Don't just do something, sit there!
Yes, you. You who have done the math. You who have read the polls. You who have crowed about Hillary's debt and her money drying up. You who believe that no one dares overturn the electoral process. You who believe that it doesn't matter as long as a Democrat is in the White House. You who have blogged that it's over, Obama won.
It's NOT over. The math didn't help when the George Bush beat Al Gore in Florida 2000. The polls didn't mean a damn thing when Kerry lost Ohio. The money will *never* dry up for Hillary because no ordinary person earns $109 million by writing a couple of boooks and giving speeches. And after all these months of seeing Hillary's true character, I hope you're not stupid enough to think that there isn't any discernible difference between the two presidential candidates.
Hillary is counting on all the chilled-out Obama supporters like you who believe that he'll sail into the Convention and onto November on the back of pledged delegates, Youtube videos and 35,000 people rallies.
Wake up. The Clintons are fighting for their lives - the ones who gave them all these hundreds of millions of $$$ knew they have their backs. Knives will be out for them should they fail to deliver the White House to them.
Think Whitewater, cattle futures, the Telecoms Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Hillary's voting for the bankruptcy laws, Chelsea working for hedge funds. Money drives the Clintons, as it does the Bushes.
Their life-long friend Robert Reich, offered in a telling quip:
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who first introduced the couple at Yale but who has been disillusioned with them for some time, is one of several former associates who described their current circle as mostly money people: "The world for them tends to be divided between those who are useful to them, financially or politically or both, and those who aren't. So many of their friends are accordingly very wealthy, and they associate informally with a fairly wide circle of extremely wealthy people."
http://www.slate.com/id/2188751/pagenum/2
That's what you get with dynastic families - the succession ensures that vital interests and stakes of their elite friends are preserved.
We have no idea what we're up against.
It's going to get much, much uglier. If you don't fight for the democratic process now, we might as well "chill" and wait for another 8 years. That's what we latte drinkers are good at, "chill", or we can go out there and make our voices heard.
Advertisement
How the fuck are they a "dynastic family"? They are a married couple. Dynasties refer to "hereditary". Their daughter is not in politics, their parents were not in politics.
Gee, prominent political figures know a lot of rich people. Call a press conference, we've got a big one here. I'm sure Al Gore doesn't hang around any rich people, Nancy Pelosi can't hang around any rich people, none of Obama's new BFF's are enormously rich, John Edwards spends all his time with poor people...
Face it, your candidate is also a millionaire, he's well connected, he's getting tons of money including bundled from big players, and they're going to want to cash in when he gets to Washington. It's dough-re-mi, there is no other game in town. Pay to play. He might play it nicer or dirtier, but that's as much of a difference as you're going to find.
April 24, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what, exactly, do you recommend we do? I DO write that Obama has all but won, but I'm not sitting on his laurels. I'm attending local political meetings. I'm sending donations. I hope to make phone calls for the May 6th election.
I agree with you that we can't just chill--but suggestions would be nice.
April 24, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not myself a political organizer, so I'm counting on the more experienced Obama supporters here to come up with good suggestions for political activism, or to post links and networks connected to action groups. I'd be most happy if readers start posting and organizing on this blog or others with ideas and thoughts about getting out there to do something, to canvass support, to get out the votes, etc.
We need to energize the base! It's depressing to see everyone typing away at their keyboard in the belief that the nomination is in the bag because it really isn't. The long fight ahead is just beginning.
ABC News is nothing compared to what they're going to pull out, there's going to be more and more of this crap coming at us.
April 24, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Believe me, if you go to barackobama.com and let them know that you want to do something, you will not lack for suggestions. They are excellent campaign organizers and will use whatever talents you have effectively. YMMV
April 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider today's NYTimes' Headline:
"For U.S. Democrats, questions over race and electability"
The MSM will go on the attack, sowing doubts in voters' and the ultimate prize, Supers' mind.
I also believe that there are many Supers who are too afraid to cast their votes.
One possible idea - start organizing groups of Obama voters deemed unlikely to cast their vote for him - "White Guys For Obama", "Rednecks for Obama", "Feminists for Obama", "Older Voters for Obama", etc. and create an event, a march, a beer fest, etc.
We've got to CREATE NOISE or we'll be drowned out by the MSM - they will be dominating the discourse and forcing the "impression" (as promulgated by Billary) on the general public like they did with Iraq's WMDs. It's FICTION, we know it, but they succeeded.
April 24, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the Reverse - Stage ironic events such as "Wall St Bankers For Hillary", "NeoCons for Hillary" to publicize her issues with Lobbyists and Warmongering.
I'm also thinking that Obama needs to be more strategic in sending his door-to-door volunteers - they have to *be* of the same background as those they're approaching, blue-collar to blue-collar, etc.
Please chime in with your ideas for the next push, go for it before the Stephanopoulises seize the initiative and head-up.
April 24, 2008 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much they're paying you to spill this crap and look this ugly?
You think Obama's $3 million is in the same league as Clintons' $109 million? I guess for some, Math is hard.
Or that his 1.5 million small donors is the same as her wealthy lobbyist backers?
Another irrefutable fact - their records. The Clintons have CONSISTENTLY voted WITH and FOR the interest of Big Money, the MNCs and Wall St. They will continue to do so - they're part of them despite their pandering to God, guns and Al Qaeda. They will play the same Republican game.
Obama *may* one day be co-opted, but he has a CLEAN record so far, and he started out as a community organizer, not a corporate lawyer or banker, like the Clintons.
And of course there are all the unanswered questions about the Clintons' $109 million :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/09/the-clintons-a-case-stud_n_85854.html
In each of Senator Clinton's past four disclosure statements - 2003-2006 -- there is a line item that reveals only that Bill Clinton received "guaranteed payments to partner" of "over $1,000" from Burkle's Yucaipa.
The disclosure forms do not explain what the guarantee is, and they leave to the imagination how much over $1,000 the annual amounts are. President Clinton, according to news accounts, has helped Burkle in his business dealings.
April 24, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical stupid Huffington Post article full of smear and innuendo.
Are they complaining about Gore being worth $100 million? Or that Ron and Nancy were given a $2.5 million house, agreed to before he left office? No, it's just more Clinton Rules - he wasn't wealthy in office, he had lots of lawyer debts from all the investigations in the 90's, and now he's supposed to stay poor. Giving speeches to make money? Criminal. Wow, he didn't even sign his contract with Yucaipa until over a year after leaving office - unlike a ton of other officials who cashed in immediately. How much was he lobbying the US Government, like say Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.? And then there's doing business with Dubai - wow, that's criminal as well.
Don't worry, Obama will cash in as well, even as he walks on water. How many bundlers does he have working for him? How many state lobbyists? But good to see you smoking the "corporations are evil" pipe and will make sure to never question Obama's integrity.
By the way, the article notes that Bill would divest from Yucaipa before inauguration. Is that sufficient, or must he don tattered clothes, spread himself with ashes and self-flagellate as he crawls through the town square?
April 24, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come now, surely there's a middle ground somewhere between being comfortably off and making $100 million?
No, you don't come by that kind of money without providing something in kind.
For your attack on huffington, you failed to address is the "over $1000" he filled in as his earnings with Burkle's business, as well as the fact that Burkle's business, with Bill Clinton as a partner, has offshore bank accounts in the Caymans.
Clinton has always been close and supportive of the bankers and financiers, dismantling Glass-Steagall on which they spent $300 million (in 70s, 80s and 90s dollars) and worked for 25 yrs through successive Democratic and Republican administrations to dismantle.
I do believe that their backers have very deep pockets and are very well-connected, and this is going to hurt Americans. The poor are getting poorer, and the middle-class will sink into poverty if MNCs and Wall St are allowed to continue their rampage.
The Clintons are very much a part of the Bush continuum, the electorate doesn't know it, but it is becoming clearer by the day.
April 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any banking institution or large corporation has branches in the Bahamas or other tax haven. It can be a tiny branch or a significant activity. The whole concern about repatriating tax dollars was that our major corporations were leaving profits overseas so they wouldn't pay significant taxes bring them home, and so some tax holidays/amnesties were declared. Every single representative we have has money invested in at least 1 of such companies if they have any amount of investments at all.
The poor got quite a bit richer under Bill. Why do you assume Hillary's out to take away all their toys?
Bill is not required to divulge all his finances. He reported the connection with Burkle and said he'll divest before inauguration. You didn't answer my question about whether he should self-flagellate. Or should he self-immolate. So hard to be an ex-President these days.
Should Al Gore go away now that he's worth $100 million? Surely he can't share progressive values if he's wealthy. We are fighting a class war, aren't we?
April 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is ILLEGAL to create tax havens overseas circumventing domestic laws. It is why the country faces such dire budget deficits - 60 Min did a devastating expose not long ago about this stealth wealth. This is corporate theft, and Billary are KNOWINGLY investing with such an entity, it raises serious questions about their integrity. That $109 million was accrued only within the past 7 or 8 years, that averages over $13 million a year. That's serious lucre for books and speeches.
And yes, *if* Al Gore is running for President, he *needs* to account for his wealth. We need to know about any potential conflict of interest, and here, there's a story that the MSM is ignoring.
April 24, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, writing books and giving speeches seems about as non-corrupt as you could want for a way to make money. If Bill's giving 50 or more speeches a year for $300K, then no one can really influence him corruptly - he's so in demand he can easily pick or choose where he speaks, and now with over $100 million he really doesn't have to worry about it at all.
April 24, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, another point about "dynasty" - it just means keeping it in the FAMILY, get it?
April 24, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Internet is the opium of the elite. Eliteracy = ? Non-action. Sedation?
April 24, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The internet is its own cocoon/bubble - thesis, antithesis and synthesis - it all gets resolved within its own universe even thogh we all care about the people out there.
April 24, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty are you involved with either campaign on the ground or locally?
April 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm living abroad now because of work, but I'm registered as an overseas Dem. Overseas Dems are *very* strong in Obama support. :)
April 24, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well maybe that's why you have the perspective of not being able to see what's happening in real time.
All politics is local.
April 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's currently "local" is really "national" - all eyes are on each primary to gauge the direction of public opinion. It's really down to the Supers, and they're going to watch carefully and weigh their role and options. Remember, it used to be a shoo-in for Hillary, so she was their default candidate. It's just that the voters' momentum is with Obama now, but at the smallest hint that he's losing steam, regardless of pledged delegates, they'll throw their weight behind Hillary.
I hope I'm completely wrong, and they'll go with the most delegates, etc., but it has happened before - in Mondale vs. Hart - when the Supers threw their support behind the incumbent. Hillary knows this too, which is why she is mobilizing the media as well. She has no way of making it through winning the remaining votes and pledged delegates alone, but is there another way, and is the window open, the answer is yes, and she's playing smarter now, going for that window. The rest of the primaries isn't so much for her to "win" votes/delegates, but for her to game that window.
April 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont think you meant anything bad about this posting.
To the posters, I think Qwerty is just trying to get more people aware, up and out on the streets. He isnt implying that all of us are lazy, or timid. Its that, he is just speaking on the "fact" that is NOT over yet. And he/she feels it will get worst down the line. It might. It might not.
But it appears me that some may be taking his/her post as a negative, and I dont think its how he/she meant it at all.
April 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does have a "J'accuse" quality, and quite intentional. Apologies if many of you take offense, but I do hope this "shocks" enough people out there to make a difference, that they sit up and notice, and not take victory for granted. Even though the delegate math is still strong on Obama's side, and getting stronger with each primary, I get a sense of momentum on Hillary's part, and a slow-down on Obama's part, and the news are reflecting it. Only the most fervent of Obama supporters believe that his nomination is inevitable, the math is insurmountable, etc....but politics is never like this, those of us who have been through 2000 know it too well, it really isn't over until it is over. Hillary is truly a formidable fighter, unfortunately, she's not fighting for us.
There's so much at stake in the immediate future, the country is headed in a calamnitous direction and it is urgent that a President who's beholden only to the voters take over.
April 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me what to do?
April 24, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I proposed some ideas, in the spirit of "Bikers for Obama" touring Indiana, etc., but it sounds lame to me. :( I hope that some of you more brilliant minds can think up a few counter-MSM strategy. Right now, they're dominating the headlines with questions about Obama that are Hillary's talking points, eg. Is "Race" an issue for voters? I don't think Obama alone is able to seize the headlines initiative back, but maybe his supporters,millions and millions of us, can. The outpouring after the ABC News debate is a good example of collective disapproval that scared the media...for a few days.
April 24, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "Rednecks for Obama" march/event may get some of these counter-"racist" viewpoints across, for example, and more effective, positive and persuasive. It has to be real, not a bunch of carpal tunnel syndrome-afflicted TPMers playing dress-up with fake tattoos and wife-beaters at a beer party. :)
April 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Obama should turn now to Hispanic voters everywhere. I think that the excitement he makes in another community that is basically low-income will help the numbers and diffuse the elitist tag.
April 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do wonder why his campaign is not pushing the profile of his Hispanic support? That's one of Hillary's base that he needs to prove he can win over, especially in many of the potential swing states like Texas. That would counter this "race" card they keep playing.
April 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darn, I keep hitting the "Recommend" button when I mean to hit the "Comment" button. Anyway, the thing about vilifying Hillary. As Obama's facade continues to crumble and reveal more and more of the person behind it, his supporters are running out of room to further vilify Clinton in order to make her look worse by comparison. At the rate Obama is shattering all the illusions he so carefully crafted for his young admirers they will soon be forced, ever so reluctantly, to reveal that at White House dinners during all those peaceful and prosperous Clinton years she was secretly serving human flesh.
April 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you prefer marching and t-shirts sales as opposed to voter registration?
April 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
T-shirt sales?? I'm talking about a series of strategies that would dominate the headlines, locally and nationally. Even though Obama blitzed the media with ads, it didn't get him far enough. Bittergate dominated the news, as did his "Race". I was reading about his campaign's door-to-door effort and it was just sad, people were just closing the door in their faces. These salvos were never properly addressed, the ad blitz were just ads. He needed to get more Obama supporters' (of the non-liberal variety) voices heard, especially the voices of those who have been "written off", and not just in ads, but in the news. Media events may attract some press coverage, and the so-called "low information" blue-collar voters can have a say, because many of them did listen and voted for Obama.
Many of these voters have not heard of him and do not know what he stands for. If he has been portrayed in the media as an out-of-touch elitist, there's no way they will vote for him, unless their own neighbors, co-workers, etc. speak up for him.
I fear the votes are important but they are not breaking decisively in his favor. He'll still be ahead, but the game might already be changed.
Someone blogged that the Supers are going massively his way, but such rumors have been flying around and Hillary just gets herself more and more in the news.
April 24, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty, we Obama supporters sure appreciate your armchair across-the-ocean call-to-arms against the Great Clinton Demons.
I'm not a big activist, but I did go door-to-door in Philly last weekend. The script that I was given did not say anything about how corrupt, dynastic, and money-loving the Clintons are. That's not Obama's message. That's not what he's about.
By all means, be involved, and encourage others to be involved. But not this way. Posts like this do the campaign no service.
April 24, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you'd notice, that's *not* the message I'm asking to be sent out, but my *own* opinion based on their record. The organizational and media strategies are about the voices of other Obama supporters speaking up and being heard, instead of the MSM interpreting what their demographic group thinks.
There is serious underestimation of Billary's power, and that will prove detrimental to Obama's camapign. Many believe that her funds will dry up, and that would stop her, and I am pointing out that they have very wealthy, well-connected backers, so never count out their money muscle, their media connections. Basically, they're two of the most pro-business politicians around. That's also why I'm skeptical that they'll watch out for the interest of the gods and guns folks.
I actually believe that it's going to be like Bush vs. Gore, that Obama will not make it despite the math. Unless public opinion goes massively in his favor again.
April 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was supposed to have this wrapped up on Super Tuesday.
April 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you have sent this message out. This is a public blog, unaffiliated with the Obama campaign. Not everyone who reads this is an Obama supporter. You have every right to say whatever you want, but when you write crap like this, about how disgusting "Billary" is (the word in itself is a cheap hit), you fuel the antipathy of the quite reasonable people who support Clinton.
You don't even have any productive proposal here. A "series of strategies that would dominate the headlines, locally and nationally" would be lovely. Serve them right up. The message of your post boils down to "The Clintons are evil! We must stop them! Someone do something!" I'm sorry. It's offensive, and it's not productive.
I'm being respectful because I want to encourage your enthusiasm, but this is not the way to channel it. Perhaps you can validate this thread, which is now securely on the recommended list for all the world to see, by coming up with some concrete ideas that it's possible for people here to do.
April 24, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectful? I'm sorry, but you sound like you're on the attack. There's nothing that I've posted so far that wasn't quoted from PUBLIC, legitimate sources, Slate and Huffington, least of all Robert Reich's opinion, and he was their friend.
Am I responsible for Hillary's negative ratings on TPM? What are you smoking???
This is my second blog! I thank ye for thinking so highly about the "influence" I am able to peddle though, maybe I should bottle and sell it.
I might be mistaken, but I did not think that you have to be affiliated with Obama's campaign to blog at all on here.
Others have raised the money issue, eg. Bill's $800K speeches in Colombia, and potential conflict of interest, and people *should* be concerned about business investments with offshore tax havens, that's immoral, for either party! You can't accept shenanigans from your own party and decry the likes of Duke Cunningham.
And yes, you did kill my enthusiasm for Obama. His recent campaigns showed significant sputtering despite his $ advantage. He has math on his side but Hillary has seized the initiative and the media are now repeating her points.
Hey, there's real life out there, some of us don't need this.
I'm already convinced that she'll pull through, it'll be 4 more years of politics as usual of either party's insider, my posts won't make a damn bit of difference.
April 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't actually think that she has a chance. There's only a question of how long this charade lasts. I'm more concerned with ending it quickly to prevent any damage from McCain. This is a topic for another post, but Obama is ahead in IN and well ahead in NC. And he has always risen in the 2-3 weeks prior to every primary. Bill and Hillary are powerful people, but they're not all powerful. If they were, the primary would have been over a long time ago.
But to the point, I'm glad that you're posting. I'm just asking you, for Obama's sake and for the sake of Democratic unity, to try to avoid demonizing Clinton. She pisses us all off, and I wish that she would get the hell out of this race already or at least quit the negative attacks, but she's not George Bush, and she's not Karl Rove.
And yes, this is criticism, but it's relatively respectful criticism by internet standards. I was sorely tempted to snark the hell out of this post. (Yes, I know, I'm sure that you're gratified by my generous restraint. That, btw, is self-directed sarcasm.) Part of posting is taking people's crap. At least your post made the recommended list and didn't disappear into obscurity.
April 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I'm putting the Clintons in the same group as the Henry Kissingers of this world, is it demonizing them? It is this group though, who has led us to a load of trouble, including the wars and the current financial meltdown. Bill is such a tool... I do have very negative feelings towards them, and Hillary turning Republican in plain sight, that's about the last straw.
Life's going to be very, very hard for a lot of Americans, on the bright side, if Obama couldn't make it somehow, it might save him from the grief of being the next Carter.
April 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. The only way Obama can lose now is a massive, and I mean massive, implosion. If the Clintons were capable of catalyzing that, they would have done it already.
Obama had his favored states in Feb. Now Clinton has had hers. Except for Kentucky and W. Virginia, she's done. And those states don't have enough votes to change anything. Hang in there until May 6. I think you'll feel better after that.
As for positive action, a couple of us have been talking about organizing a fundraiser with a live Q&A from someone in the campaign. This would probably be in a few weeks and be directed more towards the GE than the primary. It would be great if we can get some press for it too.
April 24, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll do anything to get the recs, I'll grovel for Hillary's forgiveness. K?
April 24, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that will be necessary. Nothing boosts the recs like Clinton bashing.
April 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that is hard to fight what you can't see, and regardless of what is on the news everyone sees the price of gas going up, the price of food going up, the economy shaky at best, and all the time nothing has changed on the ground in Iraq other than the fact that it has been segregated in many ways which it had not been prior to 2003. I was a very young when Jimmy Carter was president but deep in the heart of the Red states, like where I live, the inflation, gas shortages, combined with the Iran revolution and plane hijacking all lead to one result----the election of an Actor named Ronald Reagan who despite bringing stability to the economy, much at the price of unions and the laready living poor, was elected in relatovely large numbers. I agree that we can not sit on our collective butts, especially while bloging, but do not underestimate the relaity for which people have to live in.
April 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you are following old archetype scripts and fail to take into account the passage of time in the transformation of holoscripts.
April 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do half the commenters on this thread have screen names with the letter Q?
April 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a qonspiracy.
April 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear very much that we'll revisit the economics hardship of this period...the problem is there is also very little understanding of the economics leading to this. Ron Paul really deserves some credit for trying to bring attention to the matter.
FYEI, Dems Abroad went overwhelmingly for Obama, over 70% in my region. :)!!!
Spin that Hillary!
April 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the typos! I took a class on Ronald Reagan's presidency in college called Latin American politics of the 21st century. I do not think to highly of him despite America's economic success during the 80's!
April 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Q is in unrepresented minority!
April 24, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Q" is the new black.
April 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see
April 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, that's quaint! Apologies if I was a bit hotheaded there, feel somewhat worried about the way it's going for my man. :)
April 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries. It's been a frustrating time for all of us. Just be glad that you're not a Clinton supporter. Those poor bastards have had to suffer through a lot more.
April 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are the supers holding out if Barack has it in the bag?
There is that feeling in the Ayer ,that Barry-O will implode at any time.
Also, they know his base, the college kiddies, will be bombed out by Nov (back to school, sports and wall to wall beer parties, and just won't show up for the GE.
This has been a great "spring break" for those guys, but now it's about over.
The smart supers want to back a winner.
April 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on asswipe
April 24, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Querty,
I am a Dem Abroad in Japan, and I voted for Obama.
Just thought I'd say hello.
Regardings actions possible from Abroad, you could join Obama Watchdogs for America, and be a media hound...
Also, I've been workin' on registering Americans to vote. Your local Dem Abroad branch could give you some direction there, or you could just freelance.
Sounds like you are feeling a bit anxious regarding the nomination being pulled from beneathe our mans feet.
So yeah, let's do what we can.
Oh, and hosting Political Potluck Parties is a fun way to talk with other expats, and get momentum moving.
All the Best.
April 24, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ame, Greetings from a close neighbor, HK, small and *very* chilled out. :) Thanks for recommending the Watchdog site, I'll sign up at there and see. So far, the media overseas has been pro-Obama, what's worrisome is the MSM echoing Hillary's new talking points *everyday*. Now, it's Hillary's new Math, aka the Empress' new clothes. I'm doing my bit part, countering and posting on their blogs and forum whenever I can. I do feel it's essential to go into "hostile" territory to argue his case.
I'm also thinking about the vast majority of Americans who don't go on the internet - the print media and TV News are having a much larger impact on them - and they've been hard on Obama. If we lose the battle for MSM, we'll likely lose them in November as well, they love McCain, the BBQ guy, as they did Bush, the beer guy.
I'm now worried about Indiana, losing there can kill his mo.
Finally, do I believe they'll pull this from under our feet...yes. Bill and Hill have been pitbull relentless, until it's over, it's not. After 2000 & 2004, I'm convinced elections go the way of the most ruthless. That's how Hillary is pitching herself as well, that she can be as tough as they come, that's so wrong on so many levels, Democrats morphing into Rove.
April 25, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like him just fine. No crumbling here.
But I agree with your second point. It would be hard work to make Senator Clinton less appealing to many voters.
April 24, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
me too.
Alot of folks on the Clintons side seem to think they understand why people follow Obama, but arent even attempting to open their mind.
Im wondering if this Primary will swing our country into a new type of civil war.
Its doing more harm than good....put her away.
April 25, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Querty,
Nice to know you are right across the water.
Yeah, you are right about a bit gap between those who get there news via internet and those who rely on newspapers, television.
Those of us overseas tend to be heavy on the internet side and there seems to be a connection between that and us expats tending towards Obama.
As for making a dent, I think letters to the editor are a nice way to make a difference. the fact that we are overseas makes our voices more interesting.
Good luck.
Oh, I wanted to share with you a quote from Michelle Obama "Barack will be an underdog until the moment he is sitting in the Oval Office." Or something to that effect.
April 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink