«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Obama Campaign Tries Sarcasm

In all of its recent interactions with reporters, the Obama campaign has had a certain attitude: "We've won the most votes, the most delegates, and the most states! It's almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to come back. How can you continue to portray this as a close race??"

But the Clinton campaign isn't backing down an inch, and it's in the media's interest to keep reporting this thing like it's a dogfight, so the Obama staffers aren't getting the response they want. They're trying a new approach: making fun of the Clinton campaign. They took a recent Clinton campaign memo to reporters and added their own comments in bold, then shot it out to everyone on their media email list. See it, after the jump. Parts of it are funny, parts of it are just snarky and mean. I wonder if BHO himself signed off on this. Somehow I doubt it.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far – every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define “setback” as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE’VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we’re still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only “important” states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don’t think Clinton’s strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans – all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups.

[That’s true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it’s difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh’s full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn’t make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we’re ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders – those making up their minds in the last days before the election – have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us – I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

Comments

This was awesome. I agree it's not Obama's style, but the Clinton campaign's rhetoric is so far gone that humor may be the only response.

Posted by: anne in va on 03/13/08 at 8:29 AM Respond

Great post!

Posted by: byrdman on 03/13/08 at 8:36 AM Respond

I love it!

Posted by: capt - Hussein on 03/13/08 at 8:40 AM Respond

You know the Clinton campaign is on with the prescription drug indumstry because they must have free supply of back pain medicine.
From moving the goal posts.
(ba-dump-bum, cue laugh track)

But seriously folks...
Take my former VP candidate please!

I just flew in from Ohio and Texas and boy is my broom tired.

Posted by: cboss on 03/13/08 at 8:46 AM Respond

Barrack, the magic Negro's pastor incites hate with his hate speeches. Barrack should denounce his pastor of 20 years. He won't because he has been indoctrinated with this hatred for the last twenty years, along with his wife and children.

Posted by: S. Silverman on 03/13/08 at 10:23 AM Respond

Sarah Silverman?
Wow. Angry.
I don't think Obama's Pastor works for Obama's Campaign raising money and talking to the media.
Hate speech or not,real or imagined by Hillary fan.
Bit of a difference.

Posted by: cboas on 03/13/08 at 10:33 AM Respond

way to snarky. it's one thing to virally pass this around to your supporters, another to pass this straight to the media. this is a presidential campaign, not a high school popularity contest.

Posted by: homer on 03/13/08 at 11:15 AM Respond

That was fun! It's good to know that I'm not the only one flabbergasted at the claims coming from the Clintonistas. Snarky or not, it certainly shows that Camp Obama can (and does, imho) win the war of wits with Billary & Co.

Posted by: TK on 03/13/08 at 12:58 PM Respond

"Clintonistas", "Billary", typical fallout from the disfunctioning Obama campaign. His supporters are more interestted in words than issues -- obviously.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 03/13/08 at 1:33 PM Respond

Do the Obama people work for The Daily Show? Oh no, they couldn't - The Daily Show is actually funny, not sophomoric and insipid. This is so freakin' lame, sounds like one of their college supporters wrote it.

Posted by: John Wolforth on 03/13/08 at 1:48 PM Respond

That was brilliant. It wasn't just saying "we disagree, and here's our own talking points." This was like a guide to seeing though crap. Issues aren't legitimate just because they're "out there". Throwing out nonsense with false premises shouldn't be taken seriously just because a campaign says so.

And apparently, Obama can hit back. Wasn't that supposed to be a big knock against him? Don't Clinton supporters say he isn't tough enough in fight? Well, this ought to please them then.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 03/13/08 at 3:37 PM Respond

To S.S,Obama's(retired)minister is not a political figure and has "ZERO" effect on the election process(EXCEPT)in the tiny minds of race-baiting nit-wits .I guess all the people that attend mass every week are pedophiles and child rapists like a lot of the priests in these churches.Maybe will dub you the [deleted] ,because there sure isn't anything "MAGICAL"about you!!!

Posted by: Long Island Mom on 03/13/08 at 10:23 PM Respond

I find it interesting that much of the national media is saying that Obama and Clinton are both injecting race and religion into this election.

In fact, Bill Clinton started this in South Carolina when he compared Obama’s South Carolina win to Jesse Jackson’s win in 1988. Bill Clinton could have mentioned that John Edwards won South Carolina in 2004, but he compared Obama and Jackson so that white people would perceive Obama as a candidate that only had the support of blacks. Of course, that would not make sense, because Obama had previously won in Iowa and Wisconsin, states with few blacks.

Mrs. Clinton continued the racial and religious dialog when she gave a partial answer to someone that asked her if Obama was a Muslim. Instead of her telling the truth, she gave an answer which implied she wasn’t sure what faith he practiced. She heightened the fears of whites by allowing a supporter to distribute pictures of Obama in African clothing.

If Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, it will not be an affirmation of her leadership, experience or intelligence. A Clinton nomination will be a validation that race baiting and fear mongering is still the way to gain the support of whites.

The sad part of this is that the same tactics were used in an effort to keep blacks, other minorities and women away from the political process.

The ironic part is that in the 1960s, the Democratic Party supposedly repudiated these methods to win over the disenfranchised, which included (and still does) blacks and women. Now in 2008, a white woman and her supporters use these tactics against blacks in order to draw white voters.

It has been a common practice of the Republican Party to fan the flames of fear and ignorance in order to draw support from the whites who might not otherwise be inclined to vote. A favored tactic is to have a non essential member or “unofficial” supporter make an insensitive statement that can’t be directly attributed to the person campaigning.

The person who is campaigning for office does not immediately reject the offensive statement, but instead allows the media to sensationalize and distribute the controversial statement(s).

The media is happy to do their part because it helps them get ratings, readers and listeners. The campaigner waits until the statement has become a national story, and then denounces the statement. Denouncing the statement wrings out every last drop of publicity about the statement.

Once the remarks have become a national topic of discussion, the candidate fires the person who made the remarks, which makes the offended parties feel better. The offended parties fail to realize that the true purpose of the statements. The statement(s) purpose was to inform whites that the candidate shares their beliefs that minorities are an obstacle to white’s achieving the American Dream.

Anyone with even a simple understanding of politics and racial dynamics would know that the last thing Obama wants is to bring up race. America is a country that has a simmering racial and tolerance problem that is manipulated by our leaders and would be leaders. Obama knows this and has made a point of reaching out to whites, and placing the concerns of blacks inside a social agenda that is relevant to people of all races.

Yet, the media does Mrs. Clinton a great favor by portraying the Obama campaign’s responses to these attacks as attacks themselves. Can the desire to attract readers, listeners and ratings prevent the media from realizing the Clinton campaign is using them to stoke racial and religious fears?

I would like to think the media professionals are more intelligent than I am, but if they are, it means they realize what Mrs. Clinton is doing, and they know they are helping her promote racism and intolerance.

So far, Mrs. Clinton and her supporters have been successful at turning Mr. Obama’s success against him. Instead of people focusing on him winning more delegates, twice as many states and more votes, people are focusing on whether or not he is a Muslim, is patriotic or some other foolishness.

She is so desperate to win that she claimed someone from the opposition Republican Party nominee is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama, even though she and Mr. Obama are both members of the Democratic Party.

Republican Party members realize that criticism within the party could tear it apart, so they adhere to President Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment”. If Mrs. Clinton admires the Republican Party so much, maybe she could adopt their commandment within her own party.

Instead of focusing on race and religion, I would like to see blacks and whites focus on the tactics of Mrs. Clinton and her supporters. After reviewing her campaigning methods, we should ask ourselves just what she is trying to accomplish, and why she feels the need to demean others on the way to her goal. Then we should ask ourselves why would we want a president who would do attack a member of her party more strongly than a member of the party she would face in the Presidential Election.

Posted by: Fed Up on 03/14/08 at 1:35 AM Respond