Obama Goes Negative

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is an interesting development - before last night's voting, continuing in his speech last night and continuing today, Barack Obama seems to be in full bore negative campaigning mode:

Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

Whatever happened to the politics of hope?

Also, TPM reports:

In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.

In the parlance of Kevin Drum, this is hardball politics to say the least.

Update (TL): Comments now closed here.

< The Kennedys' Bad Night | Obama And Hillary's Strengths On Super Tuesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    The question is whether this will hurt Obama or if it will all be swept away and rationalized.  In the past, he's been able to get folks backing him to ignore his negative attacks and claim that they are, in fact, positive or that they are Clinton's fault.

    It does seem, however, that this undermines any claims of confidence that the Obama campaign was trying to send.  If they really thought last night was a big step for him towards the nomination, I don't think we'd be seeing this today.

    Even if Obama won more delegates (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    and states last night, he failed to bring home CA, the biggest news of the night.  Over hyped ahead of time by Obama campaign and media.  I think that's why he gave the speech he did last night and why he's saying what he is today.

    So when the media narrative changes (none / 0) (#36)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    after Saturday, and Obama is leading considering super delegates + regular delegates (thanks to his good showing on ST), will it even matter who took California?

    I think it will matter to the super delegates. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    Based on what? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    I mean, you're basically saying that the nominating process should just include NY and CA. Really the other states don't even matter.

    well, for example, whatever TV (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    station I was watching was talking about who, exactly, are the superdelegates we hear so much about.  They showed footage including Bill Clinton,Dianne Feinstein, lots of elected national Dems., state party heads, etc.  I think these people have a finger in the wind and will be looking to the GE.  

    The super delegates do have to consider their (none / 0) (#68)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    constituency when voting.  And let's not forget about Florida and Michigan.  We will need those states to win the general election.  I can't believe they would not get to seat their delegates.  That would totally destroy the general election.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#96)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    So by that logic all of the superdelegates from the 15 states Obama has won should be pulling for him right?

    Also, you can bet on it that the Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina delegates will be voting against seating MI and FL.


    and once again (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    Obama uses rightwing talking points to attack a Democratic opponent. This time - to destroy Hillary once and for all!  Then there will be no one to question his BS.

    Clinton needs to counter (none / 0) (#61)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    this. I don't think she can just sit back and hope the media swings to her side because Obama's gone negative.

    How though. I note BTD doesn't (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    give free advice to the Clinton campaign, just Obama's.

    fwiw.... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    It's an accurate statement...the Republicans certainly will unload a dump-truck full of dirt on Hillary.  What he fails to mention is that it won't be too hard for the Republicans to dig up a back-hoe full on him as well.

    Old Recycled Dirt (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    That will sully the Repubs. DIrt sticks when it is new. Oldstuff can be easily dusted off.

    Not all of it.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    she's been in the Senate for a few years now.  There's gotta be some new dirt there...is it even possible to serve in the Senate and not get dirty?

    Anything she may have done in the Senate (none / 0) (#127)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    Pales in comparison to what she was tarred with already.

    The Main Campaign IMO (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    Against HRC will be that she is not tough enough, she cries and we have a war on.

    The Republican's dirt from the last 8 years is still being mined, indictments, trials etc, and will be legendary, no comparison to whatever they throw at HRC.

    An easy comeback if you ask me would be for her to ask the American people if they could stomach another 4 years of Republican lies deception and corruption. Whoever runs as Republican owns the Bush legacy.


    I'm waiting for Wal-Mart.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    board room meeting minutes to be leaked....sun god knows what kinda dirt would be on there.

    Old Dirt is basically Mulch or Topsoil (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    Organically speaking, it serves a more positive role (protects grassroots, new growth) than a negative one in sullying the garden.

    People have heard old dirt before so it looks worse on who slings it. They sound desperate and lacking in ideas.

    The Obama campaign miscalculates here, sounding pissy and ungenerous for all that lofty talk about a change. A change of what? Socks and skivvies while the Repug mud machine takes out his opponent for him? Where's the new kind of politics there?

    His speech last night was cobbled-together ideas from MLK and Gandhi, except those fine men LED their supporters into the fray. As time goes on, Obama seems to hide behind his support and it  makes him look like he's trying to avoid getting dirt on his image. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt for not being personally responsible for this miscalculation . Even if his handlers are responsible, if he doesn't believe what he's speaking about 100% it won't play right and that will leech energy from idealism of O=mentum.


    Dump truck (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    It will take a dump truck to hurt her, but it will take a good look at him to burst the aura.

    They won't find anything (none / 0) (#149)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    on Obama, though, because he is too pure to attack. That little Rezko problem will be ignored, I'm sure.

    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:54 PM EST
    Obama's harsh anti-Clinton rhetoric in his speech last night, and apparently continuing today, is not the tone of a man who thinks he will sweep through the February states and coast to victory.

    Great Minds (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    We posted almost the exact same thought at the exact same time.  Heh.

    I will further add that, while the Republicans will no doubt dump a mountain of dirt on Clinton that it will mostly be old dirt.  Sure, there may be a few new things among her contributors or whatever, but most of the Clinton stuff has been gone over a million times.

    Plus, it appears that an awful lot of folks don't actually listen to anything the media says about the Clintons.  If they did, Obama would've crushed Hillary yesterday.


    Immune to the Media (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Worht keeping an eye on.

    Frustration (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    I think what we're seeing from the Obamas is the same kind of frustration we've seen from Bill Clinton from time to time.  The Clintons have been frustrated by what they see as the media's full pass to Obama and it's double standard.  So they go off on the fairy tale and other things from time to time.

    After last night, the Obama campaign must be frustrated that no matter what the media says or does, Clinton is still there.  The past two weeks didn't change Massachusetts or California or other big states.  At least one campaign person had previously expressed frustration to Marc Ambinder that the press wasn't covering enough of Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life.  As bad as the press has been towards Hillary, they haven't really dug up much new stuff.  I suspect the dump truck reference is designed to try to get the press to look at Clinton harder or at least blow up what they do find more.  

    FWIW, I don't think there's much more out there on Hillary Clinton or even Bill Clinton.  If there was, the Obama campaign would've found it and successfully pushed it by now, like they did with Hsu.  Just like I don't think there's any killer piece of oppo on Obama, although he can't be happy that Rezko's trial starts a couple of weeks before March.  Not because Obama is corrupt, but because - if nothing else - Rezko makes Obama look an awful lot like just another politician.


    Shorter Version (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    The Clintons are frustrated by Obama's media darling status.  The Obamas are frustrated by Clinton's press immunity.  

    In the end, the press stuff might be a draw, except a draw for Obama is not good enough.


    Not so sure there isn't something on BO. Maybe (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    HRC is holding something in the bag, not wanting to use it unless she absolutely has to.  She knows she will get creamed for "going negative" but it could be worth it if the dirt is stinky enough.  You just never know.....  

    I think he is aware (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    that he needs to expand his coalition.

    So it's possible for the Kumbaya (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    candidate to just come out swinging in midrace and still be the candidate of profound change.........warm fuzzy feelings, hope, forgiveness, and fighting ;)?  I just don't get it! And you did dog Edwards for his negative campaigning.

    You Forgot One (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    He is a new kind of politician (i.e. above the fray of slinging mud).

    Hispanics (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    At the Clinton office yesterday the reaction of some of her hispanic volunteers to Obama was interesting.  They were completely unimpressed with him on drivers' licenses and other matters because they didn't believe him.  They saw him as trying to pander to get the hispanic vote now because he realized he needed it to win California.  Whereas they saw  Clinton as someone they knew who had a long history of caring about hispanic voters.  

    This mirrored something I heard Dolores Huerta say in an interview on NPR about why Obama wouldn't be able to win hispanics in California - he started too late (the same thing appears to have happened in Nevada).  She saw his use of "Si se puede" as an attempt at shorthand to create the illusion of a relationship that wasn't there.  I think you could say the same thing about his endorsements - he was trying to rely on Ted Kennedy because he didn't have time left to build his own relationship. Interestingly, at Clinton's rally here, it was the audience that yelled "Yes we can" back to her.

    Of course anecdotal evidence isn't dispositive of anything, but there is something that keeps hispanics with Clinton and I don't think race is the answer.  There seems to be genuine enthusiasm for her in the hispanic community as opposed to hostility for Obama.

    Texas should be very interesting since Clinton worked in the state for McGovern in 1972, including making a push to register hispanic voters.    


    You nailed it! (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    Hillary has been a friend to the Latino community for many years.
    She started her career working for migrant workers and children.

    Race is not an issue, the issues are the issue.


    The best defense is a good... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    Remember the tactic, use your greatest weakness as an offensive attack, Politics as Usual Pay Go, goes on trial at the end of this month in Il and it will be obvious that Obama Changed Nothing that the rough and tumble politics in his home State was and is very much the politics as usual scenarios he supposedly will change with hugs.  Obama own Political Patron has been indicted for allegedly arranging contributions in the form of illegal kick backs and Obama has not denied his is the unnamed Pol in the indictment who was a recipient albeit unknowingly for now.  So how many years dose it take Obamas message of HOPE to have an impact and Change Politics as Usual or a culture of special intrest?  The mansion purchase I believe should be reviewed by the Senate Ethics committee I unlike many of you am not ok with just his I was boneheaded my State has been mightily hurt by these unethical political schemes and we have had several convictions once past the original denials of any wrongdoing.

    And by the way don't fall for this every time the next day after Clinton Wins and she did, Obama Campaign comes out and poops on Bill Clinton the white man is being mean to the black man puppet string yank MSNBC Tweety talking point and then folks stop discussing Hillary's strengths and victories.


    goes negative, what are you talking about.. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    He's BEEN negative since NV when he started calling Clintons liars on GMA and just went on. Not to mention Michelle, it just goes unreported by the MSM. He loooves his little mailers.
       Sorry I'm usually positive but the media bias is really getting to me.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    More OVERTLY negative.

    I'm going to stop feeding you (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    this info if you are going to laud his tactics!

    I certainly don't think Clinton's campaign has unloaded on him to any great extent.  


    It has backfired on the Clintons (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    The MEdia Darling thing.

    See? One of the mkain reason I support him.


    So true. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    All my friends from last night's gathering voted for Obama and most made up their minds quite recently.  Although they don't seem to "hate" Hillary, one of the reasons they all voted for Obama is their awareness of Hillary  hate in the GE.  Also heard some of the dynasty stuff. Oh, and change and hope.  He's doing a great job and I can't figure out for the life of me just who these women voters are who are voting for Hillary Clinton.  Not in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

    Who are the women? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    obviously those who do not move in the same circles as you and your friends probably because they are barely making a living; busy tending to their families; earning enough to pay for their mortgage and worried if anyone in her family should get sick because they do not have sufficient insurance and the rising cost of everything while their incomes are static and probably fear the loss of their jobs.  They cannot afford family vacations, That's who.

    You've got all that right except (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    Clinton is supposed to pull in "older" women without respect to their economic circumstances.  My friends and I clearly fit in that demographic but most of them voted for Obama.  

    They bought it (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    They bought a number of things: Hillary has negatives and Obama can win. It has been repeated so much that people buy this opinion as fact. This is where the Obama campaign has been effective, creating a massive buzz of momentum.

    You are so right, as in correct. (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    One of the Obama voters spoke with great ire about the NYT article on Obama's bill to require reporting of any nuclear plant spill/leak.  The bill that passed only required vol., not mand. reporting.  But Obama is touting that his bill passed.  But still a vote for Obama because he can win the GE.  Amazing.

    Fear card (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    See, lots of people walked in thinking: the positions are similar, people like him, don't want to risk it, and I want to keep all the newbies. The only problem is they are voting based on an artificial fear that was created. I believe in voting in what you believe, not on some fabricated future blackmail theory. People get afraid and vote for Obama, this is the momentum from the base. Not based on reality.

    fear? (none / 0) (#123)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    What fear is Barack Obama running on?

    Voting (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    If we don't vote for him, Dems will lose.  This is fear card.

    If you say so... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    ... but then by your logic Hillary is running on fear also.

    One of Hillary's strongest campaign strategies is that she will be "read on day one," with the clear implication that Obama is not going to be ready.  

    That, in my opinion, is more fear mongering than saying than Obama saying that he is the better candidate to take on McCain.


    oh geez, (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    and "he isnt tough enough to win" is not appealing to fear?

    NO, it's the truth (none / 0) (#185)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    We don't think he is tough enough. Fear card is, if you don't vote for us, our imaginary friends, the indies, will not vote and the Dems will lose the election. That is fear, this is based on some pundit and poll, and we know how much they know.

    Worse than that. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    The bill didn't even pass.

    Either Obama was flatly lying or forgot that the bill never passed.

    I'm not sure Hillary will run ads accusing Obama of lying. The Republicans won't hesitate.


    She can't run ads like that or she'll (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    be accused of saying Edwards killed that young woman whose insurer refused to pay for a transplant.

    Who are these women (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by Grandmother on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    They are women like myself - old by the standards of many Obama supporters.  I am 60 years old, started college at age 35 after raising a daughter, went to law school and started practicing at the age of 42. My closests friends are women whose career/life path is similar to mine. We are all successful and part of that "liberal, white, affluent" crowd that is supposed to go to Obama. Well we don't and we are proud of it.

    My husband who is an attorney for a major corporation (corporation I know is a dirty word to many bloggers)is also a Hillary supporter.

    Here's the difference as I see between we HRC affluents and the Obama affluents - we HRC supporters all know what it is like to be down and out.  As a single mom I didn't have time to worry about the finer points of political elections. I came from a union  home and my dad preached the FDR story to me. I knew real Democrats would stand up for me even if I didn't have the time, energy or resources to make my voice heard.

    Hillary Clinton speaks for us and to us.  If anyone says that she is short on specifics hasn't listened to hear speak.  Debates do a piss poor job of getting policy points across.  I guess it's just easier to say hope and change and I'm the best since sliced bread.  Well give me butter with my bread Mr. Obama.  I don't think you can do it.

    I cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972. I'm one of those baby boomers that Obama has discarded as being stuck in the past. Well sorry buddy but we are still breathing and voting and this election I will make my voice heard.  This election I can give money to my candidate.  This election I can take time to write, call and blog.

    But this is no longer about me.  My husband and I will be fine no matter who or what gets in the White House.  This is about my daughter, my son-in-law and my grandchildren.  This  is for their future not mine. That is why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    You said it so much better than I did.

    Thank you and (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    you go girl!

    Not the women I know (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    Most of them over about 45 are for Hillary. I just had a conversation with one who is generally not political. She thought Obama was just "too green". She also said he seemed like a lot of younger men who are just a little too cocky and need to be knocked down a peg or two. She said she thought he would be fine in a few years after he got more experince and humility.

    Who are the women (part 2) (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    Older women who've been in the work force for a while, some of us with careers and professional degrees, some not, who see in Hillary a woman whose achievements are recognizable to us.  Women whose reaction to "Hillary hatred" isn't to be afraid that somehow Hillary's cooties are going to wear off on us, because we're quite aware that any woman in Hillary's position would be getting the same s*t.  Because we've all seen the same s*t, albeit on a less public level, get shoveled at ourselves and at other women.

    This is not to say that we don't think Hillary can be criticized -- of course she can.  But this business about voting for Obama because "other people" hate Hillary is horsecrap, and it's familiar horsecrap at that.


    I second this emotion, PLUS (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    Women (like me) who see the non-stop beating Clinton is taking in the media and who are damn sick of it.
    Yes, Clinton is still there, and I find it remarkable.  Still there, after abuse that would take many men out of the running.

    Wasn't it little Billy Krystol who said just the other day that "white women are a problem"?
    You bet your ass we are.


    heh (none / 0) (#129)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    as the kids would say, true dat.

    just because the media likes him is no (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    reason to support him. next year they'll probably won't like him anymore. so what do you have? the answer is nothing.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    It is a reason to support him if you see absolutely no other differences between the candidates the way BTD does.

    But I think you may be right that HRC's negatives with the media isn't so bad, because the media will likely side with the Republican candidate in November anyway, and of the two HRC is the one with proven media survival skills.

    Arguably Obama's success is due in large part to the media wind currently beneath his wings. If it's not there in November (and I don't think it will be) it seems that he will be hurt more by its disappearance than Clinton could be because she's made it this far without it.

    I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems likely to me. Only time will tell, however.


    well the media has thrown just about all (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    they have in support of obama. they are at the point at looking like a comedy skit on comedy central. what is left? the answer not much. even a balloon loses its hot air.

    The media makes me laugh (none / 0) (#142)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    Look, I worked at CNN for ten years.  Big wow.
    Let me put it this way.  Bet you've heard William Goldman, Oscar-winning screenwriter, say this:
    "Nobody knows anything."
    I'll apply that to our media pundits.  They've never had to deal with the situation they're dealing with now, but in my opinion, sexism trumps racism.
    I'm saying they can deal with a man, but not with a woman.
    They can't deal with Hillary, and they don't like her.  Did you catch Matthew's non-apology apology to Hillary?  What a joke.
    If Obama gets the nom, and we have two candidates the media loves, I don't know what will happen.

    my belief is they won't like obama very long (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    if he were to get the nod.

    Especially if the Republican (none / 0) (#155)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    nominee is McCain. They drool over him. And the Swiftboat crowd will be giving them plenty of juicy things to use against Obama, true or not.

    Very little difference (none / 0) (#35)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    in China state TV and Obama state TV.

    ummm.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    ... what?

    Seriously... what are you talking about?


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    Takes my vote for granted.

    Really... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by magisterludi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
     I supported BHO when he first announced. I thought he could be a wonderful president, but... the more I read of his policies and listened to all the GOP paeans to bi-partisanship I began to lose faith.
    BTW- my very republican mother and all her friends in the retired officer community are voting for Hillary over McCain. It's all about the economy and healthcare for them. They think BHO lacks experience and depth.

    That's what he says (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    He just assumes that all Clinton supporters will support Obama in the General Election.

    I interpret that to mean that because I am a Clinton supporter, then he feels he doesn't need to do anything at all to earn my vote.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#165)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    And both Obama and Michelle say his people may not vote for Hillary, but Hillary supporters, will, of course, come to Obama.

    I've always said I will support the Democratic nominee, but Obama is getting on my last nerve.
    I learned that expression here in Atlanta. ;)


    He seems to be going (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    to an "electability" argument in general these last few days, and getting more aggressive about it. IMO it's a mistake, honestly. But we'll see.

    Hillary won the PR game in WA state (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    Seattle Times this morning stated that

    Hillary won the big states.  Obama won more of the small states.

    It also showed Hillary ahead by 100 in delegates.  (I know this isn't true anymore, but it's evidence of winning the PR game).

    I think Obama sides with BTD about his "mo" or lack thereof.

    Survey USA has Obama up +12 in WA (1/30) (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST
    I don't think a (one day) lead story from Seattle Times is going to shift 12% of the vote in three days.

    andrew, just what are you thinking? (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    geez, i wish my boss was as easily snookered.

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    1. Demographics favor Obama - high number of "wine-track" voters (even though I don't really like this term, but there it is)

    2. Caucus states favor Obama - pretty obviously true.

    3. Polls favor Obama - 12% by Survey USA, the group that basically nailed ST.

    I don't really like the implication that I'm easily snookered (yay ad hominem attacks), I think this is a fairly reasonable estimate here.

    IT would be shocking if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    did not win Washington.

    Talk about latte-drinking wine-trackers. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    andrew, i don't agree. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    i refer to ohio, pa, and texas. hillary is ahead. texas alone has over 200 delegates. i also would be surprised if washington did not go to obama.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#132)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    I thought this entire thread was about WA.

    this whole thread is about obama going (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST

    No... (none / 0) (#176)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    ... he is talking about this specific comment thread, and he is right.

    Andrew was talking about Washington, and you added in TX, OH, and PA as if they were relevant to the discussion at hand.


    snookered? (none / 0) (#110)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Snookered about what?

    That Obama has a very healthy lead in Washington, and that it is doubtful that a front page story about Hillary winning big states and Obama winning small states will shift that lead?

    That is not being snookered... that is being honest with the facts.


    This is very good with the WA caucus coming (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    so soon.  So is it a "real caucus" or another of those faux, limited-hours primaries?  (I like those even less, as they seem even worse with limiting access, creating long lines yesterday at some places and essentially voter suppression as so many went home, etc.)

    It's a regular caucus (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST

    WA demographics are favorable for Obama (wine-track, if you like). That, plus the caucus I think seals the deal for him there.


    And if ever there was a "latte" state (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    Washington is it, at least with all those Seattle coffee-drinkers!  (Love the state, btw; my mother was from there, still a lot of relatives there.)

    One day story (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    Of Hillary not collapsing under the weight.

    Hmmm, she's even starting to look like a frontrunner again.  People love to vote for Winner! hence the reason for the late lying Zogby poll showing an Obama win in CA.

    Hop on the bandwagon, join the fun! It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true.


    There is something lightly facist about (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    the Obama campaign.  He failed to bring home any big state but his own.  He lost MA, NJ and CA by large margins.  And, yet, the media goes and glorifies him again.  He uses crowds as a campaign tactic.  It's honestly bizarre.  I notice he loves to stop speaking and really soak up long spells of applause.  It creeps me out.

    Almost like a hypnosis technique? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    Just clap more and louder.

    Frankly (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    This is the biggest fear I have. All that love and faith into the one and true one. If he wins they will have to preserve that love at any cost. The followers will be so vested spiritually and emotionally that they will be a dangerous force. My gut tells me this is not good. He took advantage of the wanting change from the Republicans feeling to making change: HIM. So, whatever he does or does not do, as we see with the spinning, will be defined by change because it's HIM. I want to see DKOS et. al ever criticize HIM.

    Funny you should say that.. (none / 0) (#50)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    Please note that I'm not invoking Godwin's law here, i.e. I am not in any way saying that Obama is a fascist.

    However, having said that, the concept of an "inspirational leader" who gives big inspirational speeches creeps me out. I am European, and was always told that, with WWII fresh in our memory, that one should always be very skeptical about people idolizing any leader or "inspirational figure".

    Therefore the Obama movement creeps me out. Again, I am not comparing him to a Nazi. If he's the nominee, he deserves everyone's support, to get a Democrat in the White House. However, the whole principle of an inspirational leader goes against everything I was taught.

    I don't want an inspirational leader. I want someone who will get the job done, and in that department Obama has failed to convince me. He might be able to convince me by building a good Senate record, but until then, spare me the grandiose speeches. I am very suspicious of someone who sounds like he's declaring victory in WWII when he's simply won a primary election.


    step back from the edge (none / 0) (#59)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    its called effective public speaking.

    If you find yourself starting to go down the "my opponent is a fascist" route, even if just lightly, then its time to realize that you are losing all perspective.

    We dont need this.


    effective public snookering i think! (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    The press (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sas on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    The punditocracy is beside themselves over Hillary's performance in the big states, especially California.

    The NBC coverage people in particular were absolutely deflated when California was called minutes after the polls there closed.  It was palpable.

    The rest of the pundits are so in loooooooooooovvvvvvveeeeeeeee with Barack it's insulting.  Yet, Hillary marches on.

    I love what someone wrote earlier that she is the press anti-toxin.  No matter what they say, or how many times they say it, it just bounces off.


    OIut of context and overblown (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by bob5540 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    I think the reporter took it out of context, and you are making a mountain over a molehill. Here is more of the quote:

    "And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

    This was in response to Hillary saying she would not allow herself to be victimized by Swift Boat attacks.

    He is saying that, whoever has the nomination, the Republicans will attack full-bore. He's being realistic and adult about it. Fact is, there's nothing she can do to stop the Swift-boating.

    He then uses her as an example - since she was the one who opened the door. I don't see a big deal here. In fact, I think she IS the one who the Republicans have the most oppo-ammo stockpiled against - but it doesn't really matter. She is foolish to think she can declare herself immune.

    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    I approve of it. Did not think I was making a mountain out of it.

    Do you also applaud Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    Link? (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    To a definition of "tepid supporter"?  I'm not sure we're using the same dictionary!

    Why? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    When have you seen me pbject to negative campaigning?

    I am GLAD he is getting tough. Now to go after some Republicans.


    He Can't Go After Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    They're part of his base.  ;-)

    He'll have to (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    And let me be clear, I see this as GOOD in Obama.

    We need to get him out of this "above it all" bubble his adulators have placed him in.

    He has to fight for this.


    Not just his adulators have placed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    him in that bubble.  He was still in it last night.  

    Let him finally fight Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    He'll lose ;)  Her night before Super Tuesday townhall meeting made that obvious.  Obama can deliver a good sermon but speak decisively about the facts....all the facts....and what needs to really happen without playing the politics of sound bites.  Good luck Obama cuz you are going to need it!

    That seemed quite obvious to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    in listening to their respective speeches last night.  I recall Hillary Clinton talking about her commitment to universal health care coverage and Obama saying maybe affordable health care coverage is somthing my presidency may accomplish.  

    Fair fight . . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    she has to be allowed to fight back. If he pulls the race card (again), then its over.

    Going After Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    Is risky for him.  It could help him with Democrats.  OTOH, with McCain looking safe, he probably wants to try to pull as many independents and Republicans into the open primaries as possible.  His strategy has been consistent - run a campaign geared towards indys and crossover Republicans.  I think it's really hard for him to change that now.  Not impossible, but hard.  And it opens him up to charges that he's "just another D.C. politician."

    obama has nothing to fight with as he has (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    no real policies that make sense. he doesn't have the stomach for a good fight. he likes to sting like a bee and then fly. soon after, i didn't mean exactly that is his mantra.

    Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee (none / 0) (#125)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    That was the strategy of a champion, I might remind you!

    Obama as Ali? Hillary as George Foreman?


    Mama said knock you OUT (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    Hillary is more like Rocky Marciano, a fighter than a boxer. Doesn't stay down, just keeps getting the hell up again. Obama's mostly rope a dope so far and while he's landed a few good punches, will need something way more potent to knock HRC down (never mind knock her out.)

    Posted with assistance from Ferdie "The Fight Doctor" Pacheco. Additional dialogue by William Shakespeare.


    no, the champ is the champ and (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    obama in my opinion is a wanna be champ. won't happen. one was a real fighter, and the other isn't.

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    I took your statement "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" to indicate that you thought he was a bit of a phony.

    It isn't clear, by the way, from the post that you actually support his new, tougher persona.  Comments about negative campaigning are almost always critical, after all.

    And you have to admit, for a supporter, you spend an awful lot of time on his flaws and inconsistencies.  I understand where you're coming from (believe me!) but I definitely think, reading you, that most people would be inclined to say "With tepid supporters like this. . ."


    I was HOPING it was phony (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    At this point (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    I stopped worrying what people think of who they think I support.

    I have been writing about Obama for years now and with the same basic problems.

    It is not that I am enthused about Obama, I am not, it is that he represents our best chance to win in November.

    But I do not support pols per se. I support issues and argue for ways to forward our issues. OR at least mine.

    Obama is almost exactly where I am on virtually every issue (I do not have a view in health care, do not know enough about it.)

    Obama is the Media darling. He has the best chance to win.

    OF course I support him but I do not have to love him or not criticize him to support him.

    Heck, you think there is not enough Obama adulation out there? Do I need to join THAT chorus? I think not.  



    Strange world (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    When did it become unfashionable or questionable to ask questions about politicians even the ones you support? I know I am partisan. I admire someone who can support someone and also find criticism. This is why the other Blogs have lost credibility. How can we trust their analysis or judgement on other issues?

    BTD move on over (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    to the Hillary side.  She wins TN, OK, and AR in the GE and takes the White House.  She also wins the expectation game as once she's in the WH she puts together policy that positively impacts peoples lives.  Once people realize she's no demon, we win!  

    To split hairs. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    I'd say that you prefer Obama rather than support him -- since support implies certain positive actions (such as not pointing out his weak points in public).

    I have no problem whatsoever with your position.  I have preferences among political candidates, but even at the relative height of my infatuation (Oh, Howard) I preferred to have a clear-eyed view of his strengths and weaknesses, and of the realities of the political process.

    I voted yesterday, but I'd have to say that I support both Clinton and Obama to the same degree, notwithstanding that I think one or the other might make a better candidate or a better President (not necessarily the same person in both instances).


    You can support someone (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    without wearning jackboots.  He doesn't have to agree with the guy all the time.

    No but (none / 0) (#106)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    Many people know where LarryinNYC is coming from. At times BTD's "tepid support" of Obama seems more like Bill O'Reilly's insistence that he's an independent. When you continually flay one candidate while by and large ignoring similar behavior by the other it's no longer "support". As BTD points out, for the most part rightfully so, Clinton gets a rougher ride from the media than Obama. But it appears BTD goes out of his way to repudiate Obama in some odd attempt to balance the scales. It may just be holding Obama to a much higher standard, but BTD posts are repeatedly jaundiced, pessimistic, or downright dismissive towards Obama. They stand in stark contrast with the much softer approach he often takes with Hillary. It's very similar to how Fox News and Bill O'Reilly address Democrats and Republicans.

    Sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    It is incredible the things Obama supporters will say about me.

    Do you NOT see how offensive your comment is?


    not saying you're one of them (none / 0) (#144)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    Sorry, by no means do I think you're personally like those jokers BOR or Fox News. All I was saying is that a case could be made that your posts resemble the tactics used by them.

    Again, maybe you hold Obama up to a higher standard than you do Hillary. But if your posts were to be in that Harvard group media study how many do you think they would classify as negative vs positive for Obama and negative vs positive for Clinton?


    I have articulated my problem with Obama (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    I have spoken of my problems with Hillary and her campaign.

    But MOSTLY I have critiqued the Media and the blogs for their atrocious behavior.

    I am sorry that you see that as a problem.

    It is not going to end.


    Obviously You Are (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    Blinded by your partisanship.  BTD is looking at the long term and for the generall health and well being of the Democratic party. He has been calling it as he sees it and not through the warm fuzzy haze of Obamania or Clintionitis.  

    Given how close HRC and OHB are on policy there is little difference in who wins. Neither seem great to me.  BTD had pointed out that OHB has a better chance of strengthening the Democratic party because he will bring in a favorable press, something HRC will never have.

    Better press means more democrats, means more seats in congress. I believe Kennedy us also looking long term. He sees OHB as also good for the Dems because he will bring in more first time voters especially young ones.

    I voted for HRC but was almost swayed by BTD to pulling the lever for OHB. The Obamaniacs and Clintonistas have on the other hand done nothing to win me over. Both have made me want to run in the opposite direction because they act that their pick is the messiah.


    You cannot know (none / 0) (#89)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    that Obama has the best chance in November. In fact I think you are wrong. Its true I am biased in favor of Clinton, but I think she has a better shot because there is so much dirt that can be thrown at Obama. He has even been tested yet. I think his primary tactic, pulling the race card, would backfire against the Republicans.

    pulling... (none / 0) (#109)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    ... the race card is his primary tactic?


    I don't know what campaign you are watching.


    agreed (none / 0) (#119)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    Anybody who thinks conservatives would appreciate a 'you're treating me different therefore you're racist' approach in any candidate is not just drinking but SMOKING Koolaid.

    He takes a risk by going negative (none / 0) (#167)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    because so many people who support him do so because of his promise to change the tone of politics. If he then behaves like other politics, it will look like the same old politics they hate. Of course that assumes the media bothers to tell them about it.

    I am really surprised that you have no opinion on health care. That is one of the most important domestic issues. Not only are a lot of lives being ruined our out-of-control costs are already dragging down our ecomony and will get much worse as baby boomers get older. This needs to get fixed ASAP. I urge everyone to get informed about this issue.

    I have a big problem with Obama starting out already having conceded mandates. This is necessary to bring young, healthy people into the system, keeping overall costs down. Insurance companies are much more likely to be on board if this is a part of the package.


    I don't believe you (none / 0) (#174)
    by diplomatic on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    BTD, please don't treat your readers like they're idiots.

    You know Obama is not the best chance we have in November because of his failure to get much of the Latino vote.  Hillary Clinton will absolutely OWN this demographic in the general election and that alone could be worth 5%+ of the total returns across the nation vs McCain.


    and let me add: (none / 0) (#175)
    by diplomatic on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    Someone might already be thinking: "oh yea, but Obama will get the Hispanic vote in the general election vs the Republican"

    Maybe... but if it's against McCain I personally know several Hispanic friends/family who would pick McCain in that scenario.

    But if it's Hillary vs McCain it's no question Hillary Clinton.


    In SC (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    In SC Obama in one event kept talking about the Okie Doke that they (not specified) they give you. Okie Doke means: Believing a lie;falling for a scam;a con-game;untruths;fraud. He gave this talk a number of times to AA audiences. He was obviously talking about the Clintons. I found it intentional smearing with a nudge and a wink. I attribute negative motive in that and other speeches he has give to AA audiences to purposefully diminish the Clinton reputation. If he loses he has caused damage to the Clintons that he cannot take back.

    That's very interesting (none / 0) (#76)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    and somehow, I'm not surprised.  I too am worried about the effect that his sneaky divisiveness (I still maintain that his campaign was the first to play the race card) will cost Hillary if she is the nominee.  

    Did you see the Obama campaign's (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    "glass ceiling" comment from yesterday?  

    Oops. As pointed out to me on another (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    thread, the quote was "ceiling."  No "glass."

    Indeed I did (none / 0) (#101)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    and I did not appreciate it.  

    His behavior is not that of a front-runner, much less a hope, change and unity candidate.  

    If he continues in this vein, it might actually be rather entertaining (except that the MSM will continue to give him a free pass).


    I'm trying to write the ad for McCain (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    to use in the GE.  

    You funny! (none / 0) (#131)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Hillary can only be positive (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Her campaign has take the only positive position. Any attack and the whining and racism complaints start.

    poor poor Hillary (none / 0) (#42)
    by tjproudamerican on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    This always happens when a candidate like Hilary Clinton comes from nowhere, with only her pluck and anti-establishment credentials.

    Let us hope the American People seee how unencumbered Hillary is. No wonder the establishment fears her and her advisors are all unknown new-comers, hoping to make a difference.

    I cannot imagine a single criticism the Republicans can have of Hillary. I wonder how Americans could forget that her husband was also once the president and set a new era of truthfulness in motion.

    Obama Bad! Hillary Good!

    But then, the establishment always loves the antiDeath Penalty Black male candidates.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    Nice to see that you are bringing us your whooly unbiased view of the matter.

    IT's true. The MEdia Loves the Clintons! How could I have missed it?


    Death penalty? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    Are you sure he opposes it?

    I think he supported the Gov. Ryan's (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    position to suspend the death penalty in IL based on the Innocence Project findings.

    Death Penalty (none / 0) (#87)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    The death penalty is another one of those issues where Obama tries to have it both ways.  He doesn't think the death penalty deters crime, but he supports it, but only in the most heinous cases where the community is justifiably outraged (what crime would be sufficient to trigger that standard is, of course, unclear).  And with that everyone can once again play What Obama Really Meant.  

    Progressive (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Another Progressive stance.

    And... (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM EST
    what's Clinton's stance? I suppose she's more progressive right? Or is the point that she never changes positions (I guess she never changes positions from the most centrist ones).

    Probably not (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    She is what she is. I am sure she is pro-death penalty, I am totally against it. But I thought the "bold" big voice, would have taken a "bold stance". Get all those inspired ones to join him. Don't know, I somehow progressives should stand for something.

    I understand (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    if you're not sold on the rhetoric, but he's at least marginally more progressive on the issue she is - I don't see why you can fault him for it, or find that as an excuse to back her.

    I.e. He's not as progressive as he should be so I'm backing the more centrist candidate?


    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    He is not marginally more progressive. I want health mandates. You don't get it, I agree with Krugman. I don't buy his progressive mambo or his questionable community organizer persona. He sold out the community to defend his friend Rezko, blamed the housing going to default on "neighborhood demographics". It's a story that was created by Axelrod. He will sell out in an instant and you will all defend him. If Hillary tries, easier to hold her feet over the fire. You truly don't know what progressive is in my book. He never took a stand on anything, to me he is a coward who would not even take a picture with the Mayor of SF. He is no where near a progressive, he is a centrist appeaser.

    progressive? (none / 0) (#118)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    Seriously... why do you attack Obama for not being progressive enough on this issue, even though he has to the left of Clinton on the death penalty?

    as an... (none / 0) (#116)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    ... ardent opponent of the death penalty and a supporter of Barack Obama, I can tell you that he is not opposed to the death penalty.  

    Or, at least, he is not willing to overturn any death penalty laws and says that there is a need for capital punishment.


    What Obama needs (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    to do is stop being a one trick pony (I was against the war) because it is tired. I think at this point the majority of americans think getting there was not a great idea (despite the overwhelming sentiment at the beginning of the war.) It doesn't work to say "i was against the war" because a majority of americans supported it at the beginning and his "prescience" of failure for the war only makes the voters who supported it (there were plenty on the left and middle supporting it) makes them feel like he is one upping them as opposed to Hillary.

    He needs to sell his vision.  Negative is lazy and you can only go so far with the younger vote.  Give us the vision.  Tell us how, specifically please, you intend to make America great again.  It is silly to me to hear a politician say they can make us great again without an explanation of why we are not great and how they intend to make us great.

    He is pulling great numbers without a grand plan stump speech.  I wish i could hear more of that.

    Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    keeps saying, "Hillary broke it" but offers nothing in the way to fix it?

    Well ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    I don't know about the former claim but the latter charge seems negative but perhaps honest or at least with an honest core.

    Its negative to point out (none / 0) (#53)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    that the Clintons were bad for the party (true fact), and that Obama can rebuild a sustainable governing majority?

    But its not negative to claim that Obama is a Reaganite, or sides with Republicans on health care, or is not tough enough to defeat the Republicans?

    Having a candidate who can grow our party into a sustaining majority is absolutely a core expression of hope. What are you hoping for?

    The formerly silent majority (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    And attendance at a speaking event is a good thing, but the person expanding the Party is also Hillary ahhhh notice she has the higher number of people in the booths pulling those levers, she is bringing back Catholic and Single women at record numbers and welcoming and respecting the Hispanic community, all really wanted in a Hillary Party and she is doing it through good programs, hard work and ethical competent governance for all not stunts, not stars and poetry. That the narrative is not out there in the Press or Punditry because this base the Clinton Dems and Independents are not represented in that class white male something's Tweeties.  There is a Movement but it is of the normally silent Middle Majority and its talking and voting. That real change...

    credit for high turnout goes (none / 0) (#169)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    to the shrub

    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    All of it is negative. What part of negative do you not understand?

    I am fine with it but PUHLEEAZE do not pretend it is not negative.


    Fine, if you want to use "negative" (none / 0) (#139)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    to refer to any criticism of your opponent, then sure, its negative.
    But in that case, negativity should not even be much of an issue in any campaign. How could any one ever make a case that they should be elected over someone else without at least implicitly criticizing the stances of their opponent.

    We tend to place negative connotations on being negative when the negtivity is personal, or unfair, or uncoupled with the promotion of a better alternative on the particular issue at hand.

    To claim that Obama is a Reaganite is negative in that sense - dishonest, personal. To criticize him for not having mandates when you sincerely think they are better is also negative, but in the harmless sense of drawing a legitimate distinction. Thats how his party-building argument strikes me.


    That's what it has always meant (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:53:45 PM EST
    no it hasnt. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    if it is a synonom for criticism, then there would be no need for the term, and it wouldnt have a negative connotation.

    Candidates are criticized for going negative because of the nature of a certain type of negativity - dishonest spin or personal attack.


    No, it's not negative. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    The public means going personal when it says it doesn't like negative ads and attacks.  Criticizing an opponent on issues is different.

    The media may not be pointing out the difference due to Hillary hatred, but that has helped her with the public's media hatred, because people know the difference.  


    And Jimmy Carter wasn't bad for the party, (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    neither was LBJ?  With how liked and loved Bill Clinton is within this nation and worldwide I could tell you what I think Obama should do with his claim but Jeralyn doesn't allow that sort of language here.  Thank God JFK didn't get caught with any of his blue dresses and nobody counts Teddy's martinis so give me a BREAK!  Every president has some good they do for their party and some bad they do for their party!  Sadly the first Bush got to own all of Reagan's though ;) And I don't think that any president is going to go down in history for doing more "bad" for their party than Dubya Bush.

    what is your point? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    I agree, W has been a disaster for the GOP.

    As was Nixon. The '74 midterms had a long-lasting effect on the makeup of Congress.

    But it is also true that Bill (and hill) was a disaster for the party. Those first two years led to a monumental shift in Congress that set us all back 12 years. Etc. you know the story.

    That is a perfectly legitimate argument when the question is who is going to lead the party in the future.


    Sorry but Bill and HIll were not a (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    disaster for the party.  Some things were good and some were not so good.  The party has been its own disaster and still struggles to define itself and our current House and Senate leaders just keep on proving that!  And how is it that there isn't much difference between Obama and Hill on what they claim their policies are but she's "bad" for the party and he's a messiah.  This is all getting so ridiculous!  My point is that with every president we have ever had anybody can make claim and point out ways they were "bad" for the party.  It is a silly talking point.  Meatless!

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#62)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    Well, the politics of hope did not pull off
    Super Tuesday, yes?
    So I'm thinking out loud here.
    Two choices left.
    Getting very specific out policy differences,
    or going negative.

    Yes, and I think as it gets closer to the end of (none / 0) (#79)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    the nomination process more people will be getting past that hope thing and want more specifics.  Like what are you going to do about health care?  What is your position on the mortgage mess?  Illegal immigration?  Telling Texans, Ohioans and Pennsylvanians that hope will get us through will not cut it.  Texas is full of conservative democrats and lots of minorities.  Pennsylvania is blue collar and I would presume want specifics on the issues.  I don't know a thing about Ohio.  But I have heard more than one person say that they want specifics.  We all have hope but at the end of the day we need solutions to our problems.

    Sorry meant to say (none / 0) (#65)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    ABOUT policy differences.

    Sounds to me like he's panicking (none / 0) (#71)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    and showing his true colors.  

    This is a very bad move on his part.  Hillary will act all gracious and Presidential (as in last night's speech) and Obama will take the low ground. Ummm, who was it that said we're tired of the divisive politics of the 90's?

    They're all politicians, but he is such a hypocrite.

    What I find contradictory or hypocritical (none / 0) (#172)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    is the latest line of attack on the Clinton presidency.  Obama cried foul when he claimed he couldn't tell who he was running against when Bill was hitting him hard.  Now he is perfectly happy having it his way in going after Bill's record to hit Hillary.  

    I continue to be unimpressed with Obama's wanting to have it both ways.  


    both ways (none / 0) (#178)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    Well... if you think Obama wants it both ways, then so does Hillary.

    Hillary has said numerous times that she is running, not Bill.  But then she has also used the 90's and the Clinton administration numerous times as talking about points about whey she would be good for the economy and other things.


    How (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    is pointing out how bad Democrats faired under Bill, below the belt?  so now only Clinton is allowed to contrast?

    Ummm... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Maybe because Dems didn't fare badly under Bill?  

    Obama's speech is designed to play to Repugs, Neocons and those too young to remember the 1990's.  I don't fall into any of those categories and I find it offensive.  Once again, Barack is parroting Repug talking points.  This kind of trash talk does not exactly inspire me to vote for him in November, if he is the nominee.


    Maybe Dems didn't fare as well under Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    as BO thinks we should have.  But what part of peace and prosperity does the man not like?  Even with all the many years of daily crapping on Clinton he remains one of the best presidents EVER.  I think HRC would be an even better president than Bill.  She's smarter and works harder.  

    The Clinton era (none / 0) (#108)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    is the only political era that I remember with fondness.  All my other Presidential candidates lost.  Bill Clinton's has been the only successful Democratic Presidency (i.e., two terms) in my lifetime.  And this is what BO is trying to trash?

    Agree with you that HRC would be even better than Bill.  


    Peace and prospertiy? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    The issue is not how the country did, the issue is how the party did.
    How on earth can you argue that Bill was an effective leader of the party? Losing Congress, winning his own re-elect with less than 50%, unable to assure the election of his successor - does that impress you as effective political leadership?

    They lost (none / 0) (#86)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    both the House and Senate in the 1990s. It wasn't entirely his fault, but don't pretend they were doing great either.

    Will you stop it? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    The word I used was NEGATIVE. Not below the belt.

    We speak in truths here. Get used to it.


    i was making reference to all (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    the appalled comments on here, intentionally not addressing them directly to not be rude.  since you bring it up, when Hillary says his plan isn't universal, she is being positive, they are in a campaign both going negative on each other, so it is misleading to say he went negative, because they both are.

    "What happened to the politics of hope?" implies it is below the belt.


    Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    I want to know how if Obama opposes the Florida and Michigan votes that will not for sure cause the Dems to lose the GE? If he refuses to give Florida and Michigan their vote, people will be pissed and vote for McCain. So, add this one to the GE electability questions.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#97)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    but my Hillary HUBdate today said that "Two civil rights leaders -- one a prominent Obama supporter -- have written DNC Chairman Howard Dean to press him to resolve the looming conflict over Florida's and Michigan's role at the Democratic National Convention."

    There was a link to an item on politico.com featuring a letter from Mary Frances Berry and Roger Wilkins (who is an Obama supporter).

    Don't know if this has any relation to his campaign, though.


    spout off all you want to (none / 0) (#93)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    but the numbers last night state that the party members by and large prefer the Clintons...It is that simple...and if you just eliminate the delegates numbers and just add up the popular vote including florida and michigan, Hillary is so far ahead there is no contest...so this negative Hillary crap aint gonna cut it with the American democrat...Obviously with all this bad press, she is still preferred by the democrats....So spin away......

    how so? (none / 0) (#135)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    The number of states won, delegates won, and popular vote totals were all virtual ties.

    an article that sounds (none / 0) (#105)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    how Obama could be rated the "most liberal member of the Senate".  

    I voted for Obama yesterday, and wouldn't (none / 0) (#128)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    change that vote, but I do think he was better off letting surrogates and the talk radio circuit make this case about the Clintons and their past. If he doesn't want to have to go back over his drug use, he shouldn't dredge up all their investigations and marital issues. Rush, Hannity, NBC, Fox, et. al. will do that for him.

     I think he should stick with his line that her voters will come into his camp, but his won't necessarily. His critics note that he won a bunch of small, red states in the interior, generally strong GOP land. But, Dems outnumbered Repubs in GA yesterday for the first time in 20 years. Obama got more votes in North Dakota and Colorado than all the Repubs combined. He can put places like SC, GA, AL, CO and ND in play in the fall. Hillary wouldn't even bother trying. That is why he's the better choice.

    Karl Rove, (none / 0) (#137)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST
    who is the worst human being on this planet to me, said, laughingly last night, that the states that Obama won last night would, by and large, go to republcians in the fall...He was cracking up at us....Made me feel awful...

    Rove is evil...and devious (none / 0) (#150)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    Perhaps Mr. Rove had an ulterior motive?

    Do you really think any decent political advisor or analyst would consider CO, DE, MO, and MN states that would automatically go to Republicans?


    Minnesota went overwhelmingly for Obama (none / 0) (#162)
    by northcoaster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    We used to be considered a Blue State - and then after the Republicans swept thru on several election cycles Minnesota was considered moving into Red status. Lately we have been considered to be a Purple swing state. So what's up with Romny taking the Republican caucus and Obama taking the Dems ?

    Not sure about the Republicans but Obama took 66% of the Dem vote!!!!!!!!!!!!

    At our local precinct Obama carried 5 to 1 over Hillary. Note that my congressional District elected Keith Ellison and last night we had Republicans coming in to vote in the Democratic caucus for the first time ever!!!. I know this because I have known them as neighbors for many years. Something is 'happinin' here - its different this time around. Many more people showed up. We had to move to the gym to fit everyone in to the meeting. I just don't think Hillary will pack them into the polling booth in the GE the same way that Obama would.

    Why did your Republican neighbors (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    vote in a Dem. primary?  Was it because they want Obama to be President or because they think McCain will be able to defeat him more easily than HRC?

    Comments now closing (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    approaching 200. Thanks for your thoughts, and there are newer threads on Obama to comment on.

    negative (none / 0) (#187)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    Whatever happened to a new kind of politician who doesn't do negative campaigning? Whatever happened to Unity? Change? And all that. Just Obama doing his thing. What's always kind of depressing is to see how well dirty tricks and negativity work with millions of voters. Lots of Americans just love this stuff.

    Obama campaign using my tactics :-) (none / 0) (#188)
    by Aaron on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    Obama Directly Attacks Bill's Presidency, Blames It For Massive Dem Losses

    In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.  

    Hillary and her accomplishments (none / 0) (#189)
    by tjproudamerican on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:39:57 PM EST
    OK! Obama is the personification of Establishment foisted evil. I guess.

    Even so, she will be running not against him and your hatred of the Republican, Establishment Darling Obama, but McCain.

    Here are problems Hillary HAS to fix.

    1. She was a co-President. That is the strength of her pre-Senate experience.

    Except when Health Care Reform was abandoned, Welfare was re-fashioned as a punishment to the poor and the losers in our society, and when Clinton's administration and re-election  gave way to the Republican ascendancy.

    Of course, the answer is: That was Bill not her.

    2. She voted FOR W going to War, and AGAINST many things a brave Senator would have stood up against.

    That doesn't count because "even Chuck Hegel voted for the War" and things like Cluster bombs are something she cannot let her Republican enemies use to cudgel her.

    3. As a Corporate Lawyer, she worked for many obnoxious clients and causes. The anti-union Walmart, etc.

    That doesn't count because she always cared about children.

    4. The United States has done little to acknowledge how many illegal immigrants are fitting in smoothly here, and the Clinton Administration did NOTHING for the illegals.

    That doesn't count for three reasons: that was Bill not her; the Latino's love her; and what do we expect her to do? Sponsor an Immigration Amnesty Legislation?

    I know that you Hillary's supporters love her, I know you hate Obama, I know you hate Republicans.

    In your Ideal Scenario, Hillary will stand up to the Republicans and get laws passed even if she does not have sixty Democratic Senators. She is tough. Obama is a liar and member of The Establishment, unlike Bill and Hillary, and any deficiency Bill had when he governed or our system has will be overpowered by her mastery of issues.

    That COULD happen, but how? You hate Obama. That won't be enough when she runs against McCain. You are all bright; give her a believable story.