Obama Comments On Results At Jefferson Jackson Dinner In Richmond
EmailABC’s Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama celebrated his three state sweep Saturday night by telling Virginia voters at the state’s Jefferson Jackson dinner, “Today voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say ‘yes, we can.’ We won in Louisiana, we won in Nebraska, and we won Washington state, and we won north, we won south and we won in between and I believe that we can win in Virginia on Tuesday if you’re ready to stand for change.”
Obama largely avoided criticisms of his Democratic opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton –- who spoke on stage just a half an hour before him. He praised Clinton, saying she was his friend before and will be his friend after the election, and mentioned their differences on health care.
But Obama spent most of his speech criticizing John McCain –- making the case that the presumed Republican nominee has embraced the “failed politics of George Bush’s Washington.”
Obama said McCain “speaks of a hundred year war in Iraq and sees another on the horizon with Iran. He once opposed George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest few who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them. He said they were too expensive and unwise. That we should never cut taxes for the wealthy. And he was absolutely right then, but somewhere along the line, the wheels came off the Straight Talk Express because he now supports the very same tax cuts he voted against. This is what happens when you spend too long in Washington. Politicians end up not saying what they mean and they don’t mean what they say.”
Then Obama broke down the options for Virginia Democrats, between himself and Sen. Clinton to compete against John McCain. “This fall, we owe the American people a real choice. It’s a choice between debating John McCain about who has the most experience in Washington, or debating him about who’s most likely to change Washington. It’s a choice between debating John McCain about lobbying reform with a nominee who’s taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or doing it with a campaign that hasn’t taken a dime of their money because we’ve been funded by you, the American people.”
Obama argued that the last six polls have shown he’s a stronger candidate against McCain because he’s done better among Independents and can win in traditionally red states.
Upon leaving an audience member held a single sign in the lobby as voters were leaving, reading, “Obama can beat McCain. Think about November.”
Obama will be courting Virginia voters heavily in the days leading up to Tuesday’s primary. He heads to the three main regions of Virginia on Sunday: hitting northern Virginia in Alexandria, the eastern region in Virginia Beach and the western region in Roanoke.
USS Gabrielle Giffords Honors Courage 
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Gov. Gregoire endorsed Obama and on the caucus day went into a lot of closed caucuses to activate the troops. That seems inappropriate and unfair.
Posted by: Charles | February 10, 2008, 9:58 am 9:58 am
That is not a federal law. Each state has their own law about surrogates at voting places. Apparently the Governor of Washington would know her state’s laws.
You sound bitter Charles. Hillary had BOTH Washington St. senators backing her since October and still only got 30% of the vote.
Posted by: dionysus | February 10, 2008, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Counting chickens before they hatch.
Posted by: callenfallen | February 10, 2008, 10:19 am 10:19 am
did you cry and moan when chelsea did it in connecticut too, charles? and that did, indeed, was against state law, prompting the state to reiterate the laws in public.
kettle, meet pot.
Posted by: j | February 10, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
YES,WE AN. OBAMA is a real CANDIDATE who can easily beat McCain in the general election.It is time for every American to see that happen. WAKE UP TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA to get the nomination. It is not a fairy tale as former president Bill Clinton said. He is going to win this nomination and then proceed to the general election and become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Posted by: I.A.T Smith | February 10, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am
Obama basically claims to be “holy” in politics. This is unacceptable.
Posted by: PC | February 10, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
Hillary runs on compassion?? Excuse me? With all due respect, voting with Bush on Iraq, NAFTA, Iran, etc. and lying about it does not strike me as “compassion”. Show me where Senator Obama claims to be “holy”. The Clinton supporters are getting crazier by the day.
Posted by: TurtleWedge | February 10, 2008, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
Hillary and Obama are both great candidates. I am supporting Hillary because I believe that she has the know how to make the urgent changes we need immediately. She embodies change becomming the 1st woman US President and I stand behind her with passion. Obama’s campaign or “movement” as it is being called, is a little scary and has the masses following him without any real substance…..
Posted by: anna | February 10, 2008, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Only 35,000 voted in the State of Washington Caucus. Caucus votes are dominated by activists, and do not represent the party at large.
When you vote in a primary or other election, you simply go to the polling area designated in your precinct. When you vote in a caucus, your entire precinct must go to a large hall, where many precincts are gathered and await your turn to vote.
Caucusing takes several hours consisting of meetings with other pricinct members, informal votes, and appointing delegates, who then get to vote for a candidate.
In a caucus, those supporting specific candidates may gather in groups and try to persuade others to vote for their choice. In a polling place vote, gathering and persuasion are illegal under Federal law.
The time and devotion needed to participate in a caucus is why caucuses are dominated by party activists. Who else wants to, or can take that time out of their lives?
The states that Obama has won have been primarily caucus states. They are not representative of how the Democratic party at large.
In the November Presidential election, a Democrat could lose in every state that Obama has just won (indeed they usually do lose the states) and still win the Presidency. But, no Democrat can lose the states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and expect to win the Presidency.
If Obama can’t win the big states he needs to win in Nov, he has no shot at the Presidency. The Dem Party bosses and super delegates know this.
If Obama does not win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, expect the flood of super delegates to go to Clinton. The Party wants a win in Nov, and they will go to the convention with the candidate that can win those do or die states.
Posted by: John D | February 10, 2008, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
PC – ‘Obama basically claims to be “holy” in politics.’
Clinton tactic 12B.3a: mischaracterize opponents words and then argue against that as a strawman.
Posted by: Paul | February 10, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
John – ‘The states that Obama has won have been primarily caucus states. They are not representative of how the Democratic party at large.’
Interesting comment, considering Obama has won 18 of 28 states so far, with the 29th, New Mexico, still being counted.
Granted, Clinton has some favorable states coming up, and is hanging close in pledged delegates thus far, but the constant explaining away of an opponents successes sounds unsportsmanlike.
Posted by: Paul | February 10, 2008, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
I remember the Clintons well,thier involvement in the drugs for guns out of Mesa,Ark,drugs that wound up in the arms of young Americans,her dealings with Monsanto and genectic modified seed going clear back to the Rose Law firm and ongoing today,Bill lowering the standard on chicken processors for Tyson and it go’s on and on.They came out of Ark.as carpetbaggers and that ain’t changed.
Posted by: Robert | February 10, 2008, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
just because people are swarming t Obama, hasnt anything to do with being holy, or masses luv, it that people are finally seeing someone that dont come to the American people as the past politcians thats all…just see it for what it is he’s just different then what you are use to. It doesnt make him a bad person just someone wih a different delivery in his words.
Posted by: Just Sceptic | February 10, 2008, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
John D you’re funny as well…
they’re pushing to have the super delegates stay out of it and let them go to the wire for the sake of the American People.
Either one can win
Posted by: Just Sceptic | February 10, 2008, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
Obama´s absolute value: unity.
In the words of Karl Marx, the abolition of “divisions”?
Economic unity? Social unity? Abolition of economic divisions?
This sounds very familiar.
Posted by: Fernando | February 11, 2008, 12:25 am 12:25 am
I listened carefully to Obama and Clinton at the “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner”. Interesting that the woman who campaigned for Obama, raised money for him and advised him when he became a senator could be so gracious and the young man who took the favors from “the status quo” when it served him well could barely acknowledge her presence.
After all the “inspirational speeches” and crowds clamoring to touch the hem of Obama, I set aside my cynicism and really listened to this presumed crowned king. I thought he was going to get the job done. I thought he was going to lift me up and inspire me but alas, he failed.
I tried to suppress the images invoked with his praise of Jefferson, the slave owning, Sally Hemming disavowing “father” of my country, and the praise of Andrew Jackson, the slave owning .., after all it was the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. Hillary’s praise, if you noticed was to the women who fought for the vote for all women etc. and she included Obama. Back to Obama.
It was yet another bit of high carb rush and crash. Empty calories, no substance, no insight. He paints Hillary with the “status quo” brush constantly chants changing “the status quo”. The same “status quo” whose help and advice he accepted when it served him. The fact that Hillary can pull the knife out of her back and still be gracious is a “uniting factor”.
Obama tries to sell the bill of goods that he is the only instrument of change. Hillary is a change. Her presence is a change and she stands for issues when they matter. She is taking on MSNBC’s boys club after they crossed a line with Chelsea. Obama pouts about change but he doesn’t see the change right in front of him. His “Obama Girl” was and continues to be a misogynist usage of a woman. He made some weak comment about it. Well, Change Man, pick up the phone and change just that one thing. Tell them to take the vid off the airways that you don’t want to be associated with that kind of misogynist conduct. Hmmm….. Silence. Once again a woman serves his purpose and he takes the benefit.
A woman in the White House is a significant change. Obama is about Obama and the hope he hopes to bring to all of us hopeless people. At the end of the evening, he in fact inspired me to write this response and I hope Hillary wins.
Posted by: AmazonTraveler | February 11, 2008, 8:06 am 8:06 am
I see Obama as the most credible candidate, and I pray that he gets the nomination. Hillary, on the other hand, has the experience of being a senator and a former first lady for eight years. History is in the making: We will have either a first female or a first black president of the United States.
Posted by: wmd5 | February 11, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
Hillary and Obama are both great candidates. I am supporting Obama because I believe that he has the know how to make the urgent changes we need immediately. He embodies change becomming the 1st African American US President and I stand behind him with passion. Obama’s campaign or “movement” as it is being called has the masses following him because of real substance….. on reachable goals and more importantly on an ethical and responsive government that serves the people as intended.
Posted by: SE Croft | February 13, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
Hello!
I think this try.
Posted by: Floroskop | March 18, 2008, 7:00 am 7:00 am