Unknown powers behind the scene?

[question everything]

I think that it is a given that when Bush ran, there were the Republicans powers behind the scene that chose him as someone with the right name and background who would be docile and do and say what told to do and say. Not necessarily Cheney and Rumsfeld but others.

I wonder whether the same can be said about Obama. And I am raising this questions for three recent observations:

- Someone on DU posted recently that s/he has not been here for a while and wondered from where Obama came all of a sudden

- A few days ago Jack Caffery commented about how some Democrats have always hated Bill Clinton

- Obama received a surge in donations after he came behind Clinton in New Hampshire.

So I wonder whether there are powers behind the scene in the Democratic party who hate/fear Hillary Clinton so much that they went in search of someone who would stop her.

I think that it is also known that both Edwards and Clinton were ready to race against each other (plus minor candidates) but that Obama came from nowhere and shuffled all their plans.

Indeed, one of the pundits comments, after Edwards' announcement of suspending his campaign, tried to analyze his mood, how he must have felt to be campaigning continuously since 2004 and all of a sudden to be eclipsed by a new person.

OK, I am going to remove my tinfoil cap now...

[Bicoastal]

1. Living up to your name...nt

[jlake]

2. I think these are good questions.

[AX10]

3. These are good questions.

[FrenchieCat]

4. :/

:boring:

[jlake]

22. You don't wonder how Obama rose so high so fast?

The powers aren't necessarily nefarious.

[Maribelle]

34. Maybe not nefarious, but certainly duplicitous. Take Ted Kennedy, for instance.

Has he yet to create the final version as to why he imploded over the LBJ/MLK issue???? The last I heard was he accused Clinton of ignoring the civil-rights work of JFK.

Evidence points to the fact that Ted Kennedy has been Obama's big daddy all along, trying to stay undercover.

Issues lead me to believe that Ted Kennedy's roar and thunderbolt was truly based on the possibility that Hillary was unconsciously exposing the subterfuge of that brilliant JFK morphs into Obama ad, which had to have been through the design stage, heading into production at the time of Kennedy's meltdown.

On edit:

Maybe the production of this ad needs to be queried as to the dates of the various stages of production. That would settle this timing issue.

And then, was the production of this ad done by the production company of a very famous Obama supporter, indicating a powerful collusion which the Kennedy's will be showing off in California this weekend?

[lvx35]

5. Paranoia used to be such a fringe thing.

Then Bush came along and made a mockery of everybody who was trusting and optimistic rather than paranoid, now I would say its all the rage...Its been such an effective mindset under Bush :)

I think either candidate is comparable to Bush in terms of shadowing powers backing them. Its true vast shadowy powers were backing Bush and it was scary. But now 1/2 of them realized that the policies he advocated were failures and no longer back him. The other 1/2 is now rich beyond thier wildest fantasies and want a stable restored America to spend their loot in. Its not over, its never over, but I think things with are candidates are indeed as they appear. :)

[mediaman007]

8. So why did 50% realize his policies were failures? Why not 40%?

Why not 75%? Maybe only 20% got really rich and want stability. Maybe 30% are relocating cause its a global economy!

Couldn't I be right? Couldn't he be right?

[lvx35]

17. Hey man, its all about Love.

and that means acknowledging when you could be wrong. So yes, either of you could be right. :)

[ursi]

6. I think the first time I heard of Obama was when he got elected to the Senate

...and then he gave a great speech at the 2004 Dem convention.

Here's part 1 of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCLomrqIN8

and here's part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56-m8wx1mwo&feature=related

[Andrea]

14. Actually, you have the order back-wards

He gave the fantastic speech at the '04 convention and then was elected to the Senate in November '04. At the time he made the speech, he was in the Illinois Senate and running for U.S. Senate.

The Republican he was running against (can't remember his name) dropped out when a lot of nasty sex stuff came out in his divorce proceedings (those Republicans and their twisted sex lives, sheesh). Then they brought in Alan Keyes from Maryland as a last minute pinch-hitter to run as the Republican candidate. The late entry by the lunatic fringe carpetbagger Keyes assured Obama of victory.

He pretty much got a free ride into the Senate. Thus, he's never been through a serious major-league campaign. If he were to be the nominee, I doubt he could survive the stuff that will be thrown at him, especially since he has so little experience with it.

[ChiciB1]

42. His Name Was Armstrong Williams... Uber Conservative & Probably Got

about 2% of the vote. He was a shoo in because his FIRST opponent had to leave because of some scandal!

It was a fluke race, and he actually had NO opposition even though Williams is black. He's a NUT case IMHO!

[Andrea]

59. No. it was Jack Ryan, I just looked it up

Here's the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois%2C_2004&oldid=182718359

I think you are getting mixed up because Armstrong Williams was involved in a scandal of his own around that time. He is a journalist and it came out that the Bush administration had been paying him to write favorable articles. I think he was the first journalist that got caught in that scandal. That's probably what you are thinking of.

I love to reminisce about Republican scandals!


:evilgrin:

[ChiciB1]

61. No, Armstrong Williams Stepped In AFTER Ryan To Run! I'm Almost

positive about this. But I didn't "google" it, just remember his ugly mug! He's a black super conservative talk show host, who thinks he's GOD or something.

I've been working on something regarding Edwards, so I'll check it out later.

But You are correct about Ryan!

[Andrea]

63. No, it's a different

black, super conservative, talk show host - Alan Keyes. the two men are pretty similar. You can find it at the Wikipedia entry I linked to above.

Be sure to let me know when your Edwards post is up - 'll definitely want to read it!

[ChiciB1]

64. OH, Yes... My Bad... You ARE Correct!! n/t

[ChiciB1]

66. I'm Waiting For A PM... Haven't Gotten It Yet. I Was To Start The Thread

at all the states voting Super Tuesday. I wanted to start it here too, but wanted to change a few words. Also, it's my understanding that this came from the Edwards website, but I didn't see it!

I'm going to PM again!

[ClericJohnPreston]

7. Actually

it is the same group that sponsors Hillary and made John Edwards an offer he couldn't refuse to get out of the race.

The group?

CORPORATE CONTRIBUTORS.

[UALRBSofL]

46. I agree with the assertion of Corporate Contributors

No-one is free from this, not one candidate.

[2rth2pwr]

68. If true it proves he wasn't capable of standing up to the corporations. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

9. A lot of it has a simple explanation

The media want to make as much money as possible. So they'll keep primary season from being resolved until the convention(s), and crank up the rancor in the primaries AND the general. They need to drive it as close to 50/50 to keep people interested. They need conflict to keep people interested, too, but they have to calibrate it because people are averse to too much conflict; hence all the talk of civility.

They are running the election like Celebrity Poker.

Obama has been treated kindly by the press -- up until now. He started out far behind Hillary. The media changed that by hammering on Hillary. Now Obama is within a few percentage points. Even Keith Olbermann is following that course, though in fairness, he's really only picked on Hillary over two or three trivialities. The delegate count will certainly be close, unless those damned voters lied to the pollsters.

High conflict, close races, and round-the-clock coverage. My god, how the money rolls in! And it doesn't even require tinfoil, because the media's political functioning has been designed to be a quasi-market. It needs very little tending now.

That's my take on it. Politics is now well-controlled, homeostatically regulated, and on autopilot. Perhaps it's for the best, since it is the mark of a stable society. It would probably behoove us to find new domains of political action over the next few years and closely observe how they affect this new political order. From there, we can craft new forms of activism.

Another plus: Hillary and Obama are remarkable statesmen. The liberal resurgence is on course to be a turning point in history, to a greater degree than even the 1960s. But let us not deceive ourselves: the machine functions precisely, autonomously -- and powerfully.

--p!

[robbedvoter]

30. I'll add my take - to your - all good -points: MSM always manipulated our

primaries - and knowing who owns MSM, one can easily conclude that it's their intent and purpose to select their designated loser from our primaries.
In 2004, they first zoomed on Dean - who for a few months enjoyed a tiny fraction of the Obama lovefest going on now. "maybe they've seen the light" Deanies said when asked "how come? MSM loves you so much?
But by mid Decemmer, In Al Franken's living room already met to crown something else
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
Look who they were:

Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of �Maus�;
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction.

And once they designated Kerry - before any voter got to weigh in, negative coverage of Dean started: his Vermont records, the Canadian comments on Bush, spat with press on MLK Day - culminating with the scream. With Kerry getting only good press. Until of course the nomination was secured. Right after Super Tuesday, they turned on him viciously
Just refreshing memories for those who thought "maybe they've seen the light"

[balantz]

53. BINGO!

A pattern emerges.

A game plan is followed.

[ChiciB1]

62. Dare I Say... Kerry Is Smelling Like A Rose THESE DAYS!!

You can THINK about!

[lligrd]

10. I Remember Progressives Mentioning Obama Years Ago

I didn't know who he was at the time but they (some of whom are DU members) mentioned him during the last primary and thought then that he would make an excellent candidate.

[question everything]

18. He was praised by Illinois voters when he ran for the Senate in 2004

His rival, after all, was Allan Keyes who was not even an Illinois resident. Keyes came in after Ryan had to drop out for some kind of a sex scandal.

So Obama easily sailed to victory. And then he gave the key note address at the 2004 convention, of course. But being a great orator and a community organizer in an inner city does not a leader of the free world make.

And this is what he has now: a great charisma and eloquence and, of course, he is not Jesse Jackson or Alan Sharpton.

And perhaps it is true, as someone commented earlier on the Jim Leher Newshour, that in the primaries we select based on personality, while in the general elections we choose based on the issues.

I just have to wonder, once Obama wins the White House, then, what? Will the powers behind the scene than tell him what to do?

And you know that all the young people and the black and the Latino who are excited about him now will be disappointed with him later. Human nature. No one can be all the things that people want for everyone no matter who the person is.

[Gloria]

41. Shelby Steele says the same thing...on CSpan last weekend...

discussed Obama's mask....

[ChiciB1]

65. It's Basically The Equivalent Of A Political Paris Hilton... Yatty, Yatty

A Star Is Born type thing. Obama just happens to have a "brain" and SELLS better. So MSM gets the message from THE POWER, he CAN make a good speech that has been written, delivers it well and the word goes out! History is to be made, this time around.

Was Obama "told" about this before it began? I'm not sure, but I do think he knows it now. You don't get this far without a lot of behind the scenes work.

There's a French word, that I don't know how to spell, but I always think it. I'll "sound" it out, and perhaps someone can teach me how to spell it. Say-Le-Gere, or is it Say-le-Vive??

One or the other... then there's Que-Sera-Sera (spelling again)!!

[balantz]

11. You have some good questions there.

Powerful corporate interests should be suspect to conspiring to maintain power, and be expected to plan well in advance and have fingers in all the pies. Obama was selected and groomed by Kerry and co., and that is the truth. The question is was it a plan of the corporate interests behind certain political entities for Obama to be put up to keep Edwards out of competition? Remember at first he said he wouldn't run this time around. He also became quite the media darling, whereas Edwards was shunned, and even demonized by the media. Corporate interests saw Edwards coming since 2004, and they feared him and would certainly want to stop him. Are these outlandish ideas? I don't think so.

[CJCRANE]

48. Yes, the corpmedia "create" the people of *their* choice.

For instance back in '04 I thought that Wesley Clark had the most compelling story (almost like the archetypal All-American Hero) - especially as the media narrative was about a "war-time president" - yet somehow the corpmedia wasn't interested in him.

The same thing with Edwards this time around with his wife and his JFK looks and southern accent he seemed designed for cross-over appeal...yet this time the narrative for the Dem candidates was all about *firsts*.

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. Which is why I won't vote for Obama!

The question is was it a plan of the corporate interests behind certain political entities for Obama to be put up to keep Edwards out of the competition?

That is what I believe and the reason I won't vote for Obama. I really don't want to vote for Hillary either. But I probably will. On second thought, I won't vote for Hillary either. Obama? NO WAY!

[question everything]

58. Interesting putting Kerry in this role

We now know that Kerry was unhappy with Edwards as his running mate not creating miracles where Kerry failed. And, I think, the relations between Kerry and the Clintons were cool.

As it was becoming clear that Clinton and Edwards would be the main candidates I can see Kerry desperately rushing to stop both.

Yes, you are right that Obama vehemently denying plans to run. Someone posted about this a while ago and it was then, too, that I started thinking that someone must have pushed him with all the promises of support.

I may be cynic, too. About 10 years ago I was part of a campaign for someone running for city council and it was then that I realized that often the candidate himself/herself had very little to do with the candidacy and with the way the campaign is running. That there are other forces shaping them.

[saracat]

12. And it might be asked why a little known Illinois state senator gave a keynote address

and have hundreds of Obama for president signs that oddly look just like the ones in use today! and Oddly he was one of the original Dean Dozen. Inquiring minds want to know.

[balantz]

13. I always thought those signs looked weird there.

It looked staged with tons of Obama signs being panned by the cameras.

[Andrea]

15. Well, those things are always staged.

[saracat]

16. And Tim Russert commenting that this was the first black president!

And now there is this sudden "tidal wave of support". For someone with really zero credentials! And he is compared to JFK! who had several terms in congress as well as the Senate, was a war hero and won the Pulitzer Prize! Obama is a state Senator who has never run a competitve federal race and Hasn't completed his first term as Senator! How on earth can anyone, I don't care if it is Caroline, compare him to JFK? And the weird endorsements keep rolling in! There is something amiss. Truly.And I expect to get flamed for this but I do question all this.If it is too good to be true, it probably is not so.The Obama Mania is in overdrive and the excess sends out warning bells.

[DURHAM D]

19. It seems to me the answer is in Chicago power politics.

I don't know enough about it to make a suggestion but the players Obama/Axelrod/Rahm give me pause. Actually they scare me.

I know we are being played - I just can't figure it out.

[saracat]

20. We are being played for sure.But why? And who benefits?

[robbedvoter]

32. See # 30 - if the past is any clue...

[jlake]

24. I have always enjoyed your posts. You are so well reasoned - otherwise I may feel

"paranoid" as some other posters are saying.
But I can't figure out what is going on either. I can't shake the feeling that something is not right.
It really makes no sense.

[Andrea]

70. I said the same thing

as Tim Russert. I'm a huge fan of good oratory and that speech was like a lightening strike. But I sure didn't mean now - I thought he would be president 8 - 12 - 16 years from now. In fact, I thought he might end up being the second black president, depending what happened while he was building his resume.

It truly doesn't make sense for him to run now and these endorsements are very suspect in my opinion,

Of course now that all this has happened, I don't want him to be president, even 16 years from now. Now he seems like either a cynical guy bought and paid for by corporate interests OR a really naive guy bought and paid for by corporate interests. Either way, I don't want him to be president. Too bad. I thought he had real potential.

[Lucinda]

21. I don't think I knew about the signs before...

I've only caught the speech in vid clips...I didn't see it live.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Maybe because he knows how to give wonderful uplifting speeches?

John Kerry chose him for the convention, so maybe Kerry had good taste?

and Obama's was only the 3rd Black Senator Since reconstruction?

and He was one of Dean's first Dozen as well.

Just maybe the cream rises to the top. :shrug:

http://www.indopedia.org/Dean_Dozen.html

List of Dean Dozens First:

Mary Ann Andreas: 80th State Assembly District, California
Ken Campbell: Oconee County representative, South Carolina State House
Maria Chappelle-Nadal: 72nd State House District, Missouri State House
Scott Clark, Mark Manoil and Nina Trasoff: Arizona Corporation Commission
Kim Hynes: Connecticut State Representative
Richard Morrison: U.S. Representative from Texas
Barack Obama: U.S. State Senator and U.S. Senate Candidate from Illinois
Rob MacKenna: Supervisor of Elections in Hillsborough County, Florida
Monica Palacios-Boyce: Massachusetts State Representative
Lori Salda�a: California State Assembly
Jeff Smith: U.S. Representative from Missouri
Donna Red Wing: District 25, Colorado State House

Obama Posing Question to Dean in 2004:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x89185

And maybe because he knows how to get out the vote?
Article from 1993. SEE OBAMA ENFRANCHISING VOTERS.....
and not taking any shit from those POLITICIANS attempting to game the system.

Vote of Confidence
A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago's electoral landscape—and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.

In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization.

"It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama.

To understand the full implications of Obama's effort, you first need to understand how voter registration often has worked in Chicago. The Regular Democratic Party spearheaded most drives, doing so using one primary motivator: money. The party would offer bounties to registrars for every new voter they signed up (typically a dollar per registration).

The campaigns did produce new voters. "But bounty systems don't really promote participation," says David Orr, the Cook County clerk, whose office is responsible for voter registration efforts in the Cook County suburbs. "When the money dries up, the voters drop out." Nor did the Democratic Party always vigorously push registration among minorities, Orr says. "It's not that they discouraged it. They just never worked hard to ensure it would happen."
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence

[saracat]

54. OOOOOH. I'm sooo impressed! Not . and this raises yet MORE questions

But some will never ask them. Pity. Drink the cool aid.

[Mass]

35. May be because his ability to speak and think impressed Kerry more than the guy the party forced

upon him as VP. Just guessing.

[saracat]

56. MSM drivel being regurgitated by the masses.How very sad.

Critical thinking is indeed in short supply these days.And this is a perfect example of it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. ...

:think:

[Straight Shooter]

23. Read this article. Written by a staunch conservative, but enlightening.

It is not a hit piece on Obama. In fact, it's quite flattering at times. Please note the brief but significant mentions of Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.tomroeser.com/blogs/default.asp?categoryID=54

(Excerpt)

November, 2006

And when needed, the Axelrod-Emanuel team has him say the words that pay the liberal bills. Estate tax cuts were designed for “Paris Hilton.” On Iraq he sides with those advising withdrawal: in essence, there is nothing about Obama that isn’t Emanuel-Axelrod kosher, complete 100% social and economic liberalism, but it is wrapped in a beautiful package of pleasantness and minimum polarity. All the while, their Destiny’s Tot candidate is rolling in big dough with handsome sales for two books and rock star souvenirs not to mention that the University of Chicago hospitals have decided to promote his wife to a vice presidency and a $300,000 per annum salary for “community relations”-read: political influence with her pillow-mate.

Both Axelrod and Emanuel understand that the Senate is a terrible place from which to run for the presidency. John Kerry’s plight-where he voted for continuation of the war before he voted against it-which caused him to be laughed out of town does not just pertain to Kerry. The longer one is in the Senate, the more he can be pictured as a trimmer. For that reason, it was astute for a young John F. Kennedy, a backbencher in the Senate, to run for president before the natural contradictions of lengthy voting records caught up with him. Therefore, Barack Obama would be wise-from his standpoint, to run for president in 2008. The Democratic party is tiring of Hillary Clinton, has seen John Kerry who botched the 2004 election threaten to botch this one in 2006 with his ridiculous unintended slur to troops in Iraq.

That’s why with slender record and a vague mist of personality, managed all the while by hard lefties Axelrod and Emanuel, Barack Obama may well end up in 2008 with the nomination. They have to move quick. Already their creation has started to melt like a snow-cone in July and must be put in the deep freeze before he turns to mush. Obama is the last politician who should be tainted with any semblance of an ethics violation: that’s why Harry Reid named him the point man for the Democrats on ethics questions in the Senate. But as it must to all frail political humans, Barack Obama has good contacts and likes to use them. The Chicago “Tribune” reported not long ago that Obama has been a longtime friend of Tony Rezko the indicted fund-raiser for Rod Blagojevich. So good a friend that Obama bought a mansion in the Kenwood area of Chicago for $300,000 less than the asking price. On the same day, Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot, shelling out the full $625,000 asking price. The question is whether Rezko’s wife subsidized Obama’s purchase of the mansion and also paid for an abutting private preserve that adds to the estate’s aura. Prepped by Axelrod and Emanuel, Obama became the misty-eyed visionary once again, blaming himself and saying he could kick himself for this dumb idea. Dumb, huh?

[bklyncowgirl]

31. Raum Emmanual is a power behind Obama's throne? I thought he was a Clintonite.

Both are from Chicago, of course but I'd always figured Emmanual would support the Clintons.

[robbedvoter]

36. I think local politics, trumps national. Based on what I've seen in NYC.

[bklyncowgirl]

55. Your're probably right--you gotta live with the neighbors. nt

[Adelante]

38. It's an interesting, well-written column, but whoa, where's Rezco?

Keeping in mind the writer is a conservative talk radio host, backs a Romney-Huckabee ticket, says John Edwards is Hugo Chavez in disguise and gay history courses are pornography, Obama is "a hard neo-Fabian socialist with a romantic demeanor," New York liberals are Maoists, women have no business running political debates (very much including the League of Women Voters), he's never forgiven Rahm Emanuel for leaking Henry Hyde's old sex scandal to Larry Flynt during Bill Clinton's impeachment, and writes favorably about Hillary Clinton compared to Barack Obama..

(Actually he reminds me of my brother except for the Hillary thing)

Keeping that all in mind, I enjoyed reading it. I see where some of the anti-Obama memes on DU have stemmed from, for one thing. He does get Obama's politics and style right: "Complete 100% social and economic liberalism, but it is wrapped in a beautiful package of pleasantness and minimum polarity." He clearly has a long and deep understanding (from his point of view) of Chicago history and politics (from his point of view), so it's interesting that in this in-depth recitation of Obama's political history in Chicago by a political journalist and publisher of an online political newspaper on Chicago politics -- who has known Barack Obama "just about the whole distance" -- this astute observer of Chicago politics and Barack Obama never found Tony Rezco until he read in the Chicago Tribune about Obama's house a few months ago.

This is who the political journalist/talk radio host, specializing in Chicago politics, knew as political backers of Obama in Chicago, as each is described in the article:

Newton Minow, (who) still burns a vigil light in memory of the late Adlai Stevenson
venerable lefty activist.. the old liberal Jewish Judd Miner
chain-smoking, hefty, easily-perspiring Emil Jones (State Senate President)
hard lefties David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel

While he mentions that Rezco was the patron of Democratic Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, he never noticed over the years, apparently, that Rezco was a particular patron of Obama. So Rezco contributed to and bundled for Obama's campaigns and bought an empty lot next to the house Obama was buying and it wasn't anything unusual enough for this right wing observer of Chicago politics to notice.

Thanks for the link, Straight Shooter, it helps.

http://www.tomroeser.com/blogs/default.asp?categoryID=54

[Straight Shooter]

47. He's a very talented writer, I give him credit for that.

I don't know what kind of influence he exerts. His use of the term "pro-abort" is ridiculous, however.

ETA: His descriptions of major players is what makes his writing so compelling. Remember whose side he will be on in the GE. There are many staunch conservatives who have behind-the-scenes power, guiding the perceptions of American voters. I don't trust them on either side.

[VotesForWomen]

26. there absolutely are 'invisible hands' operating behind the scenes. i think

they are largely responsible for choosing who the 'serious' candidates are, and they do their best to determine who actually becomes president. i would say that it is clear that they want obama to be the dem nominee, but i'm not sure whether they want obama or the repub nominee to be prez.

[dailykoff]

27. Ahem, those "unknown powers" are called voters.

And surprise, sometimes they actually ARE more powerful than corrupt political hacks.

[clixtox]

29. Brilliantly ingenuous!

Voters are just about the least influential people in the Amerikkkan political system.

By the time they get to vote their choices have been trimmed to only those who have the BIG money to spend.

To acquire all of those resources the candidate has to insure that they are not going to "upset the apple cart".

The immense scale of the required capital necessitates the candidate to focus on rich and super rich contributors.

They are not going to finance anyone who will make any fundamental changes in the arrangement that has allowed these wealthy folks to acquire and their heirs to keep their wealth and power through the generations.

Any person who attempts to be president who would like to fundamentally change any of the cornerstones of the institutions are used to control us won't get far.

For example discuss the concentration of 90% of media ownership owned and operated by just a few giant conglomerates, Disney, "New" Viacom (and its former parent CBS Corporation, the former "Old" Viacom), TimeWarner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric, and your campaign will be ignored by them, as was Kucinich recently.

Ferdinand Lundberg wrote in 1968's "The Rich and the Super Rich", something like... "the chances of your vote in a national election having any impact is less than the chance of your dying in an auto accident or other random calamity on your way to the polls."

The odds certainly haven't improved in the 40 year interim.

[robbedvoter]

33. See, so far, the hype contradicted the voting results - hence - the questions

[cali]

28. what codswalllop

Sure some powerful political sorts support Obama, but there was hardly ever a guarantee that he'd do well. And Obama is not the completely unready candidate that some people are claiming. He has considerably more experience than JE.

[Mass]

37. No democratic powers pushing Edwards in 04? No democratic powers pushing Clinton in 92?

And there were definitively powers pushing Edwards in 04. They needed a token opposition to Hillary and got it.

They were surprised and a little bit overwhelmed when a real opposition came, which is why people like you are bitching today spreading stupid rumors.

BTW,there were NO unknown powers behind Bush. You had to be stupid not to know who was behind him.

[MilesColtrane]

39. Yes, those unseen powers are known as the grassroots.

And many consist of supporters of other candidates who have dropped out.

If you want to look at anti-democratic powers, look at who the superdelegates (AKA party insiders) are lining up for.

These are elected office holders and party officials who are not bound by the outcome of caucuses or primaries.

Hillary Clinton total # of superdelegates: 184
Barack Obama total # of superdelegates: 95

So, can you tell me again about the powers behind the scene in the Democratic party who are trying to crush Hillary?

[Gloria]

40. Edwards-Clinton would have given us some clear contrasts....

now, it's all image being shoved at us...

One of the pundits also commented that it was clear that Edwards, in his announcement, really did believe he was the best candidate...which may very well be true. They stole his ideas left and right....I nearly gagged yesterday when I heard one of the two left literally use one of his phrases WORD FOR WORD.

[synesthesia]

43. lol

Gloria, can I wake you up to a political truth?

If Obama is saying something Edwards said, a phrase as you put it, he didn't steal it from Edwards, he stole it from Axelrod (who ran Edwards campaign in 2004).

These guys don't write their own messages or speeches, you realize this right?

John Edwards in 2004 (Axelrod managed) - "I came here a year ago with a belief that we could change this country ... onight we started a movement to change this country that will sweep across America.""


Barack Obama in 2008 (Axelrod on board now) - I came here a year ago with a belief that we could change this country ... onight we started a movement to overcome the politics of cynicism.""

Word for word honey, almost.

This is how the game goes.

Remember Edwards in 2004 was the candidate for the politics of hope and change.

Now he hired Trippi and he's Dean 2.0

LOL

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

49. Welcome, and actually you're several months late, I think most here are fully aware of the

consultants and advisers who keep turning up over and over, bad penny like.

But, thanks for telling us what most knew, and again, welcome! :hi:

[Gloria]

69. Yes, am aware of it, honey pie...but Obama wasn't exactly focusing

on Edwards concerns all these months....too busy pandering to Republicans....just recently has decided to throw a fake bone out there ...as has Hillary.
Yeah, I'm going to JUMP in response to the magic...NOT!

[CJCRANE]

45. Best President America Never Had.

I had a strange feeling watching Edwards' announcement...of what could have been.

[elixir]

44. It's very possible that Obama's sudden rise is an attempt to deflect from a candidate that can take

on the repugs - Hillary Clinton. It's been done before.

[UALRBSofL]

51. People may not understand the grooming process

It's not a bad thing. The democratic party had to look ahead after the "Bush train" and the powers that be decided Obama would be the best candidate to be able to defeat a republican. A fresh, new look, untested, with few skeletons in his closet. Thus the grooming starts. The party needed another JFK image and they picked Obama for that reason.

It reminds me of an article I was reading the other day about Nixon. The article implied Prescott Bush and his camp hand picked Nixon, groomed him for the presidency.

[Unbowed]

57. Your questions are valid. Here are a few answers.

Barack Obama, for anyone who was not involved in the political process in 2004, was brought to national attention when John Kerry asked Obama to deliver the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. The speech Obama gave was electrifying and made him a media star because everyone was asking , "Who IS this guy?" He was a relative unknown until the speech which was followed by his election to the Senate.

The Iowa win was a surprise brought about by a strong grass roots campaign and the support of new voters who felt little in common with the more established choices. New Hampshire flirted with Obama, but her strong organization on the ground brought HRC the push she needed to eek out a small victory on primary day. Still, Obama's showing was very good. It proved he was viable.

Shortly after NH, Barack Obama got the endorsement of John Kerry which included a fundraising e-mail to benefit the Obama campaign. Kerry has a huge e-mail list and Kerry brought in more money than any other individual for Democrats seeking election/re-election in 2006. The Kerry fundraising machine was cranked up to benefit Obama, the first e-mail followed by a second plea from Kerry to donate to Obama after the SC bruhaha. Personally, I am only one person on that massive list, but I donated both times when asked to by Senator Kerry.

As for the business in SC, who knows how much money that brought to the Obama campaign, but it sure brought him votes when public opinion turned against the campaigning tactics of Bill Clinton.

The huge Kennedy endorsement had to have a considerable effect on the money too. It seemed to have a demonstrated affect on other endorsements because it was followed by a slew of others.

It is also interesting to note that Obama has smaller donations in greater numbers than does Clinton. I haven't heard who has raised more money total but the sources of Obama's donations are from people donating small dollar amounts.

My opinion is that, while people respect Hillary Clinton, her campaign isn't perceived as all that new or exciting. She is seen as "tried and true" but that doesn't inspire people, especially people who are by nature apathetic. Edwards, on the other hand, was able to inspire anyone within earshot. But he was not new either. I really think Edwards got much of the same bad rap that Kerry did because he didn't win in '04. Fair or not, people sometimes like to blame the victim.

The only reason that the repuglicans are even looking at McCain is that his loss was a ways back and because they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a viable candidate. McCain at least has name recognition.

Personally, I decided to support Obama right after Iowa when I listened to several college students who had met him and were inspired. These kids weren't exactly interested in politics until Obama spoke at their school. It was his ability to bring in these kids that impressed me. Most young people are not easy to impress or motivate, but when someone does inspire them, they jump in with a vigor the rest of us only wish we had. That's just MHO, BTW. :)

[K Gardner]

67. Excellent summary ! Should keep track of this and add to it, thanks :-)

[2rth2pwr]

60. I don't even know where to start, there are so many bizarre inferences.

So I won't. Have fun.