[I would say this guy is cool. His blog is: One Man Truth Squad
http://onemantruthsquad.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-barack-obama-there-will.html
]
Once again, my friend, you have let your guard down and failed to close the show. While the losses in Ohio and Texas were not that surprising considering the demographics: Racist Hispanics in Texas(she won 2/3 despite the fact that she is not Hispanic, which is hard to fathom) and poor, uneducated white racist women(Billary's solid base) in Ohio, bolstered by Drug Limbaugh's listeners, who provided Clinton 8% of her vote in Texas alone, the fact remains that you had a chance to end this thing and you failed miserably. Why? Because you played your smug, overconfident nice guy role that has no place in a presidential election. Many of us watched in disbelief as you played defense for the last seven days, laying on the ropes being pummeled by the most flawed candidate in recent U.S. history.
The Republicans are desperate to run against Billary because, unlike you, they will tear her and Bill apart, pulling every skeleton out of their very full closet, as they should. The big winner last night was John McCain. He can sit back now and watch you waste your $50 million you raised in February to fend off the ridiculous attacks that you left unanswered last week. The Republicans are now openly encouraging voters to vote for Billary, so now you have to defeat them also. The reality is that McCain, really a joke of a candidate, is now the clear frontrunner and prohibitive favorite to be the next president. It's becoming less likely that whoever survives your bloodbath with Billary will have enough energy, support, and money left to defeat McCain.
Once again, the Democrats are looking like the dysfunctional national party that they are, and it's up to you to either change that now and win big and end this nomination or become the poster boy for wimpy Democrats if you can't beat down a woman who has done absolutely nothing in her life to justify her campaign's message that she is somehow the "experienced" candidate. 35 years of experience? She is 60, so she is counting every year since she graduated from college at age 25! The first woman I have ever heard of who took 60 years to "find her voice" as she said in New Hampshire when she made that claim. How do feminists spin that one? The woman had no real experience until she was elected to public office, which was in this decade, years after you had been elected in Illinois. What a joke, but what have you done to contest that? Nothing. This experience argument is a loser, for I would rather have McCain answer the 3AM phone call in the White House than Hillary. Let's face it, the only call she is likely to be answering at 3AM is from one of Bill's "girls" looking for him. Cheney is the experienced candidate, not someone whose husband was receiving oral sex in the White House from a woman his daughter's age. This woman who couldn't keep tabs on her president husband has convinced people that she 's more experienced to run the country? That's laughable, but it's what you let happen. Many of your supporters, myself included, would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. We would rather see you lose than share a ticket with her and would rather see McCain as president than Hillary if it means being rid of Billary once and for all.
You seem to be losing sight of the real challenges you face as a black man running for president in a racist country. Hillary is rightly one of the most despised women in the country. Except a bunch of little old ladies and feminist hypocrites no one likes her much, and for good reasons. Have feminists sunk so low that they embrace a woman who couldn't win a school board election if her name was not Clinton? Everything she has done has been based on her man's accomplishments. Period. How sad. Many people speak of the fact that you get 80-90% of the black vote. Some of that, obviously, is race-based. There are certainly black people who are voting for you because you are black. However, black people are not delivering your victories in Utah, Washington, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Vermont etc. I understand the fact that black voters share your values. Remember, blacks voted for Kerry by nearly 90%, so one cannot claim that it's all racism that blacks vote for a black Democratic candidate who reflects their values by the same margins that they voted for Kerry and Gore. Here is the problem you face: Exit polls in Ohio showed that 20% of voters said race was a factor in their vote and 80% of them voted for Clinton, not you! You lost Ohio because of a large group--20%--of poor, uneducated, racist whites, and that is a bad sign for your chances in Pennsylvania, which has famously been described as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in the middle.
Listen closely, for those of us who have supported your campaign with our time, energy, and most importantly, our money, expect you to wake up and realize the fight you're in and respond accordingly. I am starting to wonder if you really do have the stomach to meet with these world leaders you want to sit down with, for the Clintons are very bad people, just like the "petty dictators" you have spoken of, yet you have allowed these "people," as Daniel Plainview would say, define you. Obviously, you still have plenty of time to win the nomination, and your position is much stronger than Billary because of your commanding delegate and state lead. You have a delegate lead of around 140, as you have won 26 of 40 states, many by huge margins of over 20%(thus your large delegate lead). There are 611 pledged delegates left. Clinton needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates to catch you: She has only won ONE state with 60% of the vote(her home state of Arkansas), so that is nearly impossible. Moreover, you have won many states with over 60%, and have many easy wins if you campaign hard and get tough: Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, and Oregon are all states that you should win easily, which leaves Pennsylvania, West Virgina, Indiana and Kentucky--all are states you can compete in if not win outright, so if you work hard and follow my advice this race is essentially over, for there is no way Clinton wins 380 out of those 611 delegates in those states. Despite her relentless spin and desire to overthrow the will of the voters, the fact remains that your lead is substantial, and whoever ends in June with the most delegates is in fact the rightful nominee; that's how the process works, and you did not create the process. You played by the rules and have won fair and square, but you are playing against someone who will cheat to win, someone who will rig elections, suppress votes, bribe officials--that's what you are up against, so play the game accordingly.
Here is your new plan:
1. Wake up and start running negative ads everyday. Change your attitude and start fighting.
You need to fight back and show some toughness. It's about perception, which is everything in politics. People want a president who is a fighter. It makes them feel safer. If you understood this, you would have won Texas instead of ignoring the 3AM phone ad.
2. Call out Billary on his library foundation and their tax returns. You have income of 1.3 million and they have 35 million. Let's see where that money came from. There's a reason why she keeps delaying the release of their tax returns. Talk about that everyday and demand that the media follow up. Scrutinize every financial detail. Follow the money; it always leads to corruption.
3. Examine her experience by asking for the release of the White House tapes. What role did she really have? What role did she have in all the BAD things Clinton did? Run ads showing Somalia and Kosovo and the other flawed policies to question her judgment since she said she was a part of everything in the White House. Where was she during the impeachment of her husband?
4. Health Care: The only overt issue she dealt with in her First Lady years was the failed health care reform. Remind people in ads that her only real experience was a complete failure beacuse of her secretive, arrogant approach.
5. Norman Hsu raised nearly a million dollars for her campaign and he is currently in prison on fraud charges, yet you have allowed yourself to be on the defensive over this Rezko nonsense. Turn it around.
6. Trust: The Clintons are the most distrusted politicians in recent political history.Expose them for the liars they are. Look at what they are trying to do in this election, stealing delegates, cheating by changing the rules in Michigan and Florida etc. Don't let her play the victim and the bully. There' s a reason why nearly 50% of Americans do not trust her. She's a bad person with no principles. You obviously know that, as she was willing to throw you under the bus before the vote yesterday by saying you're not qualified to be president. Now you need to state the obvious: A Clinton nomination will be a sure failure because her vote total ceiling will not enable her to win in the Electoral College.
7. Make her answer to those White House years she proudly claims as "experience": Destroying evidence in the death of Vince Foster, Whitewater, Travelgate, the great Monica blue dress details. This is the reality of the Clinton administration. Do you really think the Republicans will not bring this stuff up? That's why they want her to win. She's a huge target with a 35 year record of corruption, not political accomplishments. She has thrown every possible accusation at you, without any regard for the consequences in the general election. She has, in effect, destroyed the Democratic chances in November by supplying McCain with more than enough ammunition to attack you, using Clinton's words that all you have is a 2002 speech, not years of experience. This person is so self-absorbed she will stop at nothing to win and she has no concern for whether you can win in the general election, so you have no obligation to her. It's time for scorched earth politics: Make it clear that if she cheats you out of the nomination she will lose all of your voters' support and the result will be a McCain landslide. There is no difference between McCain and Clinton, and that's the message you need to push everyday. She has tried to blame the media, cry, cheat, yell, and play the race card in every state, so what exactly is holding you back from destroying her with some real, honest ads that show who she really is? It's really that simple: Start playing rough and end this thing or simply drop out now, before it goes to the convention in Denver and Mr Nice Guy gets mugged in a back room by Billary and has the nomination stolen from you, for as I clearly detailed they can't win this thing above board in terms of the delegate count, so they have to cheat. And they will. There will be blood: Are you Daniel or Eli? Do you have the toughness to drink her milkshake by winning Pennsylvania? Will you let Billary crush your skull with a wooden bowling pin? Are you a future president or "just a bastard from a basket"?
- Re: ZT: An Open Letter to Barack Obama: There Will Be Bloodposted on 03/06/2008
这篇文说的是:..nice guy role has no place in a presidential election. 作者提出的建议都切实可行。如一资深民主党领袖对Obama说的那样:我们不是看你如何接招,而是如何出击。 - posted on 03/06/2008
[This is an interview with Obama from Time (ZTed from page 2 & 3)
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719902,00.html
I would say, Obama is always cooler than his supporters :)
[T] = Time
[O] = Obama
]
[T]Your advisors pressed you pretty hard last fall to go negative on Hillary Clinton and it was a move that you resisted. Do you still think that you can win this without going negative?
[O]Sure. I mean, look, understand what I'm saying. We have drawn contrasts with Senator Clinton on policy. And I mean we have some tough hands on NAFTA for example. So I've never said we can't draw contrasts. What I have said, and I will continue to say is that this should be a campaign about different policies, different visions for the future. Where we want to take the country. This is what this campaign should be about. Over the last several weeks, what Senator Clinton has tried to make this campaign about is about me and planting doubts in the minds of voters on my veracity, on my ethics, saying that I'm not who people think I am. On how I would respond in a crisis. When this photograph of me with a Somali outfit came out, they didn't deny that it came out of their camp. She was questioned by Steve Kroft on 60 minutes about these vicious, scurrilous emails that have been going around and following us throughout the campaign. You know, when she questioned my faith, she said, well, I have no reason to doubt him. So, cumulatively, what has happened over the past several weeks, she has very directly questioned me. Not my policies, not my positions. I think what we are going to have to do is that if that is the basis on what she thinks she should win the nomination, then the Democratic party, voters, superdelegates are able to weigh these various attributes. And I think people will come away thinking, you know what, Barack is who he says he is and has been consistent on his positions. But I think we're going to do it in a way that is appropriate to the way we've run our campaign throughout this year.
[T]So to further clarify that point, as she questions you, are you going to question her?
[O]My hope is that is if she is choosing to make this, not just about me, but about my character, that the press will do its job and ask, ok...
[T]No, are you going to question her character?
[O]What I'm going to do is I'm going to make clear, that, if this isn't an issue about ethics, for example, and real estate and the character of our supporters then we will raise those same questions in respect to her that she is raising about me.
[T]Will you rule out, right now, a ticket with Hillary Clinton, no matter who's on it which way...
[O]I'm not going to speculate on that.
[T]You called her desperate the other day. Why?
[O]Well, for the reasons we just outlined. I think they were very clear about 'we will throw a bunch of stuff at Barack and see what sticks.'
[T]Let's talk about Tony Rezko for a minute. You talked about how boneheaded it was. What was the nature of your discussions with Rezko prior to purchasing your Kenwood home.
[O]Well, as I said before, he was a real estate developer in the area. This was the biggest purchase Michelle and I had ever made. It was a very expensive house relative to our previous condominium. And so I asked him to take a look at the house and to give me his opinion in terms of whether he thought it was worth it. so I was essentially seeking a professional opinion from him in terms of whether or not it was a good buy.
[T]Did you generally or expressively state a need for help in buying both or either of the tracts?
[O]No. I didn't need help.
[T]Did you see [your] purchase of the strip of the Rezko plot, which was right next door to you, the strip of the plot that you purchased, as a way to reimburse him for his cash outlay of the down payment?
[O]No.
[T]Just briefly now on NAFTA. The question of NAFTA...
[Austan] Goolsbee [Obama's economic advisor]...
[T]It's been a tough couple days. Your campaign did not acknowledge that the economic advisor had originally met with the Canadian consulate. Was that wholly truthful?
[O]It was truthful based on what we knew at the time. Frankly, none of us were aware that Austan had gone to the Canadian consulate but what was entirely true was our characterization that no discussions — which [it] somehow was... a wink and a nod to the Canadian government — took place. It turns out yes, Goolsbee was invited over and someone naively didn't understand that what he thought were casual conversations might end up in the memo to the Prime Minister of Canada. But, what he said turns out to be entirely consistent [with] what I've been saying on the campaign trail, which is I wasn't interested in repealing NAFTA but I was interested in strengthening the labor and environmental provisions.
[T]There are a lot of Democrats who say that they, before this gets any nastier, they'd like to see the senior lions of the party come in. People like Al Gore. Is that something that you would accept or welcome at all?
[O]I am happy, I mean, I've had conversations with many of those people. I'd be happy to talk to them. My sense is that is that the Clintons, that they have decided that they want to continue. Senator Clinton was very firm on it and I don't begrudge her that at all. And I'm happy to coninue on, participating and letting the voters decide. I've said throughout this campaign, this is about who has won [more] primaries, caucuses, popular votes, delegates, I think that's a perfectly good way to resolve things.
[T]Do you think it is selfish for her to continue?
[O]I think that's a good question for you to ask her, not me.
[T]When was the last time you spoke with Vice-President Gore.
[O]A couple weeks ago.
[T]Are you in touch with him? Is he an advisor?
[O]I don't want to put him in a spot where he's choosing sides. I'm sure he has cordial relations with everyone. But I talk to him often, mostly about policy issues rather than politics.
[T]In going ahead, do you think the fight, a continued fight, is going to be bruising to the party? Especially if it's going to get as nasty as you say.
[O]I didn't say it was going to get nasty. I want to be very clear on this, Jay. What I've said is, if Senator Clinton thinks that the criteria for who should be the nominee has to do with personal qualities and personal attributes, then I think it will be important for Democrats to not just question mine, but question hers as well and examine hers as well. But I have no intention of getting nasty. I just want to make sure that we're not operating on a double standard or somehow, she gets a pass on experience, she gets a pass on ethics, she can sort of assert whatever record she wants. [The Clinton campaign may well be] holding a press conference in May going after me in a very personal way.
[T]So you're not saying — let me ask — so you're not going to go after her in a personal way in return?
[O]I gave you, I think, a very good example. If, as she's done over the last week...
[T]And as you said she is doing this...
[O]If she continues, as over the last week, to bring up real estate transactions and the character of our supporters, who have provided donations to our campaign, then we will make certain that she has to answer those same questions with respect to herself, her husband, and her campaign.
[T]Can she still win?
[O]I feel confident that we will.
- Re: ZT: An Open Letter to Barack Obama: There Will Be Bloodposted on 03/06/2008
这letter不错,办法也可行,but I'm also left with an impression that this Obama is a saint and his supporters are trying to corrupt him into a more fitting politician :) - posted on 03/07/2008
Obama 没有必要修改战略和风格. 他的竞选很成功, it's working. 作者对希拉里的看法也许是对的, 但是Obama的成功就是他的与众不同. 作者没有看重这种与众不同的作用. 他的亲和力,他给人们带来的那种精神, 任何了解近几十年来美国大选的人都看得出来, 没有一位总统候选人可以比得上.
作者的建议,尽管从政治斗争的角度看有实用的一面, 但是它对Obama最宝贵的地方也有破坏性. 我觉得Obama 就要保持一种"business no as usual"的态度.
其实, 就象81以前所说的, Obama本质上就是东北部的intellectual. 这类人从杜卡基斯到克里,往往和选民沟通不是很好. 上一次克里的那种他懂你不懂讲座式的演讲和谈话,人们还记忆犹新. 而Obama的magic恰恰就是和选民connect很好, 而且给人带来振奋精神. 他真的没有必要玩其它手段, 无论是对付希拉里还是McCain.
3mw wrote:
这篇文说的是:..nice guy role has no place in a presidential election. 作者提出的建议都切实可行。如一资深民主党领袖对Obama说的那样:我们不是看你如何接招,而是如何出击。 - posted on 03/07/2008
st dude wrote:
Obama 没有必要修改战略和风格. 他的竞选很成功, it's working. 作者对希拉里的看法也许是对的, 但是Obama的成功就是他的与众不同. 作者没有看重这种与众不同的作用. 他的亲和力,他给人们带来的那种精神, 任何了解近几十年来美国大选的人都看得出来, 没有一位总统候选人可以比得上.
作者的建议,尽管从政治斗争的角度看有实用的一面, 但是它对Obama最宝贵的地方也有破坏性. 我觉得Obama 就要保持一种"business no as usual"的态度.
3mw wrote:
如一资深民主党领袖对Obama说的那样:我们不是看你如何接招,而是如何出击。
负面广告工作,是现实;尽管许多人不喜欢。负面广告的作用对小布什第二次当选起了举足轻重的作用。我的意思是,Obama必须要有力回击这些负面广告,不仅要有回,也要有击,这是策略。相信Obama不会用扭曲事实的负面广告,而会基于事实做回击。昨天看新闻,佛罗里达和密西根重选之事。这本来已是定局,当时HILLARY风头正健,表示了同意党的决定。现在,她出尔反尔,拒绝佛罗里达重选(要用没经CAMPAIGN的不公正结果),不接受密西根CAUCUS。而Obama表示,服从党的任何决定。一对比,谁顾党的利益,谁凌驾党之上一切从个人利益出发,是秃子头上的虱子。另外,Obama对自己的错误不遮不掩,与HILLARY对自己的错误死抗到底也是鲜明对照。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation