In Ohio Clinton exceeded poll expectations. She has ended up with a convincing 10% win margin in Ohio, over the preceding 5% poll gap. Going in to the contest yesterday, he had an edge in Texas, but she came out on top with 51 to 48% there. The NAFTA doubts seemed to have impact particularly in Ohio. He and his campaign were clumsy handling the goofed affair, and was caught unprepared Monday when Clinton released the last ad suggesting his honesty on the NAFTA issue was insincere.
The red phone ad by itself might not have had the desired effect on last night's outcome. However, since Saturday she has been on a roll, appearing on Saturday Night Live, which projected a more playful Hillary, as did her Monday appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Her three wins last night are significant. Now she has to maintain a renewed momentum. He will now be tested to see if he really has the right stuff. He will have to offer voters more forward thinking reasons to vote for him, quickly and clearly fend off attacks on him.
Obama has a delegate lead (1451 to 1365) but it's a delicate delegate lead right now.
Next stop, Wyoming, Saturday, March 8.
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Obama's Position on NAFTA, and his Honesty in Doubt
Either someone in Obama's camp or in the Canadian Consulate in Chicago, is not telling the truth about what went down in a meeting between Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Canada's consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux,
or,
a Canadian official either made a mistake in recording, and/or misinterpreted what transpired at the 40 minute Feb. 8 meeting.
A quick summary of what this story concerns.
Yesterday Hillary Clinton's campaign ran an ad which suggested that Barack Obama flip-flopped on his stance on NAFTA, i.e., that he would renegotiate it. The ad says he (his campaign) told Canadian Consulate officials that his words were just about political positioning rather than a clear articulation of policy plans. Obama and his economic adviser denies that such words were said to the Canadian Consul. This is significant because particularly in the state of Ohio where NAFTA has negatively affected the economy, Obama has vowed to fix it once elected.
(Also see previous post Mar. 3rd).
The only piece of evidence in this potentially campaign busting twist is a 1300 word memo written by a Canadian offical, Joseph DeMora, who was in attendance at the meeting.
Newsweek has a timeline of related PR responses that allows the reader to arrive at their own conclusions as to what is going on in the Obama/NAFTA story. Here's a key piece of what DeMora wrote that is at the center of this controversy:
This memo was also widely circulated among the Canadian government.
Goolsbee responded by saying,
The Newsweek page notes that, "It (Associated Press) quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton as saying that Goolsbee was not representing the campaign during the visit and was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign".
No audio recording exist of the Feb. 8 meeting of Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate.
So there is no hard proof that Goolsbee actually said it, but it leaves doubt. One would assume that a potential U.S. economic adviser and his candidate would be very close, on the same page that is. If Goolsbee did not suggest that renogotiating NAFTA was just political rhetoric, then the recorder DeMora either interpreted a conversation incorrectly, misheard it, or was being malicious. Otherwise, how could he write such words unless they were mentioned by Obama's adviser? Something's odd here.
If Obama has really been bluffing about changing NAFTA just to get Ohio's hurting workers' votes, then what else might he be bluffing about? And, what kind of President would Canada potentially be dealing with? It would sound like one who is more of the same.
He is leading in delegates at the moment but can't afford to be seen in another negative light, like his questionable relationship with slum lord Tony Rezko. There may be more revelations on the NAFTA item, but right now it seems to cast a shadow of doubt over Obama's honesty, and/or his campaign adviser's.
or,
a Canadian official either made a mistake in recording, and/or misinterpreted what transpired at the 40 minute Feb. 8 meeting.
A quick summary of what this story concerns.
Yesterday Hillary Clinton's campaign ran an ad which suggested that Barack Obama flip-flopped on his stance on NAFTA, i.e., that he would renegotiate it. The ad says he (his campaign) told Canadian Consulate officials that his words were just about political positioning rather than a clear articulation of policy plans. Obama and his economic adviser denies that such words were said to the Canadian Consul. This is significant because particularly in the state of Ohio where NAFTA has negatively affected the economy, Obama has vowed to fix it once elected.
(Also see previous post Mar. 3rd).
The only piece of evidence in this potentially campaign busting twist is a 1300 word memo written by a Canadian offical, Joseph DeMora, who was in attendance at the meeting.
Newsweek has a timeline of related PR responses that allows the reader to arrive at their own conclusions as to what is going on in the Obama/NAFTA story. Here's a key piece of what DeMora wrote that is at the center of this controversy:
... Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.
This memo was also widely circulated among the Canadian government.
Goolsbee responded by saying,
He's not quoting me. . . . I certainly did not use that phrase in any way. . . . In no possible way was I inferring that he [Obama] was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting.
The Newsweek page notes that, "It (Associated Press) quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton as saying that Goolsbee was not representing the campaign during the visit and was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign".
No audio recording exist of the Feb. 8 meeting of Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate.
So there is no hard proof that Goolsbee actually said it, but it leaves doubt. One would assume that a potential U.S. economic adviser and his candidate would be very close, on the same page that is. If Goolsbee did not suggest that renogotiating NAFTA was just political rhetoric, then the recorder DeMora either interpreted a conversation incorrectly, misheard it, or was being malicious. Otherwise, how could he write such words unless they were mentioned by Obama's adviser? Something's odd here.
If Obama has really been bluffing about changing NAFTA just to get Ohio's hurting workers' votes, then what else might he be bluffing about? And, what kind of President would Canada potentially be dealing with? It would sound like one who is more of the same.
He is leading in delegates at the moment but can't afford to be seen in another negative light, like his questionable relationship with slum lord Tony Rezko. There may be more revelations on the NAFTA item, but right now it seems to cast a shadow of doubt over Obama's honesty, and/or his campaign adviser's.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Clinton Attacking Fiercely on the day before Make or Break Vote
More detail to follow Tuesday morning on the Obama/NAFTA story
Negative ads are used because they can have the desired impact for the person behind it. The latest Hillary ad goes after Obama's position on NAFTA. In public he had said it wants it to be renegotiated, but her ad alleges that he said in a private conversation, that his words were just for political purposes. Hillary bounced on this. In a statement to the media, she accuses Obama of double-speak, telling Ohio voters one thing about NAFTA, and telling the Canadian Consulate in Chicago another thing about NAFTA.
From this site
Obama's camp says it was not his words but rather a staffer's interpretation.
This information may have been planned for days, and her team waited till today, the day before four primaries Tuesday, to spring the ad, and leaving the Obama team little time to defend, and try to counter the attack. This could sway some votes her way, unless his defense and response are strong and neutralize her ad's message. At this time, her allegation seems strong. It leaves doubts about Obama. The timing of her ad at the 11th hour is evidence that Texas and Ohio are crucial battlegrounds for Clinton. Even a narrow win for her will give her the momentum she has been lacking for over two months, and she will stay in the race till April's next primaries.
The polls are a statistical tie in both Ohio and Texas, 47-43% for Hillary in Ohio, 46-45% for Obama in Texas, with the remaining percentages being undecideds. Hillary will need to win hugely to equal Obama's overall lead in delegates, which is 1379 to 1269. Texas Latinos were a large part of Hillary's support, but Obama appeals to youth, so he may end up getting the "Lateeno" vote, thus stealing from Clinton.
With today's sneak attack from Hillary, and the close polls, it would not be surprising if Hillary does squeak out a win in Ohio and Texas. But, will it be enough to significantly bridge the delegate gap, and give the impression that she indeed has momentum? Will there be basically a 50-50 voter/delegate split, or will Clinton's assertive campaigning entice more voters her way? It's getting interesting again.
Negative ads are used because they can have the desired impact for the person behind it. The latest Hillary ad goes after Obama's position on NAFTA. In public he had said it wants it to be renegotiated, but her ad alleges that he said in a private conversation, that his words were just for political purposes. Hillary bounced on this. In a statement to the media, she accuses Obama of double-speak, telling Ohio voters one thing about NAFTA, and telling the Canadian Consulate in Chicago another thing about NAFTA.
From this site
A memo obtained by The Associated Press suggests Obama's economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to look at the Democratic candidate's attack on free trade as "political positioning" rather than policy.
Obama's camp says it was not his words but rather a staffer's interpretation.
This information may have been planned for days, and her team waited till today, the day before four primaries Tuesday, to spring the ad, and leaving the Obama team little time to defend, and try to counter the attack. This could sway some votes her way, unless his defense and response are strong and neutralize her ad's message. At this time, her allegation seems strong. It leaves doubts about Obama. The timing of her ad at the 11th hour is evidence that Texas and Ohio are crucial battlegrounds for Clinton. Even a narrow win for her will give her the momentum she has been lacking for over two months, and she will stay in the race till April's next primaries.
The polls are a statistical tie in both Ohio and Texas, 47-43% for Hillary in Ohio, 46-45% for Obama in Texas, with the remaining percentages being undecideds. Hillary will need to win hugely to equal Obama's overall lead in delegates, which is 1379 to 1269. Texas Latinos were a large part of Hillary's support, but Obama appeals to youth, so he may end up getting the "Lateeno" vote, thus stealing from Clinton.
With today's sneak attack from Hillary, and the close polls, it would not be surprising if Hillary does squeak out a win in Ohio and Texas. But, will it be enough to significantly bridge the delegate gap, and give the impression that she indeed has momentum? Will there be basically a 50-50 voter/delegate split, or will Clinton's assertive campaigning entice more voters her way? It's getting interesting again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)