Melding Obama’s Web to a YouTube Presidency
By JIM RUTENBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
Published: January 25, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26grassroots.html
WASHINGTON - Lyle McIntosh gave everything he could to Barack Obama’s Iowa campaign. He helped oversee an army that knocked on doors, distributed fliers and held neighborhood meetings to rally support for Mr. Obama, all the while juggling the demands of his soybean and corn farm.
Asked last week if he and others like him were ready to go all-out again, this time to help President Obama push his White House agenda, Mr. McIntosh paused.
“It’s almost like a football season or a basketball season - you go as hard as you can and then you’ve got to take a breather between the seasons,” he said, noting he found it hard to go full-bore during the general election.
Mr. McIntosh’s uncertainty suggests just one of the many obstacles the White House faces as it tries to accomplish what aides say is one of their most important goals: transforming the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put Mr. Obama in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected.
His aides — including his campaign manager — have created a group, Organizing for America, to redirect the campaign machinery in the service of broad changes in health care and environmental and fiscal policy. They envision an army of supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.
The organization will be housed in the Democratic National Committee, rather than at the White House. But the idea behind it — that the traditional ways of communicating with and motivating voters are giving way to new channels built around social networking — is also very evident in the White House’s media strategy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/04/politics/fromtheroad/entry4568577.shtml
"...Biden's poll numbers have steadily climbed since he was announced as Obama's running mate, and nearly three quarters of Americans believe he would be prepared to take over the presidency..."
"...This election is not about Barack," Biden said Monday. "It's not about me, it's not about Sarah Palin or John McCain, it's about you and now it's up to you. It's up to you to take back this country."
"It's in your hands. In less than 24 hours, we'll know who the next leader of the free world is and ladies and gentlemen, I know. I know, America knows, that Pennsylvania is going to decide the next President of the United States of America. It's gonna be Barack Obama!"
God bless you, Joe Biden...we're with you, all the way!
Here is the Web link to the full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18biden.html?_r=1&sq=biden&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=2&adxnnlx=1219064871-VKq02KOaajsYXEeL3l4fOA Read More »
Frank Rich has a great article in today's New York Times titled "How Obama Became Acting President"
Here is just a taste of Rich's article. I highly recommend going to the NYT and reading all of it.
" . . . He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets, including TV ratings. (Even “Access Hollywood” mustered a 20 percent audience jump by hosting the Obama family.) Power begets more power, absolutely.
The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”
go here for the full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
No, unlike some on this site, I'm not calling anyone names. That happens to be the title of a great article written by Frank Rich that appeared in today's New York Times.
According to Rich, McCain should be so lucky to be ignored by mainstream media: " THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl. . .
. . .In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his. . . ."
GO HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
Frank Rich on Obama's win. Even though I post a lot on other folks' blogs, I don't write that many from scratch. After all Frank Rich is a trained writer; and I'm a tired preacher.
Anyway, here is a link to Frank Rich's column in todays New York Times:
Earlier this morning I posted a letter to the editors at NYT regarding an opinion article that had been written by Elizabeth Edwards.
Since then there have been two posts referring readers to that article.
In it, Ms. Edwards points out that most people don't even know what the healthcare plan of Joe Biden and others was because they were not discussed. Her article was titled "Bowling 1, Healthcare 0"
The extended post contains the letter that I sent in response to her article:
Read More »Mrs. Clinton says she would roll back the tax cuts for anyone making more than $250,000, even if the economy is weak. So, no middle-class tax hikes of any kind? “That is my commitment,” she says.
Mr. Obama says he too would cut taxes for people making less than $200,000 or maybe $250,000.
Mrs. Clinton is asked if she would raise the capital gains tax. “I wouldn’t raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all,” she says. Pressed, she says she would have to “see what the revenue situation is.” She also says she wouldn’t raise taxes on teachers, like those who work in the Philadelphia area (like those who have endorsed her?).
Mr. Obama says he would raise the cap on the payroll tax, and also mentions firefighters and teachers.
They have a dispute about the best way to keep Social Security solvent, speaking here to the retirees in Pennsylvania, which has more people over 65 than most other states. Then cut to the last commercial break, an ad for AARP.
This is the final break. We’re close to wrapping up here. Wondering if Mr. Obama is going to come back stronger before the closing bell.
9:01 p.m. | Foreign Policy: The questioning is now about the war in Iraq. Both candidates seem pretty firm in their pledge to bring the troops home " a popular view among Democratic primary voters, especially those in the Philadelphia suburbs.
If Iran attacks Israel? Mr. Obama says they would be attacking “our strongest ally in the region.”
Mrs. Clinton, forcefully here, says such an attack “would trigger massive retaliation.”
8:50 p.m. | Commercial Break
8:45 p.m. | Friends and Associates: Mr. Obama was asked about his association with William Ayres. According to reports, in 1995 Mr. Obama met with several influential Illinois liberals at the home of William Ayres and Bernadine Dorhn, who were among the most famous and radical members of the anti-war movement in the 1960s and members of the Weather Underground. The organization was responsible for bombings at the Pentagon, the Capitol and other federal buildings.
Mr. Obama is specifically asked about Mr. Ayres’s statement in 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Mr. Obama again tries to dismiss attempts to link him with people with unfavorable views as a game and not helpful to voters: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Mr. Obama also points out that he is friends with Senator Tom Coburn, who he calls “one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate.”
Mrs. Clinton notes that Mr. Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayres and his relationship continued after 9/11. She used this as an example of how Mr. Obama would be vulnerable against the Republicans. “I have a lot of baggage, and everyone has rummaged through it for years,” she said, which makes her stronger.
Mr. Obama comes back with what he says is a “more significant relationship” between Mrs. Clinton and radicals, noting that Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground.
Mr. Obama also said he had proved he could “take a punch,” and in fact had taken several from Mrs. Clinton.
8:40 p.m. | Flag: A voter on video says she’s troubled about Mr. Obama’s patriotism because he doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel. He notes he wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to him. But he tries to dismiss this as “the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with.” Mr. Obama mentions he did wear a flag pin on Tuesday that was given to him by a disabled veteran.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/16/us/politics/16barackclinton533.jpgSenator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and Charles Gibson. (Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)
8:37 p.m. | The Bosnia Story: Mrs. Clinton is asked about her truthfulness and ABC shows a voter asking her about her misstatements about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. “I was not as accurate as I have been in the past,” she said.
Interestingly, Mr. Obama, who has been on the defensive so far during this debate, pulls back from the back-and-forth over this embarrassment for Mrs. Clinton and says it’s important that they not get “so caught up with gaffes” that we miss that this election is a “defining moment” in the nation’s history.
8:30 p.m. | Wright Stuff: Mr. Obama is being asked to explain his association with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
He is asked what he will do if he gets the nomination and Mr. Wright’s sermons are played over and over again. He says if it’s not this, there will be something else and says if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, there will be lots of video of her.
Asked if Mr. Wright is patriotic, Mr. Obama notes that he’s a former marine and loves this country but also “angry” about injustices.
Mrs. Clinton, given equal time, brings up the “B”-word (bitterness), which Mr. Obama has been avoiding all night. Then she tosses in Louis Farrakhan and Hamas and it turns into a big stew of negative associations for Mr. Obama.
8:26 p.m. | ‘C’ is for Cookies: Mr. Obama turns the tables on Mrs. Clinton, bringing up comments that she made, back in 1992, that seemed to be an insult to stay-at-home moms, “that I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.”
Mr. Obama said he was watching TV at the time, and when she was attacked as an elitist " as she is attacking him now " he thought, “that’s not who she is.” But, he says, “she learned the wrong lesson because she’s adopting the same tactics.”
8:25 p.m. | Who Can Win? Mr. Stephanopoulos mentioned remarks Mrs. Clinton is said to have made to Bill Richardson while she was lobbying for his endorsement about whether Mr. Obama could win, but then suggested he wouldn’t ask her about the specific quote to Mr. Richardson because he knew Mrs. Clinton didn’t want to talk about it.
Instead, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked her if she thought Mr. Obama can beat John McCain. After dodging for a few minutes, she finally said, “Yes. Yes. Yes.”
Mr. Obama learned quickly. When he was asked if she would win, he said, “Absolutely.”
8:19 p.m. | The ‘B’-Word: Mr. Obama is asked if he understands how voters might find his comments about small-town voters patronizing. “I can see how people were offended,” he said. “It’s not the first time I’ve made a statement that was mangled up,” and it won’t be the last. People are “frustrated and angry,” he says.
Mrs. Clinton takes the opportunity to make a direct pitch to the white, working class voters who might have been offended, noting she is the granddaughter of a factory worker in Scranton. She said her family members wouldn’t “cling to religion” just because Washington is not listening to them. “That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith.”
Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate Supporters rally in front of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, with Independence Hall in the background. (Photo: Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
8:11 p.m. | Come Together? Mr. Gibson asks them to pledge, as former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has suggested, to agree to become the running mate if the other wins. He didn’t direct the question to anyone in particular, and neither of them jumped at the chance to answer. Mr. Obama began, with a slight dig, saying, “I think highly of Senator Clinton’s record.” She doesn’t dig back, yet. Both blow off the question.
8:07 p.m. | Commercial After Kickoff: What is this? Monday Night Football? There’s a commercial already, not even five minutes into the broadcast.
8:04 p.m. | Opening Statements: Mr. Obama in his opening statement says that in traveling around Pennsylvania, he’s been struck by the “frustration” of voters, i.e., not their bitterness. Mrs. Clinton says she and Mr. Obama “demonstrate that that promise of America is alive and well. But it is at risk.” She added: “people do feel that their government is not solving problems, that it is not standing up for them.”
8 p.m. | Showtime! Oh, they’re already on stage. None of this jogging out on to the field, like they do on cable TV.
And here’s ABC’s story line: “It’s not over yet!”
Live-Blogging the Democratic DebateSupporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton rally in front of the National Constitution Center before the Democratic debate there in Philadelphia. (Photo: Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)
7:50 p.m. | Cue the ‘Rocky’ Music: Hi readers. It’s been too long since we last met like this, live-blogging over a debate. Seems a lifetime ago, when Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama last sparred, on Feb. 26, in Cleveland.
Tonight’s action starts at 8 p.m. on ABC " national TV! " and will go for 90 minutes. Charles Gibson, the Mr. Nice Guy of TV, and George Stephanopoulos, an-insider-turned-journalist, are the moderators.
The question of the night is the same question that has been asked before many of these debates " what will Mrs. Clinton do? Her lead in the polls in Pennsylvania, which votes in just six days, has shrunk, her negatives are up and Mr. Obama is picking up superdelegates (not to mention Springsteen). Read More »
Link
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23dowd.html?ref=opinion
Nice article. Happy Easter Morning.
It is becoming more apparent each day that the Democratic Party will be guiding the course of American politics for the next four to eight years depending upon its degree of success. As this reality looms closer, the Republican Party, in order to exert any influence upon the hearts and minds of the American people, will undoubtedly employ any means necessary to acquire control of the media. A good illustration of this type of influence was exhibited during the Presidential Election of 2004. It is now a matter of historical record that the Karl Rove propaganda machine, funded by T. Boone Pickens, launched a campaign of lies to disparage the military record of John Kerry. The subsequent character assassination produced a new colloquialism in the American lexicon labeled, "swift boating." The American people have since expressed disappointment, if not outrage, for the implementation of this deceitful practice.
Let's imagine the following scenario: Four prominent journalists employed by a major newspaper known for its support for liberal policies are approached by the Karl Rove propaganda locomotive which is now an independent contract apparatus funded by the same private interests which own the Republican Party. Let's say these four journalists are enticed into planting a vague, if not fictitious, story in their newspaper which, hypothetically, involved sexual improprieties on the part of a leading conservative Presidential candidate. Let's say, in return, these writers are offered a prominent place in either the Rove Truth Grinder or, perhaps, an upper echelon position with a competing enterprise such as the Rupert Murdoch Fact Assassins, Inc. To sweeten the deal, they are offered surreptitious cash incentives and an open window into the Republican underground during the next administration.
The benefits from the successful execution of this plot would be the following: First and foremost, the credibility of the hypothetical newspaper which, up until this point, has served as the gold standard in journalism would be severely compromised. Second, the subsequent loss of readership and advertising dollars would deplete the dollar value of the entire enterprise. The few journalists who still respect the First Amendment would seek out new venues for its protection and preservation, perhaps on the internet (politico.com, huffingtonpost.com, etc.). The skeletal remains of The Newspaper, Inc. would ultimately be sold and fall into the hands of the highest bidder, perhaps the Murdoch group. Thus, silencing a prominent liberal voice forever. This drama may seem far-fetched however, this is America, where everything is for sale, including the truth.
The American people are tired of and disgusted with negative campaigning. The latest attacks on John McCain have done nothing but increase support for the Republican Party, which has been noticeably weak of late. Karl Rove "won" the Presidential campaign for George Bush in 2004 by spreading a blanket of lies, deceit, and fear over the entire American heartland, one county at a time. He will employ similar techniques to discredit and disqualify key players in the Democratic Party one by one, even if it requires falsely attacking members of his own party and attributing blame to the "liberals." Rove is a master of deceit, the same deceit which coats the underbelly of all Republican politics. It has no limits. --Quinn Stilletto, President unwantedchildren.com
From "General BetrayUs" to the McCain-Iseman Scandal...
The New York Times should take a moment and think about what they are publishing before they hit the presses...
I love the Times and I read its online edition regularly, but...
Read More »It has begun Latest release tonight from New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp
I wonder what this will do to his campaign?
Get your own myspace graphics or myspace layouts at MyspaceBrand.com
--------
It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor unions supporting health care reform isn’t the same thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it. But it’s also the simple truth.
------------------
Is Obama dumb or Anti-union/ anti worker??.. see the clips from Krugmans article and reason for yourself...
State of the Unions
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 24, 2007
Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor voting record, has not ��" in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed ---- Read More »
Link
CALL THEM NOW!
Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL
Link
You may have to register on the website for some New York Times content, but you won't have to pay for it.
My favorite columnists, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman are all available online at no charge, again.
Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL
In spite of the relative lack of national coverage of the Nevada 2nd in the nation's January 19th Caucus, the western states are going to be critical in deciding our next President.
Yes, I realize the national Media are not covering Nevada as they should, but when was the last time THEY were right about anything?
Read this and tell me I am wrong:
The Continued Rise of the Southwest America’s population is making a diagonal shift from the Northeast to the Southwest. Five of the nation’s largest cities are in the Southwest: Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Jose. Phoenix is now that nation’s fifth largest city, displacing Philadelphia, now at number six. Mesa and Fresno are now bigger than Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Seven of the ten largest American cities lie within 500 miles of the Mexican border. In 1910, in contrast, the ten largest American cities were all within 500 miles of the Canadian border. What this means to the Democratic Party is that the Northeast and Midwest aren’t a sufficient base by themselves for the future of the party. With the GOP dominating the once solidly Democratic South, Democrats must look Southwest for growth and electoral majorities. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have a combined 29 votes in the Electoral College and a corresponding number of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. Moreover, the 2010 Census will undoubtedly raise that number beyond the current 29. Meanwhile, neighboring blue California’s population will continue to grow, reaching perhaps 60 million by 2050 with a Hispanic majority possible by 2042. Newsweek is already predicting that the 2008 Presidential race will be decided in the Southwest. Their analysis: The rise of the Swing-State Southwest (and the power of the Latino voters in it) is a function of timing, geography, demographics—and the Electoral College....The Southwest's ascendancy is linked to one key demographic: its vast, rapidly growing—but still politically unsettled—Hispanic vote….Generally speaking, [Hispanics are] culturally traditional, religiously devout and open to conservative appeals from the GOP. Economic populists, all too familiar with the trials of race-based discrimination, they feel an emotional bond with Democrats, too….In 2006 the Hispanic vote that went to the GOP dropped precipitously, to 30 percent. The war in Iraq was one reason, analysts say, but the main one was the war over immigration. Given the mean-spiritedness of the recent immigration debate, the trend away from the GOP is likely to continue and even accelerate, strengthening the future Democratic base in the Southwest.
Source: www.westerndemocrat.com
I can understand why the GOP may want to ignore Nevada with it's voter-base made up of a large percentage of Latino, Union and Environmentally aware citizens, but why would MSNBC, the New York Times and others avoid the State?
Theories:
LAZINESS - Nevada is further to fly to then Iowa and New Hampshire. Also, the reporters are more comfortable in visiting good �old Iowa and New Hampshire. They know the towns and background. Covering the story would mean having to do a lot of work to learn all about a new state like Nevada.
AFRAID OF TASK â�" Nevada is an independent thinking, diverse, urban and rural voters. You canâ��t interview one â��farmerâ�� in Nevada and get a perspective that they could try to pass off as â��what Nevada thinksâ��. The state is not as easily â��package-ableâ�� as the old stand bys. Also any reporter covering Nevada better speak Spanish or at least understand the cultural issues in the western US itâ��s 22% Latino population.
I suppose there could be even more diabolical reason like payoffs and bribes, or maybe they are just following orders to bury Nevada coverage, from their GOP owners.
I kinda think is some combination of laziness and fear. It usually is.
Think I am off base here? Ask yourself this-what kind of person would turn down a paid trip to 2 of the world greatest travel destinations Las Vegas and Reno/Tahoe in favor of going to Des Moines? Really? Who? People in Des Moines prefer Nevada over Iowa! That is why you always meet people from Iowa and New Hampshire in Las Vegas and Reno, but newver meet any MSNBC or New York Times reporters.
Posts
