Saturday, May 03, 2008
More egocentric blogging
I'm glad to see Don Cazayoux get elected over Woody Jenkins, although it's a safe bet that Jenkins will contest the result. However, after several posts defending Clinton* from unfair, dishonest, or just plain empty-headed attacks, I was looking forward to the opportunity to defend Obama from a dishonest or unfair attack. I mean, how often does a blogger the chance to show what wonderfully fair and unbiased commentator he is?
You may have a recent WAPO article about a potential GOP strategy for the Fall congressional elections:
Though the WAPO article didn't spell out the implication for the Democratic presidential contest, an AP article spells it out:
Assuming John Maginnis has the slightest idea what he's talking about, that would be an entirely specious argument:
The idea that the failure of Democrat to win a special election with a low black voter turnout demonstrates anything negative about the implications of putting Obama at the head of the ticket is absurd.
*I'm honestly not a Clinton supporter, but I am appalled at some of the attacks that I've seen. I took my name off the HuffPo's email list when this appeared last May. Attacking Clinton's Iraq vote is fair game, but I was outraged that there wasn't outrage over a supposedly liberal site trumpeting "Her Way."
You may have a recent WAPO article about a potential GOP strategy for the Fall congressional elections:
Having shed their belief that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would be the bigger drag on down-ticket Democrats in the fall, congressional Republicans are field-testing a potential general-election strategy that pins Democratic candidates to Obama. It comes just as Wright reclaimed the national spotlight this week with a series of controversial appearances, sparking new questions about how white working-class voters will respond to Obama's candidacy.
If their strategy succeeds here in the Deep South over the next 10 days, GOP strategists expect to take it nationwide.
Though the WAPO article didn't spell out the implication for the Democratic presidential contest, an AP article spells it out:
Democratic losses would give Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton new ammunition to build her case for her presidential candidacy by questioning the sturdiness of Obama's coattails.
Assuming John Maginnis has the slightest idea what he's talking about, that would be an entirely specious argument:
Jackson, who lost in the Democratic runoff, is running television commercials not to endorse his party's nominee Donald Cazayoux but to declare to supporters that he is running again in the fall. He told me he intends to seek the full term whether or not Cazayoux wins the special election, which is less likely without a strong black vote that Jackson is doing nothing to encourage.
The idea that the failure of Democrat to win a special election with a low black voter turnout demonstrates anything negative about the implications of putting Obama at the head of the ticket is absurd.
*I'm honestly not a Clinton supporter, but I am appalled at some of the attacks that I've seen. I took my name off the HuffPo's email list when this appeared last May. Attacking Clinton's Iraq vote is fair game, but I was outraged that there wasn't outrage over a supposedly liberal site trumpeting "Her Way."
Comments:
<< Home
Why a safe bet to contest the result? Jenkins lost by more than 2%. It's my understanding that you can't contest election results unless it's w/in 1%.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 7:23 AM
: 7:23 AM 
<< Home
