Obama's Victory Speech: "The Status Quo Is Fighting Back With Everything It's Got"
Obama is giving his victory speech right now. He hits a conciliatory note about his Dem opponents:
We have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect and our admiration. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.
But then he twists the knife:
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got.
The status quo, presumably, being the Hillary candidacy. Full text of Obama's speech after the jump.
Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.
Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.
After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.
They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.
But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect and our admiration. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.
We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.
And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.
But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.
That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.
So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.
Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.
The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.
The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.
The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.
The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future.
It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.
But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.
When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.
When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.
Yes we can change.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.
And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:
Yes. We. Can.
Comments (134)
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 9:17 PM:We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.
Hillary fights back with flights to Florida!
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 9:22 PM:He's featuring the "say anything, do anything to get elected"
Let's hear how the Clintons are gonna steal Michigan and Florida
Sweet, Caroline!
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans
Time for Marshall and Kleefeld to cross the Rubicon
Anonymous - assuming you're a Hillary employee, given that you're copy & pasting astroturf comments into multiple threads?
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 9:24 PM:Nice speech. I noticed he managed to stick a Wal-Mart reference in there. Yeah, he's inside both Clinton's heads now.
I liked this part:
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future.
It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. Nice timing on this speech by the way. As far as I can tell, you got it up first. A coup for TMP.
benjoya wrote on January 26, 2008 9:24 PM:that was a good f'ing speech.
Javier wrote on January 26, 2008 9:24 PM:Oh man. Do you feel it?
I do. And it's like the sweetest taste one can imagine.
Go Barack.
Go man, go.
Nora wrote on January 26, 2008 9:26 PM:oh my. who are his speech writers? this is excellent stuff. if tpm were able to include video, it would be much appreciated.
Josh wrote on January 26, 2008 9:26 PM:That was great.
mari wrote on January 26, 2008 9:26 PM:Amazing. I can't listen to his talk without tearing up. He is amazing.
He is unmatched, he is definitely the heir to King and the Kennedys, he is simply unmatched in contemporary politics.
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 9:27 PM:Meh, parts of my quotes keep getting thrown away. That last should have read (if it formats correctly this time...)
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future.
It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
Dee Dee wrote on January 26, 2008 9:27 PM:I just love the way he speaks. I hope he wins, and then I hope he lives up to his promise.
ChangeNow wrote on January 26, 2008 9:30 PM:Obama has the capacity to make Republicans feel good about crossing party lines. The Clintons will never be able to do that.
Meredith wrote on January 26, 2008 9:30 PM:We are watching the new leader of the Democratic Party tonight.
Hell. I'm gonna rejoin the Democratic Party!
bvd wrote on January 26, 2008 9:30 PM:AP: "Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South."
We weren't making an issue out of his being BLACK... but by the way, did we mention that HE'S BLACK!
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 9:30 PM:crayz wrote on January 26, 2008 9:23 PM:
Anonymous - assuming you're a Hillary employee, given that you're copy & pasting astroturf comments into multiple threads?
It is the flight to Florida!
Maybe Michigan should have included!
Smile, its better for you!
"Don't tell me we can't change."
This almost topped his Iowa speech and that's quite a feat. I'm donating money right now.
CalD wrote on January 26, 2008 9:32 PM:I thought the status quo was George W. Bush.
Liam wrote on January 26, 2008 9:33 PM:Obama got 55% of the votes cast, leaving Hillary and Edwards just 45% of the votes to share between them.
Now is the time for both Edwards and Hillary to withdraw from the contest, and throw their support behind Senator Obama. Since their collective vote totals add up to 10% less than what Senator Obama received, then it is time for them to do the right thing for the sake of party unity.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 9:34 PM:Nora:
Nice article in last Sunday's NYT Stle section on Obama's speechwriter. He's like 28 or something, decent read.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 9:34 PM:CNN's election panel...
"Outside the Clinton campaign, no one is praying for Hillary more than republicans"
Bill Bennett who would you like to face
"Oh Obama's definitely the stronger candidate"
No kidding..
My prayer..."Dear Lord watch over Bill Clinton, protect his vocal cords from strain at least through March"
sue wrote on January 26, 2008 9:34 PM:Did you hear him reaching out to Latinos? He's not ceding the Latino vote to the Clinton's. Oh no.
Obama's gonna fight for them.
Liam wrote on January 26, 2008 9:34 PM:Obama got 55% of the votes cast, leaving Hillary and Edwards just 45% of the votes to share between them.
Now is the time for both Edwards and Hillary to withdraw from the contest, and throw their support behind Senator Obama. Since their collective vote totals add up to 10% less than what Senator Obama received, then it is time for them to do the right thing for the sake of party unity.
Keith wrote on January 26, 2008 9:35 PM:So much for the divided and conquer strategy.
Great speech! And coupled with the 27 point routing he's got some very serious momentum going into February 5th.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 26, 2008 9:35 PM:Thank God for Caroline Kennedy. Impeccable timing, and I hope her endorsement begins to let the rank and file embrace the idea that Barack is worth supporting.
Thanks for the text of the speech.
sue wrote on January 26, 2008 9:36 PM:Caroline Kennedy not only endorsed Obama, but directly compared him to her father, calling him "a president like my father."
This will get as much (if not more) play this week as Obama's big SC win.
The Kennedy's just slapped the Clinton's upside the head.
Keith wrote on January 26, 2008 9:38 PM:Excuse me, 28 point ass kicking.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 9:39 PM:" The Kennedy's just slapped the Clinton's upside the head."
Sue due you mean Ted?
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 9:40 PM:I'll tell you who I feel a bit bad for. John Edwards. Obama is a hell of an act to follow if you're trying to give a speech. I'm listening to Edwards' concession speech right now, but I can't stop thinking about Obama's, and how on point it was in tone and message.
Edwards is getting beaten because he's up against superior candidates. He's got a good message (albeit, one he stole from Kucinich) but it has no chance to resonate when put next to the two front-runners.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:42 PM:He seemed so ANGRY when he spoke, enraged even. Not the best tone to take.
loki wrote on January 26, 2008 9:42 PM:Petty. Platitudinous and petty. So much for "change." He's just like them. Get used to it. He's a conservative, (and petty) Democrat who delivers a good speech. Remember Bill Clinton? Same thing. All the things you Obama supporters hate about the Clintons is all that he is. Even you can see that now? Snide comments, triangulations, pandering...it's American politics, folks. I've been trying to drive this point home for months in here. It is becoming more and more obvious every day...and yet...nothing but blind, slavering obeisance all around in here.
Comical.
amberglow wrote on January 26, 2008 9:44 PM:He's just as much status quo as she is--seriously--and maybe even more conservative than she is. His speeches are always empty too--it's sad.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 9:45 PM:Republican Quote of the Day
Obama took a lot of swipes at republicans but listening to that speech, I must say he sounded like Ronald Reagan..uplifting..
Outside of the CLinton Camp, no one is praying harder for Hillary than Republicans
Bill Bennett
Bill Clinton put in the last part of his race baiting, dismissing Obama and the SC defeat as some kind of black anomaly. He finally said Obama is like Jesse Jackson:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-ju_n_83406.html
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:45 PM:I agree the speech was empty, content-wise. But the tone--furious, enraged. Very odd.
amberglow wrote on January 26, 2008 9:48 PM:Well, he's pissed because the Clintons dragged him down to earth incredibly easily, and he can't get back on the pedestal anymore. The really enraged ones now are the Clintons, and they're going to destroy him now.
He let them drive the narratives and they still are.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:48 PM:Don't throw me in the briar patch, said Bill Bennett. Give me a break. Should we let the Republicans choose our Dem nominee? The concern trolls telling us how much ther fear Obama and want to run against Clinton. Sure they do. They fear Obama about as much as they fear Bambi.
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 9:48 PM:cythera, is that the current spin from the Hillary44 crowd? Thanks for bringing us the newest from spin central.
Everyone, Barack Obama was furious in the face of an overwhelming win. Spread the word.
Alan wrote on January 26, 2008 9:48 PM:I guess Obama stole South Carolina. He ran as the "Black" candidate by his choice and will now bear that burden for the rest of the primary season. The Obama "Slime Machine" worked.
Obama and his supporters should enjoy tonight. By carrying a state that no Democrat has a prayer of carrying in the general election, he proved absolutely nothing.
The next couple of Tuesdays will be bad news for the Obama camp,Hillary will rout him in Florida and will win most of the primaries on Super Tuesday.
I also predict that the Obama supporters will claim the Clinton's stole the election from them and will whine about the Clinton "Slime Machine" because they can't learn to lose gracefully.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 9:49 PM:Watch Hillary try to incorporate some of Barak's message in her speech as she has done the entire campaign.
How many appearances can Bill Clinton make between now and 2/5?
Let's see how the Clintons' "We will steal Florida. We will steal Michigan. We are the Borg" plays tomorrow night
Blogging RU Greg?
Common Sense wrote on January 26, 2008 9:49 PM:Loki:
Thanks for being gracious tonight and congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on his crushing victory tonight.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:51 PM:I don't support Clinton, I support Edwards. I was just observing that Obama seemed angry. I love how Obama supporters view everything in such a polarized light--you have to say loving, worshipful things about him, or else you're a Clintonista. Sad.
roo_P wrote on January 26, 2008 9:51 PM:Beautiful speech towards the end. I think the exactly right tone. This will resonate very well.
"Yes we can."
hello_world, TPM's software does not render multi-paragraph blockquotes correctly. Use a separate one for each paragraph.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 9:52 PM:Tonight we must feel the pain of the Clintons and their attack dogs
I mean what will these recrudescent culture warriors do if they cannot refight the 1990's with a boring candidate and her overwrought spouse?
Cross the Rubicon democrats..the Bridge to the 21st Century is ONE WAY
Wow, was that good! You don't need a negative campaign when your positives are so danged good. Rovian tactics are for people who would otherwise lose. Hillary and Bill better start rethinking their approach pronto, 'cause she's starting to look very weak.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 9:54 PM:People it's not anger it's called focus. Bill sounded like he was the one running for president instead of Hillary. The Clintons are trying to back-door the Constitution and someone needs to say it.
hello_world wrote on January 26, 2008 9:55 PM:roo_P, thanks. I tried a couple different ways, using paragraph tags and whatnot. I just gave up. No biggie, it's not like anything said here is actually changing anyone's mind or anything.
Besides, I make enough errors on my own without worrying about anything that TMP's server's might be doing to make me look bad. :p
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 9:56 PM:Dude, you'll be sorry if Obama wins the nomination. Mark my words--he'll be weak.
memyself wrote on January 26, 2008 9:56 PM:
Heh - trolls heard anger and fury in a speech about hope and unity. Riiiiight!
Bill Clinton's obvious race baiting comments comparing Obama's rout of his wife to Jesse Jackson's wins are despicable.
I hope I can vote FOR someone in the general election instead of just voting for the least worst choice if Clinton wins the nomination. Either Edwards or Obama would give me a positive choice I would enjoy being able to make.
john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 9:57 PM:The SINGLE MOST SALIENT fact about tonight's win we've not heard a word yet
The Clintons have they have done in every state strong armed the Demo machines from California to SC..the same old tired power brokers...the black ministers, what labor bosses they could find...hacks every where
That's who they counted on in SC. That's who they are counting on in California.
That's who The Clintons are counting on and that's who just got the crap beat out of em
And to say that Barak is "Black" is still thinking about America in a way that he intends to change. Remember when how much of a human being you were was determined by how much black blood you possessed. Remember he is also White.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 9:59 PM:Hey, Josepe. Don't tell all the AFrican-American voters in S. Carolina who voted for him that he's not black. I think they would beg to differ.
TheraP wrote on January 26, 2008 10:01 PM:Yes. We. Can.
loki wrote on January 26, 2008 10:01 PM:"Common Sense",
Thanks for proving my point.
ChangeNow wrote on January 26, 2008 10:03 PM:"He seemed so ANGRY when he spoke, enraged even. Not the best tone to take."
Oh my, is that the new Clinton spin? ANGRY black man? Too bad. The press does not like the Clintons and they are quite willing to decode the code for their listeners.
GOoPers on this thread (and HRC boosters who are convinced of her invincibility) expressing glee that Obama is sooooo much more beatable should take a moment to eyeball the poll results to the right of the post they're trolling. Says that BHO now runs better than HRC against Mac, and he's only been taken seriously nationally since December!
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:09 PM:Loki, it's people who think like you that a campaign like his is attempting to change. I've studied politics for 17 years, am an attorney and I'm black. However, I grew up in Europe and I know that human beings, regardless of their history, have the capacity to put their differences aside for a common goal. I know how other Countries view America and our goal should be restore faith and confidence in order to regain our position in the world.
storm wrote on January 26, 2008 10:09 PM:i dislike the two party system. only once have i voted either rep or dem for pres. and that was more an anti-bush vote than anything else. in november, my vote for obama will be my first vote for someone.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:10 PM:ChangeNow, you need to read the posts more carefully. I am NOT a Clinton supporter, I voted for Edwards in Iowa and want him as my nominee. I was just making an observation. But as I said, it's so predictable how the Obamabots respond--if you don't say something worshipful about their deity, then you are an evil Clintonista. Pathetic.
tym wrote on January 26, 2008 10:11 PM:Hope that is the end of Billary tonight
She is an evil vile women
Video and transcript of the "Yes we can!" speech:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGxdg
W Action wrote on January 26, 2008 10:13 PM:Weird comment by Alan about Obama running as a black man "by choice." I think that people noticed on their own. If they missed it, Bubba and Hill's surrogates made it clear.
Joan wrote on January 26, 2008 10:13 PM:The nice guy finished first, for once.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:15 PM:If Bill will lie under oath then he's no better than Scooter, Rove or Bush. If you have ever bashed the Bush administration for ignoring subpoenas, slash & burn politic or attempting to further enrich himself through his political office, then how could you vote for Clinton?
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:17 PM:Josepe, are you a Republican? These are Republican talking points about Clinton.
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:17 PM:"I thought the status quo was George W. Bush."
Nope, its Billary.
Duane wrote on January 26, 2008 10:18 PM:Cythera, have you thought about trolling somewhere else? You're harshing my mellow and not doing much to enamor me to you or your candidate. Go away and let us enjoy our victory.
AP: "Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South." along with Bill's Jesse comments this afternoon.
Doesn't that sound like "Not that we are bring up cocaine, but you know the GOP will bring up cocaine, and you know one of our surrogates wasn't talking about cocaine."
or like "I voted for it but hoped that it wouldn't pass"...?
Great strategy, keep it up and Barack will seal this up on Feb 5.
For the record, I don't believe that Billary is 'racist' but they certainly have no qualms about using race to (try to) win...
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:20 PM:"Petty. Platitudinous and petty. So much for "change.""
Spoken like a true loser dwelling in loserville..
Alan wrote on January 26, 2008 10:21 PM:Josepe,
You apparently think lying about sex is a serious offense, not the thousands of times the Bush administration lied about the war in Iraq.Stop this bull about Bill Clinton lying under oath. By what right does ANYONE dare to question any adult about private consensual sex?
More Republican spin.
Josepe,
I'd be more than happy to see that change when someone isn't acting exactly like the Clintons.
Exactly. Like. The. Clintons.
His speech was petty and spiteful. In the recent weeks and months we've seen him do what all American politicians do. Pander, triangulate, say anything to get elected. The inabliltiy for Obama supporters to see this or, more likely, to acknowlege this...well this I still find comical. Sad, yes...but you have to laugh, considering the alternative.
So, Josepe, do you see it? Are you at all capable of seeing Obama being a "politician?" Be honest now.
GMFORD wrote on January 26, 2008 10:22 PM:Something the media don't talk about too much but I think it's important.
This country needs a new direction in regards to policies but we also need to heal emotionally. Eight years of the most disastrous and lawless administration in American history have left the whole country feeling hopeless, worried and distrustful. This is the right time for an inspirational leader to lift our spirits. We all want to breath a sigh of relief (that includes the rest of the world) when the 2008 elections are over and the reign of terror is finally over.
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:22 PM:"He's just as much status quo as she is--seriously--and maybe even more conservative than she is. His speeches are always empty too--it's sad."
That response was sad, especially after the trouncing you were just on the business end of - thoughts?
Zeta wrote on January 26, 2008 10:22 PM:I recall that Obama wrote his 04 convention speech and the Jefferson-Jackson speech (man, that line about his cousin Cheney was so classic -- I had totally forgotten about it in the rancor of the last month) -- but I know that he's got speechwriters as well, of course. I'd love to know how much is him and how much is his speechwriters, or how they work together, etc. However he does it, it surely works.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 10:23 PM:I found the first half of the speech to be almost a series of taunts -- and I thought it was petty not to mention either of his opponents by name. But the second half came back to Obama Classic, and I unclenched.
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:23 PM:"I agree the speech was empty, content-wise. But the tone--furious, enraged. Very odd."
This was almost believable, then I realized the losing source.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:23 PM:No, I've never voted for any Republican at any level. The fact that the comment sounds like a Republican Talking Point is exactly my point. Facts are facts. I am concerned about this Country and the well-being of its citizens. The only way Dems win is by taking a close look at what really went on during the Clinton years. The Clintons are simply trying to back-door the Constituion and Republicans are salivating at the idea to take shots at Bill again. Just watch the video of the Republican debate.
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 10:23 PM:It's not about not "saying something worshipful," cythera. It's about posting slams and slime. There's a difference between constructive criticism and aimless attacks. Fact-free spew just isn't working to drive down Obama's appeal. He's doesn't respond in kind, keeping his knightly luster aglow.
What Dem campaign operatives are learning during this primary campaign is that Dem voters are not only NOT manipulable by Rovian tactics, but that they rapidly react against the manure spreader! When Obama was perceived to be cruel to Hill, he was punished in NH. Now we have the reverse in SC. I think that if Bill will STFU, and Hillsters knock off the robocalls, Feb 5 voters won't hold SC tactics against Hill. If she keeps going the way she's headed, then I think she'll continue to be punished.
shoephone wrote on January 26, 2008 10:24 PM:Actually, the status quo is a corporate-controlled America, in which case, Obama hardly represents "change", but certainly does represent the "status quo".
He gets huge $$$ backing from all the same corporate interests Clinton does. The banking and credit interests. The health care and pharmaceutical interests. The insurance company interests. Gas and oil interests. And let's not forget, Obama's fourth largest campaign contributor is Exelon, the nuclear energy corporation.
Remind me again how he is so different from Clinton on constitutional matters when neither one of them had the guts or integrity to show their faces on the Senate floor during the FISA debates.
Poseurs both. I'm still voting for Edwards in my Feb. 9 caucus.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:24 PM:Hey, Duane. Take your mellow and shove it where the moon don't shine. Also, enjoy your Obama lovefest. What other states will he win? Illinois? That's about it. And so we're stuck with Clinton. Sigh.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:25 PM:Radiohead said: "keeping his knightly luster aglow." This Obama thing is a cult, it's really weird and disturbing. Have you thought about checking out L. Ron Hubbard or Ayn Rand insteaqd. "Knightly luster"--have you been reading Tolkien?
Alan wrote on January 26, 2008 10:26 PM:I will return after super Tuesday to see comments from the Obama supporters about how the Clinton's stole several victories on that day. Enjoy your victory, Obama supporters, there won't be many more!
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:27 PM:"He ran as the "Black" candidate by his choice and will now bear that burden for the rest of the primary season. The Obama "Slime Machine" worked."
The "black candidate" sure did get a lot of votes - oh, you suck.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 10:27 PM:Something the media don't talk about too much but I think it's important.
This country needs a new direction in regards to policies but we also need to heal emotionally
Seriously, you think the media talk about the campaign in terms of a change in emotional direction too _little_? I think that's all they talk about. They find policy immensely boring.
anon wrote on January 26, 2008 10:27 PM:The more Obama steals the words out of Edwards' mouth, the more successful he is. The difference is that Obama will a) lose the general and b) do nothing to turn back the corporate tide that grips our government and economy. It is a real shame.
Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 10:28 PM:"Enjoy your victory, Obama supporters, there won't be many more!"
Whatever makes you sleep better at night scooter - losers sure are vocal tonight..
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:29 PM:Alan, Lying under oath is lying unde oath regardless of what it was about. If lying about sex is such a small thing then he should have told the truth. Think about Marion Jones lying to an FBI angent or Bonds, Lil Kim or Scooter.
Loki, John Kerry made the mistake of not responding to attacks and we all know what happened. I hated that he didn't respond by saying "regardless of what happened on that boat, my opposition did everything he could to avoid combat." Obama just didn't want to make the same mistake.
Good point, Lana. What other states can Obama legitimately hope to win? Illinois, his home state. Maybe one or two more in the deep south. Otherwise, it's a Clinton coronation, which is disgusting but, sadly, a fact.
Nora wrote on January 26, 2008 10:30 PM:Thanks to the person who recommended the Times piece on Obama's speechwriter. Article here.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 26, 2008 10:31 PM:Oops, formatting mistake. Take 2...
GMFORD: Something the media don't talk about too much but I think it's important.
This country needs a new direction in regards to policies but we also need to heal emotionally
Seriously, you think the media talk about the campaign in terms of a change in emotional direction too _little_? I think that's all they talk about. They find policy immensely boring.
Duane wrote on January 26, 2008 10:31 PM:Hey, Duane. Take your mellow and shove it where the moon don't shine. Also, enjoy your Obama lovefest. What other states will he win? Illinois? That's about it. And so we're stuck with Clinton. Sigh.
Okay, you've made it clear this is all about Cythera. Now off with you, troll.
NCSteve wrote on January 26, 2008 10:31 PM:Okay, cythera45, so let me get this straight. You're an Edwards supporter and you think Obama sounded angry? Selective perception at its finest.
c wrote on January 26, 2008 10:34 PM:Stay mellow, Duane! On to Super Tue.
brad wrote on January 26, 2008 10:34 PM:Something odd that I have noticed about posters on this thread and others. Specifically some of the bomb throwers like TexModDem, Loke, cythera45 and some others. The pattern is thus:
1) throw bombs
2) if challenged, say "I'm not an HRC supporter, I support Edwards".
3) Never defend or talk about Edwards and keep throwing bombs on behalf of HRC
Just seems odd to me and I thought I'd mention it.
Lavocat wrote on January 26, 2008 10:35 PM:Watershed moment in the Dem Campaign! Awesome confluence of events: crushing victory in South Carolina; stunning victory speech; and amazing endorsement from Caroline Kennedy!!!
This has got to be the most exciting Dem campaign in living memory.
Whether this incredible dynamism can translate into the much-needed bounce for Super Tuesday is anybody's guess.
C'mon, Obama!!!!!
How do the Clintons spin this whirlwind turn of events?
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 10:35 PM:cythera, does the phrase "knightly luster" sound sincere to you? I'm an uncommited equal opportunity snarker. I suspect you lack a humor bone. I was exaggerating, which is a subtle agreement with the idea that Obamaians sometimes go overboard. My point was that his positivity in the face of negative attacks buffs up his luster IN THEIR EYES. Lighten up. It doesn't alter my point that Hill's approach is ineffective in tarnishing his halo. (No, I don't really mean he's a saint.)
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:35 PM:NC Steve, Edwards is angry, yes of course. But it doesn't clash with his message. That's my point. Edwards isn't interested in "bringing people together" to sing Kumbaya--he wants to fight corporate power. Obama is the onbe who fetishizes unity, hence my observation that his tone and message seemed to clash.
Die, Duane, in screaming agony. How's that for angry?
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:36 PM:I seriously doubt that the worshipful tone you and others adopt towards Obama is ironic. Is that what you're saying? Lusters and haloes--sun rays streaming from his buttocks. It's a cult.
Alan wrote on January 26, 2008 10:37 PM:Josepe,
Marion Jones and Barry Bonds were not asked about their sex lives. In Clinton's case, he was questioned by a partisan political prosecuter appointed by Republicans on a court of appeals. If you can't see the difference, that explains you position in the current Democratic campain.You are spinning Republican.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?scp=1&sq=obama+speechwriter&st=nyt
Here is the link to the NYT article about the speechwriter. The impressive part of the article is how much Obama writes himself. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Obama is a gifted communicator with a quick intellect and love of language.
The convention 2004 speech- Obama wrote it himself.
Alan,
I defended Bill on the Lewinski thing. On the day that W took office, I remember comparing Bill's departing address and W's innaugural address and thinking how much we would miss him. I liked him right up until about two months ago.
But the shit he is pulling lately tells me that he is all about Bill Clinton and that's about it. The Jesse Jackson thing today is just more grist for the mill. I wish he would kind of just fade into the background.
Being Anti-Bill at this point doesn't mean you are a wingnut. It may just mean that you want your party back.
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 10:43 PM:Now that I've heard "angry" as the from several of TV's Republican talking heads who have discussed being "on my Blackberry", I get it that blog trolls have also received this official Republican talking point. Angry nigra. If you're hearing "angry" you're hearing from a GOOPer. It's usuually worked before, but it just might not work on a guy who chooses--as a matter of loudly proclaimed tactics--not to respond in kind. Actually, voters might want a little more angry after the calamity of the last 8 years, so good on him. I think he has a far better long range strategy than he's credited.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:44 PM:Alan, I am a prosecutor who prosecutes politicians and I have questioned thousand of people under oath. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Further, it wouldn't matter if Osama Bin Laden was asking the questions, if he asked if your name is Alan and you say no then you have committed Perjury.
David wrote on January 26, 2008 10:46 PM:It is interesting to note, in the fight for the claim of electability, that tonight Obama garnered more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined in the SC Republican Primary. Keep that in mind when making claims concerning Obama's electability in the South during the general.
Duane wrote on January 26, 2008 10:46 PM:Die, Duane, in screaming agony. How's that for angry?
Cythera, adults have a saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it."
If you want to be taken seriously as an adult, congratulate Obama on his crushing victory and then with a concillatory tone pivot gracefully into a case for your own candidate, acknowledging his hopeless back-of-the-pack status and any ideas you may have to turn this around.
Graceless and baseless attacks on the winner of today's primary - and his supporters - makes you seem mean and petty and reinforces the stereotype that all the other candidates have to offer is the same hyper-partisan 50+1 strategy that has given us two terms of Bush.
Hillary should have 'showed some emotion' like she did in New Hampshire. That would have helped.
Josepe wrote on January 26, 2008 10:47 PM:Brad, great point. It sounds like you also heard the NPR piece ran Friday where Bill said that he missed hearing Hail to the Chief when he walked into a room and that he didn't know who he was after he left the White House.
plum wrote on January 26, 2008 10:48 PM:And what we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation.
Brilliant phrase. He's saying the Clintons are dealers who are selling the drug of racism and keeping the 'hood down. He's basically taking the race card and throwing it back in their faces.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:49 PM:Thanks for the lesson, Duane. But the adult in this election is John Edwards.
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 10:50 PM:Why is Pat Buchanan doing on my TV? What an affront to logic and decency he is! A guy who ran a loser, whiner, bigotry-fueled campaign for President--killing a nascent third party in the process--now a respected insider, telling me what to think. Fire him. Fire Scarborough. Make Olbermann producer, give him the power to hire and fire and clean house, MSNBC! You suck.
cythera45 wrote on January 26, 2008 10:52 PM:Radiohead, I realize that if we don't use terms like "luster" and "halo" when discussing Obama, we're going to be accused by his worshippers of being a Republican (or, worse, a Hillary supporter--ugh!). I too would like to hear Obama get more angry--at Republicans! Yet he seems angry at Democrats, which is sad.
W Action wrote on January 26, 2008 10:57 PM:Hey, Alan! Josepe has questioned thousands of people under oath...and it sounds like you're next!!
Miles wrote on January 26, 2008 11:04 PM: That speech make a bind man think about
seening again.
W Action, Alan is doing the best thing you can do under oath "plead the 5th"
ChrisNBama wrote on January 26, 2008 11:05 PM:I don't know how this will all play out, nor does anyone else for that matter, but I can say unequivocally that I've never been happier being a democrat.
Sure, Obama's down in most polls, but ten days is a lifetime in campaign terms. Anything, and I mean anything can happen. So, as the scriptures say, let not your hearts be troubled. Keep the faith, and most importantly continue to hope. That's what Barack's campaign is all about in the end. Hope.
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 11:06 PM:You're hearing it as anger at Dems. What he is doing is expressing opposition to "the man," the establishment, that all "insurgent" candidates use to rouse the other "outsiders" to join him. He does it EXTREMELY well, and has come a LONG way based mostly on his ability to connect when he's at the podium. People on other teams hear the words as if they were aimed against them personally, but it's really the time-tested tactic and rhetoric of the underdog. Will he BE the transformative figure if elected? Who knows? But he's sure getting new blood charged up with the cause of taking on the establishment, the very thing that first brought me into the party, too. If he had a real chance to be effective I would fear for his life. Do you think he believes what he says, or is it all just stereotypical rebel schtick?
hadenough wrote on January 26, 2008 11:09 PM:That was a fun speech. I like part where obama throws the 10 to 15 years of republican great ideas in the faces of his true believers. And of course they cheer.
cminmd wrote on January 26, 2008 11:20 PM:The current mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick is going to have to resign over lying about sex. Cisnero's had to get a Clinton pardon for his lies about sex. People have to answer sex questions under oath all the time. Totally innocent people like rape victims and kids who have been molested all have to answer questions about sex in court or depositions. You suck it up and do it because you have some respect for the law. Maybe if he didn't like talking publicly about his sex life he shouldn't have gotten so much action at the office.
Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 11:42 PM:Obama's Victory Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ
"Will he BE the transformative figure if elected?"
Answer: NO
He is campaigning against whatever it is you don't like. He isn't specific. He is just another accomodationist Democrat who will give people the impression he's going to change things and challenge the establishment. But the truth is, he's just a politician. A younger, smarter, black politician, but just a politician who is building up people's hopes in order to get elected.
He will govern no differently than Hillary would. Sadly for all Democrats neither Obama or Hillary have a chance in hell of winning in November. What is it that most Democrats have been smoking that has made them lose their minds to the point where they think these two could ever get elected in a general election? It boggles the mind.
Radio Head wrote on January 26, 2008 11:52 PM:anonymous--the discussion hasn't been about how awful every Democrat is. You're on the wrong blog.
Looks like I'm the only reaal Dem left on this thread, so I'll do the honors.................................
I now declare this thread officially dead.
jhv wrote on January 27, 2008 12:06 AM:i'm a proud obama supporter and am giddy tonight.
but, people, please don't gloat. not because its bad form, but because you might jinx it. seriously.
this thing is a roller coaster. d
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 27, 2008 12:51 AM:The pattern is thus:1) throw bombs
2) if challenged, say "I'm not an HRC supporter, I support Edwards".
3) Never defend or talk about Edwards and keep throwing bombs on behalf of HRC
Yes, Brad, you are not the only one to have noticed the pattern. Some of them even purport to be Mike Gravel supporters when challenged. Chacun à son gout, I suppose.
Mary wrote on January 27, 2008 1:20 AM:To all who still think this is a hero worship game and Obama is all fluff and no substance: Put your cynism aside. If you really care to know about substance, Obama has that too - take a look, unless you still are desperately clinging to Hillary talking points of "no substance". Use your brains, please and think for yourself. Pick the plan apart if you want, but at least be informed and read it first.
Obama's Plan for America
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
"Put your cynism aside."
Are we also to put aside our ability to reason, our ability to separate fantasy from fact and our ability to see the truth despite all the pleasing nostrums emanating from the boy wonder?
You people are in some kind of fantasy world about the fellow. It's fine that you're for him, but it really is kind of scary how you people have just abandoned any pretense of having to recognize political reality.
wobbly wrote on January 27, 2008 4:25 AM:I worked for Jesse Jackson's primary campaigns in the '80's, in NYC, not SC. Beats the hell out me how Bill Clinton's comparison of Jesse and Barack is ipso facto "racist".
I'd go a a lot farther, myself. One thing Jesse never said, or thought, was that RONALD f-ing REAGAN had the big ideas.
And as for speeches, Jesse stood up at a fundraising pot-luck for the homeless in the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, reading an invitation he gotten to a White House event around Christmas (after his first run).
He talked about the Three Wise Men who refused King Herod's hospitality to search for the homeless Baby Jesus.
"The wise don't eat at Herod's table! They seek out the homeless, sit down with the homeless, share with the homeless..."
Or something like that. He had us in the palm of his hand. Even the bums looked up from their plates of free food and roared their approval.
Ronald Reagan as King Herod! Ha, Jesse nailed him bigtime.
IF Barack were MORE like Jesse, I'd probably vote for him, but, sadly, he is not.
partyless wrote on January 27, 2008 5:19 AM:about bill's role...
everybody say it with me:
NO THIRD TERMS.
see, its not that hard.
lombard wrote on January 27, 2008 10:46 AM:Wobbly,
Thank you for bringing up those memories of Jackson. I have thought back to Jackson myself during this campaign. For all of talk of the fervor generated by Obama's speeches, I find them far less compelling and emotionally heart wrenching than Jackson's were in 1988.
lombard wrote on January 27, 2008 10:53 AM:Liam wrote on January 26, 2008 9:34 PM:
"Now is the time for both Edwards and Hillary to withdraw from the contest, and throw their support behind Senator Obama. Since their collective vote totals add up to 10% less than what Senator Obama received, then it is time for them to do the right thing for the sake of party unity."
You're joking right? Clinton is supposed to drop out because she lost SC even though polls still show her leading in the overwhelming majority of the upcoming states.
Look, Obama had a great night, but the current evidence indicates that the majority of the upcoming Democratic electorate does not prefer him as the nominee.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 11:57 AM:She did not just lose South Carolina. She got destroyed there. How the hell is she supposed to win against a Republican if the vast majority of her natural constituency has abandoned her. She is getting no Independents or cross over votes, like Obama is.
Hillary has no chance in a General election.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 11:57 AM:
"Hillary has no chance in a General election."
Her chances are not great but Obama's are worse. You're just too taken with the romance to realize that. His Republican support dries up in the general election and his margins with independents evaporate if McCain is the nominee. And, he will lose a significant minority of older Democrats like George McGovern did in 1972.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 3:00 PM:McGovern in 1972. Are you out of your mind. The times and circumstances could not be more different than now.
Obama is not running a McGovern campaign, and he is not running against an incumbent President with high ratings.
You are the one who is dreaming up absurd fairy tales, and then conflating them into into truths.
Hillary would not have any Independents or moderate Republicans to try and hold on to, in the first place, so that gives Obama a leg up on her already.
No one gets to the White House, in a two person race. without having the support of the moderate center. Obama has a shot at getting a share of it. Hillary will not get within crying distance of attracting any moderates.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 3:01 PM:Anon. above was my post.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 3:05 PM:For the record: I am convinced that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney.
