his grandparents' home town of El Dorado today and picked up the endorsement of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a popular two-term governor known for working with Republicans -- at least the ones she was unable to persuade to switch parties. Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, now a Democrat, is a former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party.
Obama staffers first appeared in Kansas in October, four months before the Feb. 5 caucus and three months before the first Clinton organizers arrived in the state. There are now 18 Obama workers in Kansas, or six times the number of Clinton staffers. All this for a state that will choose 32 delegates on Tuesday, compared with 370 in California and 232 in New York.
"Showing the ability to perform well across the country, particularly against Senator Clinton, who was the inevitable national front-runner for most of the campaign, has great value," Plouffe said in an earlier interview with The Trail. "If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, the night of Novermber 3, we're going to be talking about a lot more states in play than Senator Clinton."
Thirteen Kansas legislators gathered in the ornate statehouse rotunda in Topeka on Jan. 17 to endorse Obama. They said the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had done almost nothing to reach out to them, while the Obama staff had called repeatedly -- often after organizing groups of activists in the legislators' districts.
By saying voters in their districts were supporting Obama, the campaign workers persuaded the legislators to take a closer look.
"It's a response to voters who are telling us whom we should support," said Sen. Anthony Hensley, the senate minority leader.
A very different demographic group is helping Clinton, said her Kansas co-chair, Topeka attorney Dan Lykins, who has been the state party chair since 1992. He predicted a close race between Obama and Clinton with Edwards trailing.
"Probably the people who are organizing the best and helping us the most are the labor union people and also some of the regular Democrats who have always been there," Lykins said. "I know that when they say they're going to work, they will. These are the same active Democrats who have been helping our party for 20 or 30 years."
The Obama campaign likes the energy it is seeing in Kansas. Organizers counted 58 supporters in conservative Salina last week and more than 60 at an event in Kansas City on Sunday.
"Obama's an organizer. He knows how to motivate people," said Obama supporter Dan Watkins, a former Kansas Democratic Party executive director, referring to the candidate's community organizing background in Chicago. "They have a plan. They're doing it step by step."
A Clinton strategist questioned the Obama approach, pointing out how many fewer delegates are up for grabs in states such as Kansas, Utah, Idaho and North Dakota, where the Obama campaign has an organizing advantage. The strategist noted that Clinton is concentrating her efforts in four states -- California, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas -- that will produce 44 percent of the Feb. 5 delegates. She will also go head-to-head with Obama in a string of states stretching from Massachusetts through Georgia and Missouri to Arizona.
"It's very hard to gain a big advantage in small states," the strategist said.
Small advantages or big advantages, Obama advisers are making clear they want to claim delegates anywhere they can.
Posted at 4:07 PM ET on Jan 29, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: timucin_ozugur | January 31, 2008 12:31 PM
I don't get it...If we depend on old guns of Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy, to choose the future of the party -Obama - then do we not continue the same old?
Or does Ted Kennedy represent the past, present and future of the party that i don't know? Is he the status quo that Obama attacks? Or is it just the same old game with new names such as Obama that is forced into throats of the citizens like a new medicine? Sorry, I don't buy it when the old farts teaches us how the future should be... Obama was more belivable before Ted's endorsement.
Posted by: timucin_ozugur | January 31, 2008 12:30 PM
Yes, this ground army really is something. Image how much money this has cost. Imagine how long this has taken to set up, to keep open & manned & it is in all 50 states.
WHERE & HOW does a young, Jr. Senator (who rips on his competitor for (special interest, being part of the old guard, being an "insider" in DC, yada, yada)get so much money? Who tells us he decided only 6 weeks before he went public, at the same time he was telling Illinoisans he wasn't going to run, they were his concern.
We keep getting information that we keep disregarding.
He has been courting Senator Kennedy for over a year for his endorsement. He himself is an elected official to DC (not that he does anything much for the poor voters who believed his promises to keep the his priority).John Kerry, special interest & according to Democrats, a dishonest liar during his run. Reszko is a prime example of corruption & special interest, and that's just the one in the public eye.
Yet, you all disregard these facts & blindly follow.
Even his speeches are many MLK's or portions of. Which is great, but he presents the most of them as his own. This is NOT a honest man, he LIED on TV at the SC debate about Reszko.
You all hung Hillary out to dry after bashing her to death. Yet when the truth has come out, he acts like it's expected that he has a "PASS" on anything & everything he does.
I honestly sit & watch this stuff, shaking my head in disbelief.
His involvement in Kenya. That has been dropped, hid under the rug. He helped create this mess the Kenyan's now live & die in. Have we heard a word about that since his camp gave it as a story of his goodliness when he was losing in NH?
No. Again, he has a pass. Has the media, forget HIMSELF done the right thing about the Jesse Jackson statement? NO. He knows the truth but takes advantage of using it as it is. That is a total lack of INTEGRITY, at best. Congressman Kendrick Meeks told us on Monday, CNN American Morning that this was NOT about Obama's SC win. They had finished breakfast, were leaving when a reporter asked Bill about Historical Campaigns in SC. His reply was about Jesse Jackson & he added that Obama is also running a good campaign. For historical facts. It had NOTHING to do with Obama, there was no win at the time even. He told us that this was snipped , clipped & edited for the purpose it was used in & that this was & is not the only time it has happened.
No one will run an apology or a retraction. You know why? Because you don't want to know. And worse? When you do know, somehow it always ends up that Hillary & Bill are responsible for HIS actions. Even the Reszko thing. His camp found & got that old picture up as fast as lightning. It was probably in a file waiting to be used when & if Reszko came out before the election. Damage Control that is called.
You folks NEED to get smarter, pay more attention before we end up with what you WISH for.
We all have a right, in fact, as Americans, I believe it is our birthright to have dreams, hopes, the Can-do" spirit, aspirations & pride in what our dreams can realize. NO CANDIDATE has the right to claim that as their own promise to us.
WE can do everything our country needs from us with any focused leadership.
I fear, in our rush to de-George ourselves, we are not looking to what will be the best start we can give the rebirth of our hopes & dreams, to our country America.
Google! Get the facts that are out there, not the Truth-hub from anyone's website.
Posted by: msophia | January 30, 2008 5:18 PM
Read Maureen Dowd's new article "Seeing Red Over Hillary" New York Times, where she tells you about the real Hillary and hot she has been the one to initially snub Barack, fascinating story and so telling!
Posted by: wdsoulplane | January 30, 2008 12:52 PM
Hooray for the Governor for recognizing and welcoming home a true (grand)son of the mid-West and of Kansas. It is from his maternal family, the family that nurtured and raised him, that he inherits his calm, moderation, decency, and innate sense of fairness. Thank you, Kansas, for giving the American people your native (grand)son.
Posted by: shirleylim | January 30, 2008 1:02 AM
DJK1 and butterfly2 are Clinton staffers. Same comments on every board out there. Cut and paste then post. Yeah Bud we know that tactic...cant you political advocate types be original? I'm voting Obama for sure! Your post is deceptive and you can see the motive in it. Are you really black? Post a pic of yourself to facebook or myspace or something.
Posted by: janusinfnity | January 30, 2008 12:37 AM
Oh, and I'll grant you that we've heard some of Barack's rhetoric before from Bush 43. It's just that Bush had no record to support that claim, in fact had a series of failures and mediocrity. He ran every enterprise he headed up into the ditch, including the country I love.
Barack has legislative achievments from being in both the majority and minority party. He sponsored or wrote legislation with Dick Lugar and Sam Brownback from the other side of the aisle.
Kennedy says he's "Ready from Day 1," and for once, I believe Teddy. The guy's been a Senator longer than I've been alive.
We can do so much better than Hillarycare and Don't Ask Don't Tell, triangulation, and debates of what the meaning of the word "is" is. We can begin to fix health care, ease the burden on our military and their families, and restore America's place in the world.
All you have to do is believe the dream and work to achieve it. How long has it been since you thought that? Forty years?
Posted by: quotientintel | January 30, 2008 12:11 AM
Oh, and I'll grant you that we've heard some of Barack's rhetoric before from Bush 43. It's just that Bush had no record to support that claim, in fact had a series of failures and mediocrity. He ran every enterprise he headed up into the ditch, including the country I love.
Barack has legislative achievments from being in both the majority and minority party. He sponsored or wrote legislation with Dick Lugar and Sam Brownback from the other side of the aisle.
Kennedy says he's "Ready from Day 1," and for once, I believe Teddy. The guy's been a Senator longer than I've been alive.
We can do so much better than Hillarycare and Don't Ask Don't Tell, triangulation, and debates of what the meaning of the word "is" is. We can begin to fix health care, ease the burden on our military and their families, and restore America's place in the world.
All you have to do is believe the dream and work to achieve it. How long has it been since you thought that? Forty years?
Posted by: quotientintel | January 30, 2008 12:11 AM
Oh, and I'll grant you that we've heard some of Barack's rhetoric before from Bush 43. It's just that Bush had no record to support that claim, in fact had a series of failures and mediocrity. He ran every enterprise he headed up into the ditch, including the country I love.
Barack has legislative achievments from being in both the majority and minority party. He sponsored or wrote legislation with Dick Lugar and Sam Brownback from the other side of the aisle.
Kennedy says he's "Ready from Day 1," and for once, I believe Teddy. The guy's been a Senator longer than I've been alive.
We can do so much better than Hillarycare and Don't Ask Don't Tell, triangulation, and debates of what the meaning of the word "is" is. We can begin to fix health care, ease the burden on our military and their families, and restore America's place in the world.
All you have to do is believe the dream and work to achieve it. How long has it been since you thought that? Forty years?
Posted by: quotientintel | January 30, 2008 12:11 AM
Oh, and I'll grant you that we've heard some of Barack's rhetoric before from Bush 43. It's just that Bush had no record to support that claim, in fact had a series of failures and mediocrity. He ran every enterprise he headed up into the ditch, including the country I love.
Barack has legislative achievments from being in both the majority and minority party. He sponsored or wrote legislation with Dick Lugar and Sam Brownback from the other side of the aisle.
Kennedy says he's "Ready from Day 1," and for once, I believe Teddy. The guy's been a Senator longer than I've been alive.
We can do so much better than Hillarycare and Don't Ask Don't Tell, triangulation, and debates of what the meaning of the word "is" is. We can begin to fix health care, ease the burden on our military and their families, and restore America's place in the world.
All you have to do is believe the dream and work to achieve it. How long has it been since you thought that? Forty years?
Posted by: quotientintel | January 30, 2008 12:11 AM
kec132: Might I direct you attention to the scorecard from the WaPo on the candidates' stimulus plans. Obama's took the top score, an A-. Hillary's was a C+.
But let's see, what to pick from his state senate record? The childrens' health care bill? The ethics legislation? No, I think my favorite is how he sponsored a bill to require videotaping of both interrogation and confessions for all capital cases. At first, all the law enforcement organizations were strongly against it. Then they said "OK, we'll support it, but only if you tape the confessions, but not the questioning."
Now, to my mind, that's where Hillary would have stopped. She got the police to come on board, didn't get good legislation on the books, but it's something she can tout on the stump. Barack did not. He went back to law enforcement and got them to see that taping interrogations was the right thing by restoring trust in their service to the people. They got behind the bill Barack originally wanted, and it passed unanimously.
Leadership. Principles. Results.
That's Barack's record.
Please, show me an example where Hillary "took a stand" and got something done instead of triangulating and posturing.
Posted by: quotientintel | January 29, 2008 11:49 PM
HEY DID ANYBODY NOTICE?
Gov. Janet Napolitano - ARIZONA
Sen. Claire McCaskill - MISSOURIE
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius - KANSAS
all ladies, all leaders, all support Obama, do you see??
Posted by: r.nutulapati | January 29, 2008 11:18 PM
Hillary is not man enough to be elected on her own merits. If elected the prospect of having a co-presidency with Bill Clinton running the show from behind the scene is imminent. Such a co-presidency is treacherous and will set a dangerous precedent. Apparently, Bill Clinton is following in the footsteps of Vladimir Putin of Russia and Nestor Kirchner of Argentina. Putin tapped his weak crony for the presidency while Nestor chose his wife. Both men have nominated their puppets in order to run the show from behind. The Clintons' insatiable appetite for dirty tactics, their seemingly shameless strategy to inject racial division in California pitching Latinos against a black man and their willing to do and say whatever it takes to get the nomination is a dangerous indication of what the Clinton Presidency would look like. What America needs is a leader who inspires and is trustworthy. However, the prospects of Hillary winning the white house are slim because she comes with so much baggage of scandals and drama. She does not fit the bill because she is not trustworthy and does not have the strength of character and moral leadership required to lead the country. If Hillary is the nominee she will be defeated in November. We do not need another Republican such as Romney in the White House. We the democrats should realize that she is not electable. If McCain wins the nomination her experience strategy pales in comparison to his.
Posted by: sbgamatt | January 29, 2008 10:47 PM
Yes, feb 5 this all will come to a halt.
winning a state in which you were the strong frontrunner for more than the last year and noone did any campaigning isn't much proof of anything.
But super tuesday will be.
Either way, it'll be nice to have the mudslinging come to an end.
Posted by: perryair | January 29, 2008 10:43 PM
The Ground Game: Work that starts neighborhood to neighborhood, door to door, person to person. The individual contributing The Huffington Post hit it right on the head. Obama has a lot of work to do, but he'll get it done. The states that Hillary has seemingly secure leads in are going to be a lot closer come Super Tuesday. Get ready for a real roller coaster ride.
Posted by: jrev7620042000 | January 29, 2008 10:36 PM
I find it all so frightening - Hillarya who relied heavily on Bill's contacts to get ahead with really little to recommend her other than a great deal of money and media attention cause (1) she's a woman; and (2) she's Bill's wife.
And Obama - a part-time state senator and part-time lawyer who became a senator with little to recommend him other than he gives great speech. The media darling cause he used to be running as the non-black-black-man running - and now he's the embodiment of MLK, JFK and RFK all rolled up into one - or so they say. Thing is this - he hasn't really shown anything to vote for - his plans aren't very good, he's done poorly in the debates and well, his reaction last night in direct cut to Hillary showed a nasty little boy. Being able to speak well and raise hopes and inspire is the making of fabulous cheerleader - thing is this - we have already seen one of them in action in the white house and its been a disasterous 8 years.
The Democrats can have my torn up voters registration card. There were far better qualified persons running - but they let the media attention rule.
Posted by: kec132 | January 29, 2008 9:42 PM
so this is what passes for intelligent political discourse in this country, name calling and not one word on the business of the people.
hunger, poverty, credit card squeeze, bought politicians, collapse of the dollar, trade imbalance, job loss, 60% of minimum wage earners are adults, climate change.
these are the issues that move the majority of americans.
oh i'm sorry i must have slipped in a puddle of reality..ok let's talk about abortion and gun control instead.
Posted by: steveloveshoney | January 29, 2008 8:59 PM
Harried: Interesting facts about Florida:
Most voters voted early - before South Carolina and Kennedy endorsement. Those who voted today went for Obama.
And FYI- Rasmussen today has Obama and Clinton TIED in Connecticut - 40 % - 40 %.
She was up about 30 points only a month ago.
Posted by: vbalfour | January 29, 2008 8:49 PM
Florida Democratic Primary
Candidate Votes %
*Hillary Clinton 283,779 49
Barack Obama 171,217 29
John Edwards 84,345 14
Other 45,668 8
Key: * Winner
Precincts: 24% | Updated: 8:06 PM ET | Source: AP
More About This Race »
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 8:13 PM
Florida Democratic Primary
Candidate Votes %
*Hillary Clinton 283,779 49
Barack Obama 171,217 29
John Edwards 84,345 14
Other 45,668 8
Key: * Winner
Precincts: 24% | Updated: 8:06 PM ET | Source: AP
More About This Race »
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 8:12 PM
Do we have the 'BAMA steamroller? FEB 5 will tell.
Will the logs of February presage OBAMA?
Could we have the Clintons denounced?
Will the Bush be McCained? Remember 2000 in S.C. Will the ground of Maine shake?
Posted by: peterroach | January 29, 2008 8:02 PM
WaPo will play to the illusion that no Florida Democrat delegates were won or lost today since the Florida primary was not recognized by the Democratic party.
Right! And there will be posters that will echo it for a few days.
Feb 5 this nonsense comes to a halt!!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 8:00 PM
Here's one you will not see on WaPo
Special Interest Money Helps Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30donate.html
NYTIMES WILL STILL LEAK THE TRUTH ONCE IN A WHILE!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 7:50 PM
I've said it before..pay attention to what's happening on the ground. It is exactly the bottoms up grassroots organizing that carries this campaign. Clinton lines up the big-wigs in DC for top-down management, Obama organizes from the bottom up. He won more delegates in Nevada because of on the ground organizing all over the state. He barely lost NH to Hilary who, by all traditional measures, should have walked away with the state. And where did that unexpected 12% margin come from in SC? Obama is bringing millions of new voters into the process by letting them be the process. What a great idea. Stop the Drama, Go Obama!
Posted by: thebobbob | January 29, 2008 7:48 PM
If the Obama supporters are the ones "not mature enough", if Obama is the product of the news media's preference, then why are Obama supporters falling on the educated side of the democratic party? Why is it the Clinton supports seem to feel they need to sling insults and unsupported opinion?
Posted by: BABucher | January 29, 2008 07:26 PM
______________________________
Anyone that claims MATURITY because they are EDUCATED indicts their own case!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 7:41 PM
"Small advantages or big advantages, Obama advisers are making clear they want to claim delegates anywhere they can."
Duh.
So, he can't compete in the major states and plans to make a "number of states" case for remaining in the race after he is swamped with Clinton delegates. This reminds me of the credulous coverage of Giuliani's "Florida strategy". Typical useless Washington Post trash.
Posted by: zukermand | January 29, 2008 7:38 PM
If the Obama supporters are the ones "not mature enough", if Obama is the product of the news media's preference, then why are Obama supporters falling on the educated side of the democratic party? Why is it the Clinton supports seem to feel they need to sling insults and unsupported opinion?
Posted by: BABucher | January 29, 2008 07:26 PM
__________________________________
Depends on what you mean by educated. Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard, right?
Pal, there are an awful lot of "COLLEGE GRADUATES" running loose today that got their "EDUCATION" from FOX NEWS lectures!!!!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 7:35 PM
If the Obama supporters are the ones "not mature enough", if Obama is the product of the news media's preference, then why are Obama supporters falling on the educated side of the democratic party? Why is it the Clinton supports seem to feel they need to sling insults and unsupported opinion?
Posted by: BABucher | January 29, 2008 7:26 PM
The link below from Caroline Kennedy reminds me of how I felt so many years ago...hopeful that the world I would leave to my children and grandchildren and future generations would be a better place than the world my parents were leaving to me. I remember watching the race riots in the south and realizing that beating on someone or denying them the privilege of eating at a lunch counter because of the color of their skin was simply ridiculous. I remember JFK telling me that I could make a difference. I remember the echo of that statement when his brother Bobby spoke. I remember Martin Luther King talking about "All God's Children" and I remember thinking that if I loved everyone as I wanted them to love me, my world at least would be a better place. Then JFK, Bobby and Martin were killed and I put those thoughts to rest...for awhile. About a year ago I heard Barack Obama speak and he reignited that desire in me to make the world a better place. I knew there was something special about this man, not just his diverse ancestry or his eloquent oratory skills, but noted that he genuinely cares about this country and the people in it. He touched my soul the way JFK did when I was young. You'd think that by this time (some 49 years have passed) I would have become cynical and more "realistic". However, I have read all of Senator Obama's position papers; heard him speak in person several times; spent hours on the NET looking for a "realistic" reason to not support him; and, I have come away thinking what I did when I first heard him speak, he is the voice of unity and hope - he is the voice of America's future. He has the experience to lead our country and bring respect and admiration to the White House as well. Although he was an ordinary middle-class family man just a few short years ago, there is something absolutely magical in his ability to bring out the best in people. So my friends who live all over the world, I ask you to listen to the last remaining voice of "Camelot" below and then read all you can about Barack Obama. Finally, I ask those of you who will have the opportunity to vote on Tsunami Tuesday to do so with an informed viewpoint. I hope you will make the same choice I made and vote for Barack Obama.
Posted by: frillymail1017 | January 29, 2008 7:19 PM
By the way Hilliary is using BOTOX obviously, just look at her face closely its puffed out like a streched peach...and some might be leaking into her brain from the way she carries on when the spotlite is on her...what a howl!!
Posted by: grdn_nell | January 29, 2008 07:09 PM
_________________________________
Very Jerry Springer!!!! Now show us your belly while you sing "SWEET MOLLY MALONE" and do the TWIST!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 7:18 PM
lpeter58, you should like a Republican whining like that. Get over it, this isn't Soviet Russia and those people who aren't "politically mature" enough are the ones who will take care of you sooner rather than later.
Posted by: balthasar78 | January 29, 2008 06:41 PM
_______________________________
Are you threatening someone?
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 7:10 PM
Hilliary will need Obama as vice prsident if she is to win? Please! You mean the other way around I hope. If she should win I don,t think OB will stoop that low as to be her yes'em boy!! really how could anyone even fathom such an arrangement its so degrading to Obama.
By the way Hilliary is using BOTOX obviously, just look at her face closely its puffed out like a streched peach...and some might be leaking into her brain from the way she carries on when the spotlite is on her...what a howl!!
Posted by: grdn_nell | January 29, 2008 7:09 PM
Not just Obama's ground game... give the media a big assist, they LOVE the guy!
I've seen a lot more from WaPo, CNN, and every other news outlet about Obama than anyone else. Democrat or Republican. No contact from his "ground game", very few commercials. Just a WHOLE LOT OF MEDIA LOVE!
Posted by: Alan4 | January 29, 2008 7:01 PM
For instance WaPo's Trail
A CAMPAIGN DIARY
Live Updates From Florida
Dispatches from the road as campaigns await today's results.
• Obama Plays Up Midwestern Roots in Kansas
• Millions of Robocalls from McCain
• Obama's Ground Game Advantage
______________________________________
Obama goes to Kansas and gets two political articles?
Where's Clinton? Where's Edwards?
And that is not biased coverage?
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 6:55 PM
I have been to every major media website and I could not find a single article critical of Obama. In fact, I couldn't find one that was not gushing over him. At the same time, I could not find a single pro-Clinton article.
I am over 50 years old and I can not remember a political campaign in my life where the media has so thoroughly decided, for the citizens, who they should vote for.
It is sort of like PRAVDA in old communist Russia who would tell the comrades who to vote for.
While Obama supporters are loving it, they don't appear to be politically mature enough to appreciate what is really going on.
Whoever wins the nomination, it is a very dangerous time for the "objective" press in this country.
Posted by: lpeter59 | January 29, 2008 06:27 PM
______________________________
I'm 69 and I do see what's going on. The Corporate Media is pushing Obama as hard as they can.
And you know what, it's got a good chance of getting him nominated.
People listened to the WMD, the Iraqi involvement with the WTC, the no torturing at Gitmo.
There is a very good chance now that McCain or Rhomney will win the White House in November. No way ( unless Obama is an out and out NEOCON plant ) that Rove and the MSM won't destroy him by November!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 6:45 PM
lpeter58, you should like a Republican whining like that. Get over it, this isn't Soviet Russia and those people who aren't "politically mature" enough are the ones who will take care of you sooner rather than later.
Posted by: balthasar78 | January 29, 2008 6:41 PM
I agreed with others on the issue that if Hillary emerged as the winner, then she must pick Obama as her runner mate, otherwise many folks will register as independent or refuse to vote at all.
Posted by: popponline | January 29, 2008 6:40 PM
americans, why are we letting this election be viewed this way? if we view ourselves a seperate groups then the concept of the "other" is generated that is so we learn who to hate. we are a nation of individuals, no one is above the law and no one is below the law.
the question we need to ask ourselves is which candidate can rescue the dollar, our dollar has been falling against ALL curriencies for 2 years.
if the dollar collapses then it wont matter much who is president.
Posted by: steveloveshoney | January 29, 2008 6:36 PM
Oh, and by the way, I am in Idaho, one of the "whitest" states in America. Obama is very well organized here and will likely carry the day on February 5th. I know we are a puny state with few delegates, but I think eventually every vote will count.
Posted by: acboatman | January 29, 2008 6:32 PM
I think it's great that Barack Obama is reaching out to all Americans regardless of the size of their state.
Posted by: edhere | January 29, 2008 04:35 PM
________________________
You do mean the number of people in the State and not the size of the State, right?
Seems to me you go where the people are!
Posted by: harried | January 29, 2008 6:29 PM
I have been to every major media website and I could not find a single article critical of Obama. In fact, I couldn't find one that was not gushing over him. At the same time, I could not find a single pro-Clinton article.
I am over 50 years old and I can not remember a political campaign in my life where the media has so thoroughly decided, for the citizens, who they should vote for.
It is sort of like PRAVDA in old communist Russia who would tell the comrades who to vote for.
While Obama supporters are loving it, they don't appear to be politically mature enough to appreciate what is really going on.
Whoever wins the nomination, it is a very dangerous time for the "objective" press in this country.
Posted by: lpeter59 | January 29, 2008 6:27 PM
FYI, there are also 5 paid Obama staffers in Nebraska for the Feb. 9th Democratic caucus in the state. They're really not leaving any stone (state) unturned.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/doc479f3e3cbd1ec013002788.txt
Posted by: balthasar78 | January 29, 2008 6:26 PM
hrlcjd: yeah what's losing by 5 points compared to getting routed 2 : 1, and getting third in Iowa? Yep, that's a total myth!
Posted by: ckc777 | January 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Even if Hillary wins the primaries, she (and Bill) need to be looking ahead to the general election. She will need Obama on the ticket as VP if she expects to win. Without Obama, the legions of followers he has inspired (myself included), will likely sit this one out, or vote for a third party as a protest.
Posted by: acboatman | January 29, 2008 6:19 PM
The Huffington Post reports ...
Obama Camp Makes Gains In California Ground War
Posted January 29, 2008 | 12:48 AM (EST)
With a southern wind at his back, Barack Obama is surging in California. Nine days from the primary, Obama California is waging day-to-day skirmishes to take the lead from Hillary Clinton, who has so far prevailed in this state but is slowly losing ground. Over the weekend and through Monday, the Obama grassroots has been on the offensive. All day Saturday, long before the polls closed in South Carolina, Obama California held a statewide phone bank in thirteen field offices with a goal of 100,000 calls and a place in the Guinness Book of Records. Not only did volunteers make 220,000 calls but also they targeted the "decline to state" voters, who in California can participate in the Democratic Primary.
By Sunday, the Obama Campaign was holding a conference call with the press to announce the California Truth Squad, which will be quick "to respond to misleading negative attacks from the Clinton Campaign." Unless the Clintons harbor a political death wish, likely they have already set a new course, with a new tone--same as they did after Iowa. Therefore, the California Truth Squad may never muster; nevertheless, the nine pols, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, are ready--just as the Obama Campaign, stung, and perceiving, rightly or wrongly, that they were the object of dirty tricks at the Nevada caucuses, sent out the call nationwide for lawyers to come to South Carolina to monitor the voting. On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Obama and thereby brought to twenty the senator's endorsements from California newspapers (to date, Clinton and Edwards have one endorsement each). Yet more evidence that the Clintons' and their surrogates' misstatements and insinuations about Obama have backfired is this reasoning from the Chronicle editorial board in making their decision: "Especially in recent days, her [Clinton's] campaign has shown the sharp elbows that evoke the ugly underside of the Clinton years. . . ."
Now more California politicians are jumping on the Barack Express. Also Sunday, Xavier Becerra, the ranking Latino in the House of Representatives and assistant to Nancy Pelosi, announced his endorsement of Obama. Suddenly, California Latinos are coming out of the woodwork. Just before the South Carolina primary, state senate majority leader Gloria Romero was made a national co-chair of the campaign. By Monday noon, Joe Coto (chair of the CA Latino Caucus), Nicole Parra, Gilbert Cedillo and Dean Florez--all state legislators--were standing with Romero on the steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento to speak out, in both English and Spanish (Univision was rolling the camera), in a press conference for Obama. Why these folks didn't start campaigning last fall is the big question, but one drowned out by the bigger endorsements of the day from Ted Kennedy, his niece Caroline and Toni Morrison. Topping this good news--if such a thing is possible nine days out from primary--is the four million dollars the Obama Campaign raised online over the weekend.
Saturday through Monday, between press conference calls on subjects ranging from Latino Outreach to economics, I traveled from one Obama event to another, trying to get a sense of where, after South Carolina, his campaign stands in California. On the one hand, despite all the good news, the task is daunting. So many voters here just are not that familiar with Barack Obama and certainly have never taken his measure in person. Some Californians--but only a fraction, given the state's population--will get a chance to see him at several events, yet to be determined, when he comes for the Democratic Debate three days from now in Los Angeles. A campaign fundraiser Sunday night brought home to me how little people here know about Obama. This was a gathering of well-heeled Berkeley intelligentsia, a $1000 a person soiree which the hostess thought might bring out fifty people. At least 150 professors, scientists, writers and artists crammed a South Berkeley brown shingle house to hear Tobias Wolff, Michael Chabon, Dave Eggers and Daniel Handler testify to their Obamic conversions. In conversation with attendees, however, I was surprised how little many of them knew about the Obama Campaign so far and more importantly about Obama himself. If Berkeley's best-educated haven't had the time or the inclination to acquaint themselves with the facts, what about the rest of California? This is and always has been the disadvantage for Barack Obama: his opponent is so much better known than he.
On the other hand, many Californians, piqued by Obama's successes in Iowa and South Carolina as well as the slew of new and glittering endorsements, are--to use one of the campaign's favorite epithets--low-hanging fruit. Some of these may have been turned off by the Clintons' tactics of late; some may have heard either the Iowa or South Carolina victory speech. I don't know the backstory of the lady who paused at the foot of the north steps of the Capitol Monday as the Obama press conference was setting up. She was walking her little black poodle, and since I like dogs, I fell into conversation with her. She asked me what was going on; after I explained, she asked me a few things about Obama. The press conference was running behind, and eventually I turned away to talk with some of the other reporters. Fifteen minutes later, the event began with a group portrait (good for a few seconds in the evening news) of Obama supporters, legislators and locals alike, on the steps. In the group, cradling Jasper (poodle) in one arm and an Obama placard in the other, stood the dogwalker. If enough Obama Californians reach out to neighbors and colleagues--and the random dogwalker--the senator can come close to winning here. Such proselytizing is easier said than done; it really is Jehovah's Witness kind of work. It's hard to picture the crowd at the South Berkeley fundraiser approaching peers at the university and the think tank, Novartis and Pixar, the tennis club and the produce market. But that's what it's going to take.
Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 29, 2008 6:18 PM
jeffboste: Don't fall for yet another attempt by the media to blow something little completely out of proportion. We, as a nation, are too smart for that and can't, won't, and shouldn't let them decide our vote for us again.
From Senator McCaskill...
McCaskill also commented on the incident Tuesday, calling it "one of those accidents that just happened and got caught on film."
"There was a wave and there was a friendly moment," she said at an Obama campaign press availability. "And I think that, as somebody who watched the whole thing, I was amazed when I woke up this morning and I was part of it, I didn't even realize. I mean, it was one of those things that all of a sudden it's being blown into something that it frankly just wasn't."
Posted by: ksootie2 | January 29, 2008 6:18 PM
Nice myth about field organization, too bad it couldn't deliver in New Hampshire, or Las Vegas, even with the Culinary Workers endorsement.
Posted by: hrlcjd | January 29, 2008 6:14 PM
Typical Clinton supporters.. Blame the victim. To bad Billary couldnt cry for a win. I just got flashbacks of the 1990's.. It's time to move on.. Go Obama..
Posted by: TennGurl | January 29, 2008 6:00 PM
Typical Shrillary--by concentrating on a handful of states, she basically disregards many of her supporters in smaller states just because there isn't a huge number of delegates. Are you kidding me, THREE staff people for the entire state? Great, let's just make those labor folks go and do the work for us. THEY--HillBilly--don't care about anyone other than themselves. After Iowa, they dissed the caucuses--rather than disparage the process, why not be grateful to those who supported them? On to South Carolina where she left the state before the voting closed and went to stump in Tennessee--not a single speech from her to thank her supporters? And today, she's in FL to "thank" voters and try to con the DNC into counting the banned delegates.
No way. Just say NO: no to the scandal, shame, and baggage that Billary would bring back to the White House.
Posted by: OceanDog | January 29, 2008 5:58 PM
That Clinton strategist noted in the article sums up why the Clinton campaign is so lame.
We don't matter unless we have a whole bunch of delegates for you?
What jerks.
Posted by: julieds | January 29, 2008 5:53 PM
Diito DJK1 I totally agreed as a black woman, I was dissappointed at the media making Clinton's statement to be racist when Barrack helped to fan the story by being a victim. Double standards and not fair.
Posted by: butterfly2 | January 29, 2008 5:50 PM
DJK1
As a black male then you should well know that it benefits Obama none to play the race card since being seen as the "black candidate" turns off white voters. A lot of people, black and white have been offended by the Clintons OBVIOUS racial polarization and Bill Clinton specifically mischaracterizing Obama's statements and positons (we all saw him lie about the Reagan comments).
BTW..more than black people were affected by Katrina, so how is that playing the race card? Why don't you talk to some people down in SC and ask them what Bill was saying about Obama in the rallies and get the real story.
Posted by: kisha_green | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM
Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php
CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.
GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???
BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html
Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 29, 2008 5:13 PM
GO OBAMA GO
YES WE CAN
SI SE PUEDE
Hillary Clinton no respeta a nuestra gente los partidarios de Hillary Clinton fueron a corte para evitar que la gente que trabaja pueda votar este sábado, eso es vergonzoso. Los partidarios de Hillary Clinton quieren evitar que la gente que trabaja el sábado pueda votar en sus lugares de empleo. ¡Imperdonable! Hillary Clinton no tiene vergüenza.
Hillary Clinton no debería permitir que sus amigos ataquen el derecho de nuestra gente de votar este sábado. Es imperdonable! No hay respeto el senador Barack Obama esta defendiendo nuestro derecho de votar.
El senador Barack Obama quiere nuestros votos, el respeta nuestros votos, nuestra comunidad y a nuestra gente. El lema de la campaña de Barrack Obama es "sí se puede, si se puede". Vote por un presidente que nos respeta y respeta nuestro derecho de votar. Obama para presidente. Si se puede.
Pagada por UNITE HERE.
Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 29, 2008 5:12 PM
WOW..........Wait until you see the new Caroline Kennedy ad , it is POWERFUL !
YES WE CAN !
Posted by: cakemanjb | January 29, 2008 5:07 PM
Interesting piece of info about Obama during SOTU
The caption to the New York Times photograph reads: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton greeting Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Monday night as Senator Barack Obama turns away."
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1652
.
Posted by: jeffboste | January 29, 2008 5:06 PM
As a black male, it's disheartening that the media continues to claim Hillary's campaign played racial politics against Obama. The reverse is more accurate.
Obama's South Carolina campaign chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., crassly declared that Hillary never shed tears about Katrina victims in response to her famous "welling-up" incident in New Hampshire. Isn't that playing the race card?
Soon after, Obama's staffers released a memo implying that Hillary's campaign was "racially insensitive." For proof, the memo referenced Hillary's MLK-LBJ gaffe and Bill's "fairly tale" speech. Hillary's comparison was clunky and ill-advised but hardly racist. The fairy tale Bill referred to was Obama's Iraq war vacillation, not to race. Yet rather
than criticize this dirty trick, pundits bought into the lie that the Clintons are bigots.
It's disappointing that reporters are too politically correct to confront Obama about his campaign's abuse of racial politics.
Posted by: DJK1 | January 29, 2008 4:55 PM
Hr got the young vote in SC and he was leading on most of the internet indicators- yet Hillary has caught up on some, such as Google Searches. Still, his web site appears to get way more unique visitors than hers at the moment (which appears key). See:
SuperTuesday Analysis -
The Democrats Web Battle
Google Trend & Web Hits Reports
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=43
Posted by: davidmwe | January 29, 2008 4:51 PM
"The strategist noted that Clinton is concentrating her efforts in four states - California, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas - that will produce 44 percent of the Feb. 5 delegates."
Making up some numbers, lets play a little game. Lets say voters reward Clinton's efforts with 50% of the delegates in the big 4 states. Obama, meanwhile, wins 50% of the delegates from the rest. Edwards takes 10% of the totals. Which candidate comes out ahead? (hint: not Clinton)
Posted by: bsimon | January 29, 2008 4:44 PM
I think it's great that Barack Obama is reaching out to all Americans regardless of the size of their state.
Posted by: edhere | January 29, 2008 4:35 PM
Clinton's Feb 5th goal: NY NJ CT and CA
Obama's Feb 5th goal: NY, NJ, IL, CT, CA and flyover country.. Thank God he pays attention to the rest of us...
Go Obama....
Posted by: TennGurl | January 29, 2008 4:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I don't get it...If we depend on old guns of Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy, to choose the future of the party -Obama - then do we not continue the same old?
Or does Ted Kennedy represent the past, present and future of the party that i don't know? Is he the status quo that Obama attacks? Or is it just the same old game with new names such as Obama that is forced into throats of the citizens like a new medicine? Sorry, I don't buy it when old farts teach us how the future should be... Obama was more belivable before Ted's endorsement.