Senator Obama spent the latter part of the week campaigning in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. He witnessed a record turnout in Boulder, where over 100,000 people came to a rally on Sunday. There, he pounced on a comment made by McCain on "Meet the Press." "Just this morning, Senator McCain said that actually he and President Bush 'share a common philosophy.'" Obama hopes to wrest back these western states from the red, where they have been for the past several elections.
Several newspaper endorsements rolled in, including a surprise from Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama, saying that "brings far more promise to the office." The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and several other papers also endorsed the Democratic nominee. This marks the first time in history that the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat.
In other news, a federal court has thrown out a suit brought by Philip J. Berg, questioning whether Senator Obama was a "natural-born citizen." Judge R. Barclay Surrick stated that Mr. Berg had no grounds to sue, a similar decision as the one made on a suit questioning Senator McCains citizenship earlier this year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It is not surprising for Obama, as well as McCain, to make a Western swing before returning to the behemoth battleground states in the Mid-Atlantic in the days before the election. Colorado should be one of the closest and most exciting races, especially with the Democrats looking to make significant gains in the Congressional and Senate seats.
While the Western swing states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, might not seem as valuable because of their lower electoral counts, they certainly do add up. Obama should know this firsthand, as some of these states were the key to his slow and steady win over Clinton in the Democratic Primary.
It is crazy to think that this many people are this excited about voting in this election. The size of the crowds that Senator Obama has been drawing are an indication of how many people are excited about his candidacy. People want change, and the large attendance at these events indicates that.
Enthusiasm among your supporters does not guarantee you'll have more votes, but what I can't get past is how big these crowds are. It takes effort to change plans and head out to an event where thousands of people will be just so that you can say you're there for it. Each one of these people only gets one vote, but you wonder about the effect being a part of the crowd will have on the way they discuss Obama with their neighbors, family and friends.
I think the Obama campaign has done a great job in sparking enthusiastic support among its followers. Personally, I will be voting for McCain, however it will be begrudgingly, and I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as electrified. The McCain campaign saw a flash of this same excitement and flare immediately after the choice of Palin, but even then it came more from the far right and soon wore off.
One reason Obama has such massive and energized support is the effective way he has been "marketed" to the American public. It's cool and popular to like Obama, and...well...the same can't be said for McCain (I know from personal experience). McCain previously tried to attack Obama's celebrity status in some television ads, yet McCain was once a media darling too. Obama has also led in advertising, probably due to the ridiculous amount of money he has raised (after shedding his promise to stick with public funds’ limit). I don't know about anybody else, but I have seen way, way more Obama ads on TV than McCain. This is probably because the Obama campaign can afford to throw money at secrue California just to be safe. Combined, the Obama-Biden Democrats' television advertising budget is larger than McDonald's and Diet Coke (Note, this fact was shared with me via an email I received from Sarah Palin, so...)
However, in the end, money may buy you support, but it won't neccesarily buy you votes...unless you know this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/ebay.vote.ap/index.html
Obmama has certainly become much more than a presidential candidate--he's become a movement. People are excited about what he brings to the table and even more so, they are excited about what he symbolizes for this country. I can't count how many people I've spoken to who've been life-long Republicans and are planning on voting for Obama (not to mentional all the new voters, including myself who will be supporting him). In my mind, this is because Obama has been able to transcend the pettiness and blather of the campaign and stand for something greater, like moving this country forward. Now who can say no to that?
Needless to say, it will be a very interesting week to watch play out!
I agree with Kara, throughout the course of this year Obmama has become more than he probably intended to.
I personally think that electing Obmama for president would return some lost credibility in Europe. On that note.. I don't know how much the elections have been followed in Europe over the years, but I know for a fact my cousins in Paris are extremely excited.
I thought that was kind of interesting
Barack Obmama!
P.S. Sorry Kara, it's nothing personal but I just had this conversation with my brother today and you just so happened to spell it the way we hoped someone would.
(In response to Kara)
...me. When I enter my precinct to vote next Tuesday, I will fill out my ballot and cast my vote based on the issues, not my emotion. Symbolism is all fine and dandy for a campaign, but once the election is over, it will be time to actually start “moving this country forward.” Inspiration will only take us so far: excitement can't bring back a Middle American's outsourced job, a heartwarming personal story won't impede the spread of Islamofacism, great speeches won't bring our nation's education back on track. That's not to say Obama isn't more than just these things, but I don't believe these qualities should be the deciding factors in electing our leadership. When we're talking about our futures, results matter...a lot.
I've heard so many references to Barack Obama as "refreshing" and the second-coming of JFK, especially with Biden's latest "test" comment. It is interesting to note that Kennedy wasn't as liberal during his presidency as Democrats would proclaim him to be. Not only was he seriously reluctant to act on civil rights, one of the first things he did when entering office was to propose a drastic tax cut, and yes, this tax cut included a substantial cut for the upper-tax bracket (somehow absent from Obama's plan). Coincidentally, the economy greatly grew in the years after the bill was signed (albeit this was also the time of large spending under the Great Society). I agree with the notion that Kennedy was a good president, but not necessarily for the same reasons, and I would argue the election of such an untested outsider was a big risk (similar to I believe Obama's). However, when voting for a "breath of fresh air" be careful what you wish for, so was Jimmy Carter (just ask his daughter Amy).
So, call me skeptical or cynical. But, as the old saying goes, “Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brain.” Well, at least Machiavelli would agree with me now. I’ll wait for the rest of you.
I think the timing of the Anchorage Daily News' support of Obama is interesting considering the fact that Ted Stevens was convicted today. Maybe he won't be getting a museum after all...
(In response to Kees)
I agree with quite a bit of what you said, but your brief reference to the economy makes me a bit queasy. Granted that the economy was not the focus of your post, I won't attack you or your message for that...but I'll talk about the topic anyways.
It is a sad day in an economic conservative's life that tax cuts are not the answer. The fact is that if we want to continue spending at the current rate that we do currently, we have no choice but to increase government revenue somehow. There are a few options.
1) Higher taxes for people
2) Higher taxes for corporations
3) Higher tariffs
Why do we need to get rid of our deficit? Quite frankly, this is because DEBT is fine, but DEFICIT is bad. DEBT in inert...Deficit adds to inflation.
In addition, with 50% of currently issued Treasury Bills being bought by the Chinese government, it is fair to state that much of what we do as a nation is made possible by Chinese currency.
The only reason what we are fine is that there still is confidence in the inherent capacity of the US government and the USD. If this confidence were to fail, our nation's economy would collapse.
So... although Cameron is probably seething right now because he (like me) most probably wants a cozy flat tax of 15%...perhaps we should wait a bit until we get a couple of things straightened out.
1) Our Economy
2) Government Spending
Guys, it is natural to have a deficit...but it is only beneficial if it goes towards long term investments. Why was the New Deal succesful (as well as WWII for that matter)...It served a purpose...it stimulated the economy
So...unless we either cut govt spending substantially, or expand the war so it reaches WWII levels of 25% of our GDP...then we better (at the very least) take care of our cash flow problem.
But then again...this begs the question...what is the scope?
Is near-term heavy deficit spending in light of current affairs? YES
BUT...when this blows over...hopefully within a couple of years...the true mark of an intelligent govt would be to remember its past mistakes and just clamp down on spending when we can actually do this....
Just in case I lost you guys...here is my plan
1)Take equity in banks (x12 multiplier ratio...so $700 billion has the effect of $8.4 trillion)
2) Get voting shares so the SecOFtres can boot our those unscupulous few (cough cough AIG) who insist upon having half-million dollar boondoggles
3) Negotiate the refinancing of home mortgages at current deflated rates (I know..it hurts)
4) Keep tax rates the same for now...
Long Term
1) Flat tax
2) International Financial Framework (IMF anyone?)
3) Small government
Post a Comment