Obama's Team Out-organized Clinton

[Triana]

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2008/05/25/5660426-sun.html

...

The team was led by calm and focused campaign manager David Plouffe; the strategy was inspired by Obama's experience as a community organizer. They built a campaign designed to accomplish what other political sensations like Gary Hart and Howard Dean failed to do -- turn the energy and excitement of a phenomenon into long-term results.


"I think everyone knew realistically that he was starting as an underdog," said longtime friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett. "But I don't think he would have started down this path with a team that didn't think he would win. It was going to be an uphill battle, but in the end I think we were all confident that it could be done and that he could do it."

...

From congressional races, the team knew the extent of Clinton fatigue in the heartland and the lesson of the 2006 midterm elections: America wants change.

Obama's chief directive for hiring the more than 700 staff members was: No Drama Allowed. Obama's even demeanour is reflected in the advisers closest to him, while Clinton's campaign divided into conflicting, public power centres.

[insanity]

1. NO!!!

They won because of misogyny.

It is inconceivable to even argue that maybe someone was better at politics than Hillary Clinton.

:sarcasm:

[Triana]

2. Oh yea. Of course!

I forgot.

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

3. You had me at "organizer"......

:loveya:

[Perry Logan]

4. Then there was the caucus cheating...

http://www.caucuscheating.blogspot.com/

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ice-9]

6. Senator Obama outorganized Senator Clinton. He outcampaigned her. . . .

And he definitely outclassed her. He had a better grasp of the caucus rules, a better groundgame, a longer-range plan for the race (his didn't end on February 5), and better judgment in hiring people to advise him. If the quality of executive leadership were judged solely based on campaign planning and performance, there could be no doubt that Obama was the better leader.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ice-9]

8. Cheating is not outclassing.

But do you have any evidence that Senator Obama's supporters (much less Senator Obama himself) "cheat(ed)" in the caucus states? And please do not cite your blog. I already looked at it, and it does not give any support for the proposition that Senator Obama or his supporters "cheat(ed)" in the caucuses. All that your blog does is string together a series of self-serving claims without any factual support.

For example, your blog claims that "(a) Republican ad chronicling how Barack Obama cheated in the caucus state elections and then denied millions of americans in Florida and Michigan a chance to have their vote counted, two serious charges against a supposedly religious and ethical man, could be a deal breaker for millions of americans in this falls presidential election." I'll focus for the moment on the substance of your putative ad, putting aside the fact that you have offered no evidence that such an ad exists or has even been contemplated. Your ad does not give any evidence for the claim that "Barack Obama cheated in the caucus state elections." It simply repeats that claim.

Since you haven't given any evidence to the contrary, my guess is that Senator Obama simply knew the rules of the caucus process better than Senator Clinton and exploited those rules to his advantage. That wouldn't mean that he broke the rules; it would mean that he followed them and, as I said, outclassed his opponent.

Your fixation on Michigan and Florida is more understandable. But the problem is that, to most people, "cheating" means violating the rules of the game, not punishing those violations. As I understand it, Michigan and Florida violated the DNC's rules when they scheduled their primaries in advance of Super Tuesday. Punishing them by stripping them of their delegates isn't cheating. On the contrary, you could make a good case that it would be cheating to *count* their delegates, since those delegates were selected in contravention of the DNC's rules.

:shrug: