Obama... that slimy bastard!

[JoeDaddio]

Sorry for the long cut and paste, but that's the gist of it. I'd still suggest reading the full article, it's not that long, really.

Seems that Obama is sticking to his guns... when you start to have donors second guess giving money to an independent attack agency, you're being effective, and your message is getting across. I don't care who you are, this has got to be at least somewhat impressive. Wondering about change? This is the change that is needed.

Senator Barack Obama's campaign is steering the candidate's wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups' central role in this year's Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Chicago hotel mogul Penny Pritzker, told supporters at a national finance committee meeting in Indianapolis May 2, and in other conversations, not to give money to the groups, people familiar with her comments said.

"From the beginning of this race Obama has told supporters that if they want to help his effort, they should do so through his campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who confirmed that Pritzker has told donors not to give to the groups. "And he means exactly what he says."

Most presidential candidates say they don't encourage the outside groups, and donors are accustomed to taking those words with a grain of salt. The candidates' words are typically seen as mere legal defenses against allegations that the campaigns are illicitly coordinating with outside groups.

snip...

"It's given donors pause," said one prominent Democratic donor of Pritzker's words.

Donors and Democratic activists have been quietly debating Obama's motives: Is he simply interested in keeping his Democratic efforts within his campaign, which is so well funded he doesn't need outside help? Or is he, as some believe, cutting off funds to groups whose leaders -- Brock and Podesta -- some Obama aides view as too tightly linked to Clinton?

In either case, Pritzker's words are the latest in Obama's remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power. It's an unprecedented seizure of control that has built him, over the course of a year, the most powerful field organization and the largest financial network in American politics, leaving many existing structures -- traditional party organizations in many states, the Clintons' long-nurtured national network -- in the dust.

Just last summer, Matt Bai's widely accepted analysis identified the "billionaires" and the "bloggers" as the key, emergent players in the Democratic Party's infrastructure. But Obama has marginalized both groups. Pritzker's words are part of a move to keep Obama's grip on the sole important funnel of Democratic money this year. And his campaign has largely ignored the existing network of liberal bloggers, and actively opposes their embrace of fierce partisanship.

"Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship," the blogger Matt Stoller wrote recently of Obama's "consolidation of the party," which he called "stunning."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/10315









joe

[DrRoebuck]

Obama is taking what Dean did in 2004 and expanding upon it. Part of that is the 50-state strategy, which is basically going after voters in states the Dems typically ignored. The Clintons for better or for worse, are still clinging to the old-school. That's why she keeps talking about how she's won the big states or the important states.

[bigbill]

Obama is taking what Dean did in 2004 and expanding upon it. Part of that is the 50-state strategy, which is basically going after voters in states the Dems typically ignored. The Clintons for better or for worse, are still clinging to the old-school. That's why she keeps talking about how she's won the big states or the important states.

How helpful is a 50 state strategy when electoral votes pick the President? You have to win the big states and many of the smaller ones to win overall. All a 50 state strategy does is lock in the popular vote.

[DrRoebuck]

How helpful is a 50 state strategy when electoral votes pick the President? You have to win the big states and many of the smaller ones to win overall. All a 50 state strategy does is lock in the popular vote.

Well, if you look at this year's primary I'd say it was pretty damn helpful.

The 50-state strategy does not mean ignoring the big states. It's about tapping previously un-tapped voters and creating a more unified, national party.

[bricoleur]

.

barack's "sweetie problem"

could be worse than bowling or arugula---STAY TUNED
.

[JoeDaddio]

.

barack's "sweetie problem"

could be worse than bowling or arugula---STAY TUNED
.

What a bastard!




joe

[spyderman]

Obama is taking what Dean did in 2004 and expanding upon it. Part of that is the 50-state strategy, which is basically going after voters in states the Dems typically ignored. The Clintons for better or for worse, are still clinging to the old-school. That's why she keeps talking about how she's won the big states or the important states.

You must mean 48 state-strategy... Cause obviously FL and MI don't count in Obama's eyes...

[DrRoebuck]

You must mean 48 state-strategy... Cause obviously FL and MI don't count in Obama's eyes...

You must be looking at the reflection of Hillary Clinton in Obama's eyes as they BOTH sat down to sign their pledges to not count those two states.

[spyderman]

You must be looking at the reflection of Hillary Clinton in Obama's eyes as they BOTH sat down to sign their pledges of not counting those two states.

LOL!!

[DrRoebuck]

LOL!!

LOL back! Awesome picture!

[thatsmybush]

How helpful is a 50 state strategy when electoral votes pick the President? You have to win the big states and many of the smaller ones to win overall. All a 50 state strategy does is lock in the popular vote.

About as helpful as Dean being excoriated for pouring "wasted money" into congressional races in largely Republican districts, like Lousiana and Mississippi...how did that work out so far?

[atpjunkie]

About as helpful as Dean being excoriated for pouring "wasted money" into congressional races in largely Republican districts, like Lousiana and Mississippi...how did that work out so far?

talk about FAIL

and I love how people are still trying to sell that because Obama lost to Hillary in the CA primary he'd somehow lose it in the national

[bigbill]

About as helpful as Dean being excoriated for pouring "wasted money" into congressional races in largely Republican districts, like Lousiana and Mississippi...how did that work out so far?

Congressional races are popular vote. The Presidential popular vote is meaningless with the electoral college. If you eliminated the electoral college, it would change the way that candidates campaign. They would have to spend money and time in states that are usually referred to as "flyover". I'm not saying it would be a bad thing, but the reality is electoral votes count and the big states on the coast and NE have the most.

[mohair_chair]

How helpful is a 50 state strategy when electoral votes pick the President? You have to win the big states and many of the smaller ones to win overall. All a 50 state strategy does is lock in the popular vote.

In 2000, the difference in electoral votes between winning and losing was 5. If Gore had won one more state, this eight year national nightmare we've been living would not be happening. That validates the 50-state strategy.

[thatsmybush]

In 2000, the difference in electoral votes between winning and losing was 5. If Gore had won one more state, this eight year national nightmare we've been living would not be happening. That validates the 50-state strategy.

Like his home state of Tennessee, which he neglected...what a tool.

[thatsmybush]

Congressional races are popular vote. The Presidential popular vote is meaningless with the electoral college. If you eliminated the electoral college, it would change the way that candidates campaign. They would have to spend money and time in states that are usually referred to as "flyover". I'm not saying it would be a bad thing, but the reality is electoral votes count and the big states on the coast and NE have the most.

The Dems have to change minds...and they can't do that if they decide to pull out of states because they don't like the demo. The reason they have so few winning strategies is because they decided that some "states don't matter."