Blog powered by Typepad


    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from bbbustard. Make your own badge here.
My Photo


« Contorted Journalists: Israeli Style | Main | Losing the Power »

March 06, 2008



David Axelrod-Sen Obama’s campaign manager- has a stellar reputation for advising his black candidates on how to ‘shape’ their message & attacks in such a way to win over the white sympathy votes and black anger votes…
Everyone-sad to say even journalists- have jumped to conclusion that all the negative ads out there against Sen. Obama have been instigated by the Clinton camp.

“All’s fair in love and war and campaigning for election” in this country according to many people who in ‘real life when they are not campaigning” are inherently good people. Check out this article in The Nation magazine
“Obama’s Media Maven” by Chrisptoher Hayes. 2/19/08 issue
Read what they (and everyone who knows Axelrod) write about David Axelrod, the 51-year-old reporter turned media consultant who is the key media strategist for Obama campaign.
Has it dawned on anyone writing these articles that maybe…just maybe…the smear tactics we have been witnessing these past few weeks against Sen. Obama were actually initiated by the Obama camp to make Clinton camp look bad? Or, maybe…just maybe…Republican campaign operatives did this.

And what about any Clinton ads that some voters may have found offensive?
Neither you nor I know which came first-the chicken or the egg.
Was the ad that some people may not have been comfortable with - an offensive or defensive move on the part of the Clinton campaign?
Also-Check out this story-Strong support of what is written in The Nation magazine.

farmer Mark

Is it fair to jump from the inconsistencies in what Obama's more avid supporters say about the nominating rules to the conclusion that his goal is to build a personality cult? I voted for Hillary, but I would say that Obama's supporters' willingness to argue both sides is a pretty flimsy basis for that conclusion. Indeed, Hillary herself (not just her supporters) is guilty of equally inconsistent positions about the nomination process (e.g. first claiming that the Michigan and Florida primaries wouldn't count, and now that she won those contests, taking advantage of the party loyalty of her competitors who removed their names from contention in the spirit of the party rules, seeking to have their delegations seated). Does her willingness to disregard the ground rules in the interest of the nomination render her campaign a personality cult?

In each case, the candidates or their supporters are simply taking the positions that accrue to their immediate tactical advantage, without regard to consistency and, in Hillary's case, in clear disregard of the rules of the party she ostensibly wishes to build up. All this is typical behavior in a campaign.

Further, the evidence regarding the party (or policy) allegiance of the supporters of each camp strongly contradicts the notion of an Obama personality cult. I found quite disturbing the polling data I saw earlier this week that only 10% of Obama's supporters would decline to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, while over 30% of Clinton supporters would decline to vote for Obama if he's it. If Obama's following constituted a personality cult, you'd expect those percentages to be reversed. After all, the Obama and Clinton policy positions are very close, and both are miles away from McCain or any third party candidate you can name.

Each of these candidates is campaigning in the style they can do it best. They are remarkably complementary in their weaknesses but also in their strengths. I'm increasingly convinced that we need both on the ticket to win. What they say and how they campaign is certainly a legitimate consideration when we're arguing over which one ought to be on the top of the ticket. But if the style of the campaign or the respective nomination tactics become the chief issue then we are being deflected into a side show.

To quote Hillary, let's get real.


Thanks to you both for the comments - and I agree that the campaigns of both of them leave a lot to be desired - especially when you include the acts of supporters. I am surprised at the study referred to by the farmer - could he please give me more information? The evidence I get, totally unscientific evidence, from the blogosphere suggest exactly the opposite.
Although I think it a neat idea, I really can't imagine them on the same ticket. Hillary feels she has already served as V.P., and Obama would be silly to give up his place in the Senate in order to be a Second-Vice-President - as clearly Bill would be a hell of a lot more influential than he would ever be.
Thanks to athy also for the links, but I wasn't able to open the second one.

farmer mark

The poll I referred to was either in the Times or the Wash Post, I believe of Ohio and Tx voters. I will try to dig them out and post a link or a copy somehow.

If Obama gets the nomination then you're right, he probably need not have Hillary on as Vice, and she might not only feel that VP is something she's already done and that she'd prefer the lifetime tenure that comes with a democratic Senate seat in NY. He might profit from Wesley Clark as his VP.

But If Hillary is the nominee then I think she sorely needs Obama, because if he's not on the ticket and out there exhorting then his very significant bloc of disgruntled voters, resentful over Hillary's tactics, will very likely sit it out. A disaster. Why might he take the job? Sets him up as next at bat, assuming she's successful. Not a terrible career path.

The comments to this entry are closed.