April 19, 2008
A few weeks ago, NYMag had a story explaining why John Edwards hadn't made an endorsement, which I covered. Camp Edwards never liked the Clintons because of their corporate and lobbyist ties. Beyond that, the NYMag article reported that Elizabeth hates Hillary. So they were somewhat more inclined to support Obama.
Obama missed that opportunity. NYMag reported,
Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.
Obama? Glib and aloof, you say? I'd have never guessed. Hillary, on the other hand, was gracious and respectful toward Edwards after he ended his campaign, and again when they met in a second meeting, and managed to mend some fences with Camp Edwards. Obama's first meeting with Edwards after he dropped out of the presidential race wasn't what destroyed the Edwards endorsement for Obama, his second meeting did that,
...in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
Not good, Barack.
So, why does the Silky endorsement matter? What was Edward's base of support? Poor whites, blue-collar workers, unions and the labor vote, right? There is likely overlap between Edward's key demographics and those Obama alienated with the now famous Bitter comments. Edwards could have been able to advise Obama on how to finesse his way through problems he already has with that demographic. At the very least, Silky could have performed damage control for Obama after the Bitter disaster, or maybe have kept Obama from making that mistake in the first place.
As it is, Obama is probably not going to be able to gain good traction with this demographic, and as I noted (and oddly enough, TNR), this demographic problem is going to be a major hurdle for Obama in PA and other states, and quite possibly possibly an insurmountable one.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at
11:32 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: its vintage duh at April 19, 2008 12:26 PM (2GAQS)
Hey, DPUD.
Got a hot tip on a GWOT funding story. From a source I trust. It's posted at my blog. Thought I'd tell you first. drop in and see.
Posted by: caliban at April 19, 2008 12:28 PM (rzdhP)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 19, 2008 12:29 PM (u9SZ9)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 19, 2008 12:33 PM (u9SZ9)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 19, 2008 12:47 PM (u9SZ9)
As it relates to the pitcher, a good hurler identifies what and where the batter can be tempted to swing, only to whiff. I think we have found Barry's chase zone, and it's his attitude(s). His arrogance and off putting nature, combined with some comments regarding demographics he should court, but won't/can't, seem to be the one flaw the MSM and his handlers (but I repeat myself) are having a difficult time spinning.
Posted by: eddiebear at April 20, 2008 12:26 AM (q0pGU)
Maybe it's just me but every time I see Obama I keep thinking of Teddy Ruxpin. I think he needs to switch out the tape he has been using lately. It seems to be pissing everyone off.
Posted by: Old Iron at April 20, 2008 01:08 AM (tD0Cq)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 20, 2008 06:57 AM (u9SZ9)
-So is Obama. You seen the size of the TEETH on him?
Posted by: Old Iron at April 20, 2008 10:19 AM (tD0Cq)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 20, 2008 12:12 PM (u9SZ9)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at April 20, 2008 12:13 PM (u9SZ9)
Posted by: Fred X at April 20, 2008 09:11 PM (3TCtZ)
Posted by: Joevanhalenhendrix at January 19, 2011 03:43 PM (nQi2u)
Posted by: r4 at August 18, 2011 01:35 AM (6kYZz)
website design perth
Posted by: kathrinrich at September 14, 2011 11:46 PM (yVUmS)
Posted by: joyil at September 19, 2011 08:47 PM (wi0iT)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








