About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Fair to Compare?

We wrote a post yesterday about Sen. Barack Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club in May 2007. It caused quite a furor. Many of you contend the auto industry folks in attendance actually responded very cooly to Obama's call for higher fuel efficiency.

However, as far as we can tell, Obama DID misspeak about a particular moment in the speech. He has said the room was quiet when there was in fact some applause. As the Detroit Free Press reported:

The Illinois senator's retelling of his story has a few flourishes. While Obama has repeatedly said "nobody clapped" and that his message was met with silence, the record from that speech from the Detroit Economic Club tells a different story. Obama won at least mild applause several times from the crowd of 2,000.

But The Free Press added some context that we left out of our original post -- the fact that the auto industry, in general, is apparently not a big fan of Obama.

Another question many of our readers raised was whether it is fair to draw a parallel between Obama's "quiet room" assertion and Sen. Hillary Clinton's 'Tuzla Moment.' This is a fair question and you expressed strong opinions about it. Our attempt was to analyze how this incident will play out politically. Whether fair or not, Obama's critics will use this against him, both now and in the general election contest. We know that the voters will be the ultimate judge... how do you think they will respond?

We weren't alone in writing about Obama's version of how the Detroit speech went over. Please note that the LA Times blog, Top of the Ticket, the Detroit Free Press, and USA Today's On Politics also wrote about this topic. Feel free to engage those publications in as lively a discussion as you did with us here. Also please feel free to add your own links to relevant articles in the comments section. The ongoing conversation you provide is an asset to our reporting.

And in the spirit of "judge for yourself" here is a link to the original May 2007 speech on Obama's official campaign Web site.

By washingtonpost.com |  May 16, 2008; 12:41 PM ET Barack Obama
Previous: New Ads for Clinton in Kentucky and Oregon | Next: MoveOn Fires Straight Talk at McCain Campaign

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



"Please note that the LA Times blog, Top of the Ticket, the Detroit Free Press, and USA Today's On Politics also wrote about this topic. Feel free to engage those publications in as lively a discussion as you did with us here."

Touchy touchy, if you cant stand the heat, Touchy, touchy! if you cant stand the heat, get out of the Blogosphere

Posted by: Jim Randell | May 16, 2008 1:06 PM

Jim -- we can stand the heat just fine, thank you. Our guess is that those other folks can too. And if one is passionate about making an argument about this topic we thought he/she might appreciate knowing where else discussion on it has cropped up.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:17 PM

The mendacious stupidity really saturated the last post, but you've really outdone yourself in this follow-up.

For the record, Obama this morning said he ate a Pop Tart when in fact it was a Toaster Strudel. I'm not sure how he can reconcile such a disparity in time to fully secure the Democratic nomination before the convention.

Posted by: The Guilty Carnivore | May 16, 2008 1:26 PM

This is just silly. If you really think that Obama's critics are going to pounce on whether or not there was applause at an event - or are going to try make the claim that he is a "liar" over something so insignificant - then you really have no standing to call yourselves journalists or reporters or pundits or anything in between. And your defense of a post that is utterly so inane and insignificant is further evidence of that.

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 1:28 PM

Again, why is this a story? In WaPo's eagerness to defend itself and its reporter it appears WaPo has gotten lost in the forest for the trees. Who cares how many people were clapping!? Who cares if Obama misspoke about how many people were clapping!? This has to be one of the most ridiculous news stories it's ever been my misfortune to read in a national newspaper. And I don't care how many other newspapers have reported the same thing.

You ask how will this play out politically? It won't, because it's not a news story!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 1:36 PM

Guilty Carnivore -- points for humor. Eric -- if you think political opponents in a presidential campaign WON'T use anything they can get their hands on, then you and we haven't been observing the same political scene. And this follow up was not a defense of the original post as much as it was a positive response to commenters who demanded we include a little more context. So give yourself a little credit in between posts that you use to bash us for trying to listen to you.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:36 PM

I suppose if the WashingtonPost.com editors were going to describe the reaction to the original post, they'd call it "mixed"? Seriously, this is why no one trusts you for any analysis. If you can't recognize your own issues, you're hardly qualified to analyze the issues of others.

When you're in a hole, stop. Just stop.

Posted by: MB | May 16, 2008 1:40 PM

You guys are sad. A calculated, repeated use of the Tuzla story by Clinton, several times and emphasized repeatedly, is in no way comparable to two isolated video clips of Obama speeches on gas mileage. Meanwhile, John McCain is spinning like a top on talking to Hamas, how long troops should stay in Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, the environment, support from right-wing preachers, etc.--and you spend your time on this. Then you wrap yourself in some pretension about blogs and journalism.

Posted by: macheath | May 16, 2008 1:42 PM

Dear Washington Post Editor,
You wrote: "And this follow up was not a defense of the original post as much as it was a positive response to commenters who demanded we include a little more context."

Is it possible to add context to nonsense?

Posted by: Leslie | May 16, 2008 1:43 PM

Leslie -- Obviously we don't agree that this was nonsense. When Obama is trying to woo Michigan voters in hopes that he can win that state in the general election and the largest paper in that state -- along with several national publications and a fair smattering of bloggers and YouTubers -- are all discussing this issue and WHETHER it will have an impact, we think it is worthy of ONE post among many. And the context some of our commenters asked for WAS in fact important to the overall picture.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:47 PM

This is what constitutes journalism these days? I'm not an Obama supporter, but this is trite and demeaning. First of all, trivial nonsense like this has no place, whatsoever, in the public discourse. Yet, even if we allow it, the comparison made is ludicrous. I do not think it a stretch of the imagination to assume running under the threat of sniper fire is a rather memorable experience, whereas remembering whether there was applause for a particular line in one speech among hundreds, if not thousands, given during this campaign somehow seemingly lacks the same amount of memorable pertinence. Yet another example of the obsession with the media to dumb down the conversation, ignore substantive issues, and otherwise generally neglect its role as the watchdog of a vibrant democracy.

Posted by: James | May 16, 2008 1:48 PM

James -- that is fair and reasoned criticism, to a point. But Channel '08 does not represent the entire body of Washington Post journalism. In fact it is a rather small blog that analyzes the use of video in campaigns. If Channel '08 was all we offered, we would, in fact, be quite derelict in our duty.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 1:52 PM

Dear Washingtonpost.com,
No, I do not think that political opponents of Barack Obama will be creating ads calling him a liar because he said there was no applause at an event despite the fact that there is a youtube video showing some applause at this same event. No, I don't think this will happen. And I question your individual intellectual capacity for thinking that political opponents will, in fact, do that. And because The Washington Post would continue to defend such nonsensical thoughts, I can only conclude that The Washington Post is no longer a reputable or trusted source of professional journalism.

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 1:55 PM

Eric, we will miss you -- we need all the readers we can get these days. And hopefully you can still find value in some of the work that we do. The organization just won six Pulitzers, and much of that work was in public service style journalism that was widely lauded across the political spectrum.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 2:02 PM

Folks, this particular washingtonpost.com editor has to catch a plane. As tough as you guys are, I would rather respond to you than get in line at airport security. Please remember that we appreciate your comments. We do listen, we do try to respond. We still respect your opinion even when we don't agree with it and you often help us improve.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com Editors | May 16, 2008 2:03 PM

And quite frankly, If I were a respected reported at the Washington Post and I found out that top editors were condoning this continued defensive position about something so trivial, I'd resign in protest. And I suggest that respected reporters at the Washington Post do so.

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 2:03 PM

To Washingtonpost.com: If the point of Channel '08 is to analyze the use of video in the campaigns, fair enough. However this story is nothing of the sort. You have spent two columns supposedly vetting a piece of rhetoric and, as others have pointed out, your own use of video demonstrate your complete wrong-ness and non-comprehension of your own supposed story.

You seem to taking an extremely attenuated approach, essentially a post-modern one, to the use of video, without actually being able to understand or carry off that approach. Video has both content and context. It also has form and style. To claim that you are capturing a 'gotcha' of the latter while being completely blind to the former indicates either your approach needs to be completely rethought, or else that you need to hire people actually able to think and understand. What you've given us is completely bankrupt.

Posted by: gtra1n | May 16, 2008 2:05 PM

You guys are seriously pathetic. How about actually discussing and comparing the various auto policy suggestions of Obama, Clinton, McCain. Public reception to these policies and speeches is germane, but d-amn the trivial hair-splitting junior-high crap has got to stop.

Posted by: DavidK | May 16, 2008 2:10 PM

I'm sorry. I was wrong.

Here's the response from McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds to Obama's speech hitting McCain and Bush on foreign policy today:

"It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama.

"Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America's enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?

"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

"Plus, apparently he is a liar too. According to evidence uncovered by The Washington Post, Senator Obame recently said there was no applause at an event in Michigan recently, but there is a youtube video that shows some applause at that event."

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 2:14 PM

Leslie -- Obviously we don't agree that this was nonsense. When Obama is trying to woo Michigan voters in hopes that he can win that state in the general election and the largest paper in that state -- along with several national publications and a fair smattering of bloggers and YouTubers -- are all discussing this issue and WHETHER it will have an impact, we think it is worthy of ONE post among many. And the context some of our commenters asked for WAS in fact important to the overall picture.
---------------------

You and the other newspapers are discussing this as if it were an "issue." Your readers disagree with you, however, as evidenced by their comments. The majority of whom are saying that this "issue" is irrelevant to whether or not Obama is fit to be President. Because it is mind-numblingly inane pointless chatter, which is degrading to the political discourse and unworthy of the Washington Post.

But, why should I be surprised. Just a few days ago, on May 4th, you featured on your front page the article headlined: "Obama Faces Test in Asserting His Own Brand of Patriotism." Rehashing yet again the non-issue about whether Obama is patriotic if he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel.

What's most infuriating is that the Washington Post justifies this by arguing that this ridiculous story must be newsworthy because people are talking about it. In other words, WaPo sees its responsibility as the newspaper of record to be to repeat garbage on its front pages and on its website, thereby creating a self-referential mindless loop.

With so many real issues to report on, such as two wars and the economy, it's a wonder the Washington Post finds the room.

Posted by: Leslie | May 16, 2008 2:16 PM

so what about your stenography on mccain's "pipe dream" ad

you're just going to defend the dreck that is HALF the problem ???

mccain just FLIP or FLOPPED on the war in Iraq

and you choose to address this drivil, and fail to address your MAJOR FAILURE to address mccain's hypocrisy

you don't see the problem here ???

why do wapo editors spend their time trying to defend the indefensible instead of taking journalism classes

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 2:31 PM

why are you adding content to this non-issue at the same time that you posted mccain's talking points with NO CONTENT AT ALL

is there a reason that you microanalyze anything that Obama does while you post mccain's web ad without comment or content

did you notice the disparity there

cuz I've mentioned it FOUR TIMES NOW

or is your double standard something we can't talk about ???

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 2:42 PM

This problem here is that you, like many journalists, are reactionary: you lack either the ability or the work ethic to engage in serious policy, poitical, or historical analysis. The better ones among you can craft a deft piece of snark from time to time, but few among you have any ability to think about things, and your work product (and reward system) reflects this. You are constitutionally incapable of fomulating good question. What you are then left with is a series of shallow reactions to immediate events as they are set before you by your betters - the political PR flacks who know and understand your altogether too-evident weaknesses. And so - to paraphrase the new slogan of the GOP congressional delegation - the American people will continue to get what the press corps deserves (in Mencken's formulation, they'll get it good and hard).

Posted by: George Smiley | May 16, 2008 2:44 PM

"Whether fair or not, Obama's critics will use this against him, both now and in the general election contest"

I HATE this line of argument when it comes from a newspaper. If it's not fair, then why are you pushing it as an issue for discussion? Why not also discuss the likelihood that people will confuse Obama and Osama? If you can't exercise any level of editorial discretion in the issues you think are worth debating on the pages (real or virtual) of the Washington Post, then you might as well close up shop. The National Enquirer at least is interesting.

Posted by: Doh | May 16, 2008 2:55 PM

I was worried about retirement. Now I know I can put my pets to work producing a major city newspaper to supplement my income. The Post proves that any idiot can do it so I'm sure my 4 dogs will have no problem. At least they can tell the difference between a real morsel of food and a piece of lint the moment it hits the floor.

Posted by: Charles Poston | May 16, 2008 3:04 PM

What I find hard to believe is that the Washington Post seems to think that this "nobody clapped" line was unique to his Indianapolis speech, when in fact Obama uses it all the time as part of his stump speech. So not only are the writers unaware of the reception his Detroit speech got at the time, they are also unacquainted with a speech he gives many times a week, and that is often nationally televised.

None of this changes how stupid it is to interpret the pithy "nobody clapped" in the strict literal sense.

Posted by: matt | May 16, 2008 3:04 PM

BALONEY

the room was quiet, almost no one clapped... what difference does it make?

Ever been on a podium told a joke and felt it was met with silence... even though a few snickered or laughed.

Get a life, Obama should be taken to task just as strongly as Clinton... when the issues have ANY similarity.

Posted by: dbrooks | May 16, 2008 3:16 PM

Okay, let's look at the video.

1. It provides precisely two occasions of applause during Obama's Detroit speech, one of which is at the end and so is irrelevant to the issue of a reaction to a call for higher fuel efficiency standards.

2. In the other occasion he wasn't calling for higher fuel efficiency, he was proposing that the federal government help defray industry's health care costs in return for greater investment in more fuel-efficient cars. Not the same thing and sure to get a better reaction than a straight call for higher mileage requirements.

3. The applause at the end of the speech was twice as loud and sustained as that in the other instance - and note, significantly, that Obama's voice in the video sounds much quieter at the end of the speech, raising the distinct possibility that our anonymous video-maker was playing with the volume in order to minimize the difference in the sound of applause between the two takes. That is, the actual difference was much greater.

So let me see: Prompted by a video created anonymously and apparently to raise precisely the "issue" you addressed, you have now spent two full posts first advancing and then defending the contention that Barack Obama may have to "retract" or "clarify" his reference to the Detroit speech - one which everyone agrees got a cool reception ("Newsweek"'s reporter said the audience was "stunned into silence") - even though the very worst that could be said is that he might have somewhat overstated just how cool the reception was.

What an astonishing waste of space.

Posted by: LarryE | May 16, 2008 3:51 PM

hey editor guy

where did you go ???

get tired of defending the indefensible ???

or did you decide to give barber college a try ???

Posted by: free patriot | May 16, 2008 3:52 PM

If Obama were testifying in court or his remarks were otherwise probative or even significant, there might be a beef here. But "nobody applauded" did not have to literally mean NOBODY. It seemed to me pretty clear that the response to his statement was tepid, as you'd expect from that audience.

This is another idiotic Weapon of Mass Distraction. The Post can do better, and damn well ought to.

Posted by: David Gans | May 16, 2008 3:52 PM

We have a disastrous five-year-plus war going on, an economy in the toilet, people losing their homes, a healthcare system in crisis - and THIS is what you're spending time on? Did I accidentally get redirected to TMZ when I tried to go to The Washington Post?

Posted by: Devin Rambo | May 16, 2008 3:53 PM

sorry David Gans

apparently the wapo CAN'T do any better than this

compare and contrast the sum total of the posts on this page

the wapo has a stenographer covering mccain and a twit covering Obama

by their fruits shall you know them

study the fruits of the wapo's labor

a hit trivial hit piece on Obama and an uncritical repetition of mccain's pie-in-the-sky plans for America's future

and apparently even the editor guy has given up defending this fiasco of a news organization

Posted by: free patriot | May 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Just like the last two presidential campaigns, the Washington Post acts as an attack dog against the Democratic candidate and a fluffer for the insane idiot running for the GOP. Liberal media, my foot. The WaPo and the NYT are GOP shills from the word go. There's a reason why Fox News likes to cite you and the Times, and it's not because you're correct---it's because you're 'right.'

Posted by: Aaaargh | May 16, 2008 5:04 PM

"Whether fair or not, Obama's critics will use this against him, both now and in the general election contest."

No politician is going to try to use this against Obama. Re-play again and again his blasting the automakers? Who sold us all these gas-sucking SUVs that you can't give away now? No campaign is going to use this footage.

End of story. Move on. You're a blogger/reporter and not a campaign strategist. This is why.

Posted by: Dean | May 16, 2008 5:45 PM

This is pathetic.

The Washington Post's view of the high calling of journalism, rooted in our First Amendment, is to cast the aspersion that Obama is a liar, "whether fair or not," if he does not clarify whether his statement "nobody clapped" was literal or figurative?

It's time for some new cuts in the newsroom, and this is why.

Posted by: M | May 16, 2008 5:53 PM

I'm thinkin the cuts in the newsroom already happened

least wise, somebody at the wapo stopped tryin to defend this fiasco

I'm surprised they ain't pulled the plug yet

hey, editor guy, you would tell us if your owner accidentally read this tripe and fired you already, wouldn't you ???

Posted by: free patriot | May 16, 2008 6:19 PM

If I was in the airport sitting next to you and saw you typing this dreck you would be getting a big fat slap upside the head, regardless of the legal consequences.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: cliff | May 16, 2008 6:28 PM

I don't know what's worse. The WaPo being this outrageously pathetic... Or we readers becoming used to seeing the WaPo being this outrageously pathetic. Ho hum another POS from the WaPo. Next.

Posted by: Ethan | May 16, 2008 6:56 PM

Dear WaPo Editors,

I have to agree that the original post and the defensive follow-up are both breathtaking in inanity, and pointlessness. What matter of substance important to the electorate has been addressed? And how could this conceivably be compared to Clinton's Tuzla flap? One is a story told a few times, the other is a story told many, many times. Neither story is of any use to anyone, and lack in relevance to anything. Taking the ABC News debate moderator's defense that "this will be brought up by his opponents" argument is astonishingly inept.

I am saddened to see our media institutions devolve into tabloids.

P.S. I agree with Cliff

Posted by: Jake Barlow | May 16, 2008 7:28 PM

This is why I don't read the Washington Post anymore. You claim that as a news organization you are analyzing this potential "issue" because it could become an issue. But it isn't one yet, so it's not news until it is. Unless you make it one. So now you're making news rather than reporting.

After readers call you on this, you then state that "it may not be fair, but the opposition might use it"

If you wanted to do a real service you would make a practice of calling drivel drivel. Stop the use of this crap by calling it what is is and discrediting its use. Do the job of filtering what's important and inform us when things aren't. The only story on this topic that would have been print-worthy would have been *if* an opponent had used this crap and your paper shot down the tactic. Want to regain readers? Get some journalistic integrity back and stop pandering to the fear-mongers.

Posted by: allison | May 16, 2008 9:05 PM

I stopped reading the Washington Post a few months ago because of your consistent focus on inanity, and checked back to see if, perhaps, you've hired any reporters who are interested in real issues that have resonance outside your self-inflated bubble of stupid.

Well, at least you're consistent. Maybe I'll check back next year.

Posted by: mateosf | May 16, 2008 9:16 PM

There is very little chance the McCain campaign would have used this against Obama if it didn't appear in The Washington Post. You underestimate your own role in the life cycle of triviality in our current political discourse. I suggest you take a hint from Jon Stewart's appearance on cross-fire:

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies.

You're part of their strategies.

Posted by: Red | May 16, 2008 10:23 PM

Let my add my voice to those calling both the original post and its defense a piece of moronic drivel.

There is no real issue there at all, as you seem to have conceded by the lame defense that "this is something the GOP may use".

What real journalists would do if they were aware of a set of facts that might form the basis of a mendacious political attack is wait for the attack to be made, and then report it and explain to their readers why the attack is unfair.

What you are doing with these posts is essentially perpetrating what you know is an unfair attack. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: Mark | May 16, 2008 10:38 PM

Sure wish you guys were as touchy about the lies that Bush told to get us into that damn war as you are about this little tempest.

Posted by: osteoclast | May 17, 2008 12:26 AM

Dear editors,
I think that what your audience is trying to to tell you, and this reflects a fondamental argument of one of the presidential candidate that his opponents cannot articulate nor grasp:the country is in deep trouble, and this particular political season is not one in which the public (or most of it) is in a mood for tit for tat or gotcha political game. The public seems to resent strongly the MSM continuing this game, whereas it seems that for eight long years it has forfeited its responsability of engaging seriously the most important political issues affecting the nation...etc.

Posted by: RK | May 17, 2008 1:43 AM

I do appreciate the attempt to address reader concerns. I think what the editors are missing is our frustration not at your curiosity whether or not Obama's attackers will use this trumped up controversy, but at the WaPo's willingness to prop it up so obediently. The "it's out there, so it's valid to discuss" argument is specious. Aren't editors the arbiters of the motives and merits of sources?

How did the possibility of applause come to your attention? A heads up email with YouTube from a GOP operative is my guess.

Netroots critics don't blame you for paying attention to campaign spin, we blame you for repeating it uncritically. The scrutiny of the claim acknowledged in this post should have come before the first stenographic one.

Posted by: soyinkafan | May 17, 2008 2:55 AM

The media continue to report the Bosnia story without checking the facts. The facts are here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/opinion/01muscatine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Please check them.

Posted by: Veronica in CA | May 17, 2008 4:28 AM

What's next, a frame-by-frame review the video of Obama's Detroit speech to "prove" there was a smattering of applause? How about hiring an audio expert to analyze the soundtrack to make sure the "applause" wasn't actually caused by a guman on the grassy knoll?

I mean, now that the Washington Post has latched on to this world-shaking, exclusive story, you can't just leave your readers dangling. The public has a right to know!

Posted by: Peter Principle | May 17, 2008 5:10 AM

I can't believe I just spent ten minutes reading about this absurd non-issue here. I am surprised that one of the silliest, most trivial discussions I have seen in this campaign originates at what is supposed to be a professional newspaper.

No wonder we're on the wrong track! How does this help?

Posted by: Mark In Ohio | May 17, 2008 7:07 AM

I actually enjoy watching the MSM bury themselves. Keep diggin, WaPo!

Posted by: Schmedlapp Under the Wire | May 17, 2008 3:55 PM

Wow. The election is really heating up now. But, you won't believe these poll results!

http://www.votenic.com

Posted by: iranes | May 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Maybe the Washingtonpost.com editors are all still flying somewhere. It's been days since that guy or gal took off.

Clearly they are too important (or smart) to keep defending this dog of a non-story.

Posted by: Rhino | May 21, 2008 5:20 AM

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive - and most likely to be decided by superdelegates - as CNN points out clearly

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

If you're tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too .... !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

Posted by: feeba | May 27, 2008 6:11 AM

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive - and most likely to be decided by superdelegates - as CNN points out clearly

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

If you're tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too .... !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

Posted by: feeba | May 27, 2008 6:13 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company