Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Political Blogging - Short Term Memory Loss: Why Obama Is Winning

The only thing the Clinton campaign is spinning is the same thing they’ve been slinging; mud. The moderate, but clear, Obama win last night points to future money, super-delegate support and momentum.

For all this the news pundits, as a whole, have fallen under a spell of short term memory loss. This morning New York Times' headline read, "Obama, Clinton Trade victories." Really? Only two weeks ago I read an article that claimed that an Obama 'win' would mean winning 7-8 states; instead he won 14.

Just on Monday The Nation's John Nichols wrote, "An Obama Sweep? What Are the Possibilities?" He gave seven steps to an Obama sweep; Obama cleared five of seven of the hurdles.

1) Win 40% in New York (check)
2) Win either NJ or CT (won CT)
3) Win GA and AL (check and check)
4) Win 2/3 battle grounds MO, NM, AZ (won MO and AZ)
5) Win some toss-ups (won UT, DE or AK)
6) Win CA (lost)
7) Win MA (lost)

Just a few reminders that throughout the month of January Clinton was winning California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and et. al by 15% or more.
The national polls showed a virtual dead-heat.

He won the states, he won the delegates, he won the money in January and the calendar favors him for the next month. Nebraska, Main and Washington are caucuses (he has won the last 7/8), and Maryland, Louisiana and D.C. all have large black populations.

Intrade was volatile yesterday, but after the dust has settled it shows Obama as the big winner. He now sits 52.4 to Clinton's 48.9. Remembering that I invested $1,000 (247 shares) before Nevada at 40.5, I now am up $293.

It also has just been reported that Clinton, strapped for on-hand cash, will self-finance her campaign to the tune of $5 million. An incredible turn of events considering she was touted as the best-financed presidential nominees just months ago.

Watch for a big endorsements to continue to shore up Obama's bid (Edwards? Gore?) and watch for money to now play an advantage for their campaign. Also watch for super-delegates to feel more safe in coming out and pledging for Obama.

Also, a must see the new video by I.Am.Will, "Yes We Can" which is a montage of Obama's victory speech placed to music and accompanied by a number of young stars.

3 comments:

Hellernot said...

Actually McCain should be the Democrat nominee. Both want to tax me beyond my ability to pay; both want an illegal to take my job; both want to ban religion in public; both bought in to the global warming cult; both want to bankrupt big oil, big drugs, or anything left that’s good. At least President Bush is sending me another check, and I hope I get it before my country goes to hell in a hand basket.

Mark Koester said...

Just because a candidate has the most money and is the most popular doesn't make him or her the best as such. In fact, I wonder if Obama is "winning" because he's fresh and less heard of. He's taken less heat and is, as such, cleaner than the Clintons, but that's partially due to the fact that he stays out of the hot stuff. We shouldn't bet on who's the most electable or the richest or whatever. What matters is the fact that someone presents a real plan (whether people understand or vote correctly in the sense that they understood that plan is entirely different question). I worry that Obama in transcending Democrat-party lines has gone to a middle that has been dominated by the Republicans too long. If the Democrats are going to "retake" the U.S. of A. and implement some new ideas and policies, then maybe picking a middle-ground candidate like Obama means giving up the basis of a party whose ideals have yet to be put in play. Just some ideas.

Hellernot said...

Recently Obama was rated as the most liberal senator over the last year---even beat out Hill. This should give you an idea about what he means when he talks about change without really telling you what he means by that.
I think I know.
Pretending not to know would I suppose reserve your right to say, “I didn’t know he was going to do that” but then I would have to point out that naïve is not an excuse.
Bush Derangement Syndrome has created such a haze of delusion that it now seems to have crossed the proverbial isle. It bodes the question: What if the MSM actually get what they want? What’s next? Me? I’ll be out in the garage reloading.