What Hillary Has and Obama Needs: An Image of Toughness

What do Mike Dukakis and John Kerry have in common? They were from Massachusetts and they had images as being soft. It is ironic that the one leading Democratic Presidential candidate who has overcome the "mommy" party problem is a woman -- Hillary Clinton. Susan Faludi explains:

[W]hite men are warming to Hillary Clinton — at least enough to vote for her. It’s no small shift. These men have historically been her fiercest antagonists. Their conversion may point less to a new kind of male voter than to a new kind of female vote-getter.

. . . For years, the prevailing theory has been that white men are often uneasy with female politicians because they can’t abide strong women. But if that’s so, why haven’t they deserted Senator Clinton? More particularly, why haven’t they deserted her as she has become ever more pugnacious in her campaign?

. . . It’s the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy: our first major female presidential candidate isn’t doing what men always accuse women of doing. She’s not summoning the rules committee over every infraction. . . . If anyone has been guarding the rules this election, it’s been the press, which has been primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry and scolding her for being “ruthless” and “nasty,” a “brawler” who fights “dirty.” But while the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she’s come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl.

Faludi uses an intellectual construct. I put it this way - Hillary Clinton proved she was tough. Dems are seen as soft. Obama is seen as soft. He needs to change that. As do all Dems.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Living In The Past | Ted Kennedy's Divisive Rhetoric >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary is a bada$$ woman! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST

    It's Josh Marshall's B*tch-slap theory (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by myiq2xu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    of electoral politics.

    (This was the original Josh, not WKJM)

    The idea was that even when the voters know they are unfair attacks they work if the target doesn't fight back.

    People admire a fighter.


    Walking a fine line... (none / 0) (#85)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    Let's face it, this is an historic primary season. The first major female and African American presidential candidates. This has caused, IMHO, extra sensitivity and hyper-focus on every comment these two campaigns make, causing people to decry sexist! or racist! on accasions that didn't necessarily warrent it.

    Even as an Obama supporter I admit that some Obamaniacs have made some mean-spirited comments and used degrading terms to describe Clinton, but if we are all honest then we can admit that some Hillbots have been equally unkind toward Obama. I know, because I have personally read numerous such posts on various blogs.

    But there is a bigger truth we must not lose sight of: either Clinton or Obama will make a fine POTUS...far better than John McCain. Clinton is no more a say anything/do anything shill than Obama is an empty suit. These are memes designed to pit us against each other. We must shed ourselves of these thoughts and prepare to back the nominee.


    You are preaching (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    We will argue this out among ourselves without pious lectures from the Obama people.  You are not helping your candidate here, you are only making us madder.

    In the end, some of us will vote for McCain, some of us will vote for Obama, and I believe the majority will vote for neither and will switch our registrations from Democrat to independent.


    If We Believe In Hillary And She Is Not The (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    nominee, we have to launch the most massive write-in vote EVER...Hillary '08!!

    appology if I offended (none / 0) (#110)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST

    I sincerely do not wish to offend anyone. Nor do I intend to come off as pious. I do sincerely believe a John McCain presidency would be terrible for our country. So my motivation is simple. Try to talk with people and present my perspective and hopefully heal some rifts.

    Let me be absolutely clear, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I will support her.


    Thanks, now go tell (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    your candidate to say the same thing, please. Hillary already has said it about Obama.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    and I appreciate that.  But you have been talking to us as if we were children.  Let me give you some well-meaning advice.  Before you come into a new community and start proclaiming your point of view, spend some days reading the comment threads so you can get some sense of who you've landed in the middle of and what they've been thinking about.

    We've chewed over the Obama-McCain-Abstain issue a great deal on multiple threads over the course of weeks if not months.  Each of us has our own point of view and our own sense of priorities.

    Not to be rude, but your point of view is really irrelevant here unless you have something new to add to the discussion.  Otherwise, we are a group of people who share some basic values and opinions and we all will face this dilemma of what to do if Obama gets the nomination, and we will work it out by discussing it with other people who share our values and dilemma and understand where we are coming from.


    That does not address the image (none / 0) (#165)
    by 0 politico on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    question.  This is not the first time I have read an opinion that suggests that BO does not seem "manly" enough to be POTUS (paraphrasing).  That may seem patronizing to some, but a look back at my recollections of presidential campaigns ( and I am not sure I really like the idea that I can recall some of this from when I was a kid), but...

    Wasn't Johnson seen as stronger, without going crazily over the top, than Goldwater?

    Nixon - Humphrey?  Not sure, but the Dems in general were thought to be weak, and we had lost Bobby Kennedy.

    Nixon - McGovern?  No contest.

    Ford - Carter?  Probably a toss up, but Carter being a submariner probably didn't hurt.

    Carter - Reagan?  Carter was already looking weak due to the economy and Iran.  Reagan could just stand there and look stronger.

    Reagan - Mondale?  No contest because of the Republicans ability to continue to paint Dems as weak.

    Bush 1 - Dukakis?  We no how that imagery played out.

    Clinton - Bush1?  Probably a toss up, but BC came out looking more approachable.

    Clinton - Dole?  Should have been Dole, but the womanizing probably didn't hurt BC's "manly" image.

    Bush 2 -Gore/Kerry?  Image wise, this became no contest in each case.  Shouldn't have been against Kerry, but the Swift Boating worked.

    So, how do you think BO is going to look against veteran, POW survivor and so-called "maverick" McCain?

    The imagery will be used by the other side.

    Against HRC, they may try to play the image, but it could backfire by appearing "sexist" to everyone.

    So, yes, BO and his campaign will have to address this to be successful.  And, i am not sure appearing next to Teddy or Kerry is the answer.

    Just my view from just outside the Beltway.


    another thought... (none / 0) (#105)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    It is safe to say that a small number of people in this country will never vote for a woman or a black man, but we must not allow ourselves to think that people who voted for one or the other Dem would never consider voting for the other in the general election.

    And on the fighter characterization, I have to say that I DO admire Clinton's tenacity. Her sheer will to carry on in the face of the odds is admirable. But sometimes a trainer will throw in the towel when it becomes obvious the fight is over.

    Also, consider all the negative press Obama has faced over the last month or so--bittergate, Rev. Wright, etc--and he is still standing and in fact has increased his pledged delegate and popular vote lead. He is a fighter too.


    i don't find this argument for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    particularly compelling -- he warded off the bad few weeks and came out smelling like a rose.

    I disagree. He came out by winning a state (NC) with obvious demographic advantages and that was extremely unlikely to be influenced by the Wright and "bittergate" imbroglios, and he lost a state that borders his own that he was leading about 10 days before the election. He made it close with an excellent ground game, some funny-business in NW Indiana/suburban Chicago, and extremely good African American turnout. But he lost a state he should have won.

    And if Obama is the nominee, you can bet that the Wright and bittergate storylines are not over.


    Agree. (none / 0) (#167)
    by 0 politico on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:16:13 PM EST
    And the reason he is on top, vote and delegate wise, is due to the victories he racked up in all those February caucuses and a few primaries.  That, and the "proportionate" delegate spilt methods used by the DNC.

    If the Wright and Ayers associations got some real media coverage six weeks earlier, some of those wins might not well have occurred.  And Super Dels would not have been anxious to line up.


    he's not a fighter. he's survived (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    the same way kerry survived--the media's coddling--only to be torn apart down the line in the GE.  his only lifeboat (which he and his supporters imagine to be a yacht) is that the news networks and pundits are united against hillary in a historically unprecedented way.

    besides, the stuff that came out about wright was both factually true and necessary to shine some light on modern-day race issues--and even then, the heat didn't last long enough to matter, because the media went right back to hillary-bashing and WWTSBQ/TSBL again.

    attacks have been flung at hillary for 16 years, no holds barred and composed overwhelmingly of false, manufactured, and repulsive smears--and she's still standing strong.

    i don't trust the obama-coddling media or the GOP any more than i do a hungry, rabies-infected doberman pinscher.  so i'd say obama is the far worse bet.  


    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    At the end of the day most (or at least enough) people agree with us on the hot button issues. It's the "mommy party" thing that keeps us from winning.

    And I seem to recall a SC newspaper (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    that was quite Republican but nevertheless endorsed her because, I think they said, it was clear that she wouldn't hesitate to use "massive retaliation" (to borrow a phrase).

    thats the rhetoric (none / 0) (#88)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    we don't need.  a lot of people on this site used to agree...

    The rhetoric isn't the problem (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    Never has been.

    I know... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by smott on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    This is slightly OT...
    But wish Hillary a Happy Mother's Day here
    (nice message from Chelsea)...


    ...and contribute if you can...

    Well, that made me misty-eyed. What a (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Teresa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    daughter they raised.

    Awww! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    That is awesome.  A tear in my eye.

    Also, it reminded me I need to buy my wife a box of chocolates before I go home.


    a beautiful card - thank you! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    The presidency is a very tough job (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    so you need someone in that position who shows spine.  Most people respect that.

    Everything is changeable and fixable in BTD world (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    Here's another instance where you are giving Obama advice on "what he needs to do" but it would require another flimsy facade to pull it off.

    The problem for Obama is that there is no there, there.  How does he change the perception that he is not tough if he actually is not tough?

    You are asking too much of him.  And why are we even bothering?

    We've already got 2 candidates who are ready, willing, and able to become President.  Both McCain and Clinton are tough and tested.  Obama, not so much.

    Why continue to carry water for this guy?  The fact that he needs so much advice from all quarters of the media and blogosphere is telling.

    Amen (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    to that. Obama's problems can't be fixed. We can either not nominate him if this is such a problem or we go in knowing that we're going to lose. There really aren't any other options at this point.

    NOT his best image! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    Quite correct (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cygnus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    Men have always known that Hillary was tough (Ken Starr, anyone?)  Her campaign has simply shown them that she's not actually a monster, Samantha Power notwithstanding.

    If Bush wants to ensure a McCain victory over Obama, he can drop a few bombs in September. Voters won't take a chance on an empty suit.


    really? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    then why couldn't the Clinton Machine beat him?

    I mean if it was all the media and what not, how is she going to beat the media in the fall?

    I mean if she got beat so easily by SUCH a weaker opponent doesn't speak to well for her.


    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    if you give it time and let all the votes count, then the Clinton machine will beat him.

    It seems rather silly for you to be calling the race when it's not over yet.  Your "proof" hasn't actually happened yet.


    Gallup poll shows both Obama and (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    Clinton beating McCain, but Clinton does it more resoundingly.  So why would we nominate Obama again?

    If Obama wins, and it looks like (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    he will, it will be because he brilliantly played the caucus system.  I give him credit for that, but I also think the system is flawed because the caucus system, in many red states, is going to have a disproportionate effect on the nomination process.  His strength was understanding the system and playing it, kudos, but his strengths don't go much past that.

    its not flawed (none / 0) (#65)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    when all parties know MONTHS ahead of time how they work, and 1 of them just chooses to ignore them thinking they don't need to fight for the caucus states.

    We will have to agree to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    If the dems don't change to primaries only it will be a big mistake.  The fact that FL and MI don't count have also helped Obama.

    it's not flawed... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    when people know how they work?

    That is some absolutely vacuous reasoning.


    you don't get it, do you? (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    if she wanted to demolish obama, she could have brought out all the big guns the GOP can and undoubtedly will use in the fall.  she's been holding back for, get this, the good of the party.  something your guy has no clue about.  although for all the good it's done her, i almost wish she WOULD go nuclear on him.  you have NO CLUE how much she's restrained herself.  obama will lose in the GE.  better get used to it, because it's all but certain that'll be the outcome.

    That's easy enough to answer... (none / 0) (#66)
    by cosbo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    because people who vote in the primaries, those who are more engaged, have tons of information at their fingertips, the technologically elite, the financially elite, the educationally elite, like to think that they know and understand everything. They assume that majority of voters are just as informed and rationale as they are and so they pick candidates along those lines. Republicans of course know better.

    Note the 3 of the 10 elections in favor of democrats.


    Gamed system. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    Thats, too well, by the way.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    I personally think Obama is, in fact, a tough customer.  I just don't think he projects it in a way that resonates with the voters he needs to reach.  I agree with you that it's tricky, but I don't think he'd be pretending to be someone he's not.

    He's not tough. He's nasty. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by chancellor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    There's a difference, and I think that's why his handlers have kept him scripted. Obama is my senator (unfortunately), and I've watched him closely ever since he was elected. My conclusion is that he is a dangerously conflicted personality. On the one hand, he demonstrates that he is a legend in his own mind. His comments about Hillary being "nice enough," his slap at John Edwards when he said "a woman, an AA and John," his comments about rural voters--these examples are indicative of the real Obama. On the other hand, you have a man with an obsessive need for approval. Not a healthy combination, IMO.

    Hillary exudes strength and purpose, and, more importantly, she's shown she's not a quitter. Those are the qualities I think voters are really looking for.


    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    Obama doesn't seem "soft" -- he is "soft" -- no amount of image consulting or advice is going to change that. This election should have been a cakewalk for the Dems, but the media and the "losing side of the party" (Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, et al) conspired to get out the strong candidates by either outright ignoring them (Biden, Edwards) or smearing her (Hillary). Meanwhile, the GOP bit the bullet and, despite their own antipathy toward him, nominated McCain (and "acceptable Republican" for a lot of "swing" voters). Thankfully, contrary to the CW, this primary is NOT over, and Hillary can still pull out a win ala Truman over Dewey.  

    Let's see (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    How can Obama do that?  Climb on a tank?  I don't think so.  Wonkette had a pic of him at some midwestern event where he sat on a tractor.  Silliest.  Photo.  Ever.


    That picture (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    is horrible. He looks so uncomfortable.

    the caption... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    the caption under the last picture is really funny... cruel and nasty, but funny.

    He doesn't hold a beer glass very well (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    either. Another thing Hillary needs to teach him . . . lol!~

    That Picture Will Do Wonders To Convince (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    rural voters that he is one of them. (sigh) It is almost as bad as the tank.

    My Caption: (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    Democratic Party Elitist Learns About "Farm drivey thing."

    classy group of supporters (none / 0) (#83)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    you all are.

    Brazile and Axelrod blew us off (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    and we are bitter.  But BTD and Jeralyn keep me from telling you something along the non-creative-class lines, which I would like to do just now.

    obama is not your enemy (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:12 PM EST
    maybe you're too far gone...

    Then let him stop (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    talking and acting like he is our enemy and start talking and acting as if he is actually a Democrat.

    Only people without any class (none / 0) (#112)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    use it as an insult.

    Bless their hearts . . . ;) (4.00 / 4) (#121)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    I agree with you, agree to disagree (none / 0) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:01:54 PM EST
    the pictures and the captions are mean-spirited and stupid. besides that, i think he looks cute on that tractor!

    yikes (none / 0) (#132)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    in all seriousness, the uncomfortable look aside, he needs to either eat a few cheeseburgers or keep his jacket on.

    Faludi has excellent analysis as always (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    I have been amazed at how Clinton has come out as a tough "guy" during all of this. Frankly here message and personality and tone have really gotten great over the last few months. Assuming she can work her way through this current race, I think she will be a much stronger politician. Assuming she doesn't get the nomination, I think she has the potential to be a great, great senator. And of course pres. if she wants it in 2012.

    yet the media (none / 0) (#114)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    the MSM sees all that as "pandering" and not genuine.

    Except of course, AM Joe and Pat "Kneecap" Buchanan


    Glad (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    to see that you are mentioning the elephant in the room w/r/t Obama. However, I don't think Obama can change that image any more than Kerry could. A lot of it comes from the fact that he just sounds like a college professor lecturing his students when he speaks.

    So true (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    Kerry lost because he looked weak next to Bush cutting brush and walking around like he had brass ones.  I have said this again and again.  Gore was trashed by MoDo and turned into an effete goober in the space of four columns.  The desire to follow a leader who appears strong and willing to fight to the end is ingrained in our DNA.  

    This is why I will not give up on Clinton.  She is showing how tough she is by hanging in there and fighting the good fight.  The fact that Obama is starting to lose white men should bother him a great deal.  If this plays out over the next four races, then he's got a serious problem.

    The more she wins, the more likely he loses.

    Kerry lost (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    because he put the entire country to sleep.  Because he did not campaign tirelessly.  Because he could not speak coherently and took 75 words to say what could be said in 6.

    Kerry did not work hard enough.


    Some of that (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    applies to Obama.

    Just from a media stand-point (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    Obama uses his hands too much.  He gesticulates, and his hands look very long and tapered (I wonder if he gets manicures?) and there are tons of pics out there with his hands in front of his face, or clasped under his chin.

    If you look at the new repub ad against him at No Quarter, just about all the photos they show of Obama have his hands in front of or near his face, and the one where they're talking about his inexperience is a shot where his ear looks Opie-ish in its enormousness.

    It's called lack of experience.


    Obama doesn't want to work either (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST
    Obama isn't even bothering to make one appearance in WV -- guess he really is "bored" with the primary since he has it "in the bag." Hubris much?

    I'm Surprised obama Didn't Take His Name (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    off the ballot in WV too.  And then he could turn around and ask for all the delegates!!  :)

    not even close (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    Obama has other issues and they are related to giving speeches.  he needs to give an a or b performance in the debates and I have yet to see anything over a b-.  

    It is certainly a bad sign (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    that Obama lost every single head-to-head debate.

    I'm looking forward to his comments (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    after WV amd Kentucky.  Yes we can.

    more like "Oh No He Di'int" (none / 0) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    Unless the likely Clinton voters (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    in those states are so cowed by all the B.S. they either don't vote or vote for Obama.

    the msm did not think so (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    and I am a supporter of his so perhaps i am being too critical, but i was not impressed.  

    Debating and leading are vastly different but that don't matter much to the american public.


    I watched them all (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    to be fair, I had serious doubts about Hillary as a candidate, and Obama had really pissed me off in the fall, but the California debate sealed it. Hillary can be substantive without being boring, and Obama just seems halting and bored.

    So true. Bush wired--that's o.k. (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    I attended a rally in St Louis 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    at Union Station.

    Dave Grohl played a song, Samwise Ganges (actor?) said something uplifting.  Edwards got the crowd going and in a fine mood...then Kerry killed it all.

    The man could't speak.  He was like CS gas.


    Obama doesn't strike me as the.... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    ...hardest working guy on the assembly line either.

    are you insane? (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    Of course it's needed.  When dems look like fighters, they win.  It's why Clinton's still in this race, and why BTD quoted this article.

    Now Kathy (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    if we'd just be a little nicer, I'm sure those mean Republicans will stop hurting us.

    Where did it get him? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    "BUSH had toughness and where did it get him?"

    I'll tell you where, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, unfortunately, for 8 years.


    Actually Bush (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    has gotten almost everything he wanted. Or are you unaware of congress acting as preemptive capitulators?

    if this is the logic ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    of the NDP, it will be gone in a blip.

    Look, I'm all for intelligence. I have more than a few college degrees, so I value smarts and education. But if you actually think that good government is a matter of being smart and doesn't involve any toughness, well, then you'll deserve the governments you get.


    Where did it get him? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:44:01 PM EST
    Where did it get him?  Have you been in a coma for the last seven years?  What hasn't it got him?

    That really doesn't make sense to me. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:46 PM EST
    People want to believe that their President can stand up to adversity.

    So, once again, Carville got it right. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST

    question mark (none / 0) (#122)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    refresh my cells please?

    never mind (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:39:55 PM EST
    I was reminded below: tres cojones, verdad?

    can't be fixed (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    there's nothing in his biography that shows much in the way of physical courage.

    His campaign is based on a series of passive aggressive insuations about his opponents that the media an surrogates gleefully amplify on his behalf.  

    He's not shown he can fight it out in a debate without calling the other person silly or accusing the questioner of being unfair.

    Voters notice these things.

    Oops! He forgot to add " join the Marines (none / 0) (#87)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    after Harvard" when he was drafting his political 20-year plan.

    Toughness comes from within (none / 0) (#160)
    by NotThatStupid on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    It is not something that can be pasted onto an otherwise soft personality. In the best sense, it comes from having the courage to do what you know is right because it is right.

    Senator Obama's history shows him to be a player, a gamer, a worker of the angles. The biggest indication, to me, that he is not tough is his failure to confront Pastor Wright about the despicable things he preached from his pulpit. He said he didn't know about those diatribes until just recently; I do not believe him. For nearly twenty years he had no backbone for that fight, and his lack of moral courage is what people perceive as his softness. Lying about it is blatant political expediency.

    I've said this before, but it bears repeating. This country needs a leader who will repair our reputation abroad, get our economy back on track, and restore our respect for civil liberty. That is going to take a lot of fighting, it's a battle that won't be won easily. It will be a long hard slog, and it won't be pretty.

    The only candidate in these primaries who has shown a willingness to fight on until the job is done is Senator Clinton.


    the least of his problems (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by LCaution on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    I can't wait to see Obama driving a tank.

    How about demonstrating:

    1. an interest in governing as opposed to running
    2. empathy
    3. an interest in understanding a wide range of problems (as opposed to getting fed "positions")and the pros and cons of various solutions
    4. class
    5. humility

    BTD, I can see no way that Obama can beat McCain (Romney or Giuliani, yea, maybe).  And it has nothing to do with electoral maps, changing his image, or healing the wound in the Democratic Party (won't happen, no matter how much Hillary would try to help).  

    Imagine this debate between Obama & McCain.  Obama pulls out the "judgment is more important than experience...I was against the Iraq war from the start".  McCain turns to the audience, puts on that attractive half grin of his and says "he issued one statement in one speech, that barely got coverage in Chicago, in a safe district, against the war and that proves he has good judgment? What is the younger generation coming to these days?"  Game, set, win.

    More like (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Fultron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    "How many years have you represented the people of the United States in government? How many years have you served your country in the military, son? How many times have you even visited Iraq? My friends..."



    Hillary Clinton is the Pam Grier (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    of politics.  She will kick your a$$ and ask questions later.

    Also, the Foxy Brown/Coffy characters PG portrayed in the 70s were the best female/power archtypes.  Hillary is def the political equivalent in 2008.

    Now if we can get Hillary to rock a 'fro and pull out a pistol from it would be the shizit!

    Seen Jackie Brown? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    I love that movie, and Pam is fabulous it in.

    I can quote (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    you Jackie Brown all day.  FAVE Tarentino movie ever!  

    I should make a video on youtube for Hillary with that song "Street Life" by Randy Crawford from the movie.


    That is, *in it* (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    This Is Snark, Right? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    in ObamaWorld, Republican voters now hate toughness. It just has to be snark. (bangs head on desk)

    Unfortunately, no (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    it's Brazile's "new democratic party" where effete, educated white men and the aa's of America rule the world.

    Tough (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    Heh.  As I explained to a friend way back in January, I'm sick and tired of the Democratic party nominating effete wimps.  I need a man.  I need someone with balls.

    That's why I support Hillary.

    Tres cojones indeed.

    heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    The Republicans are (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    congratulating Clinton on how tough she is already.  They have been fawning over Clinton on many occasions lately and have taken the meme that Clinton is the tough one, so what's that make Obama?   They talk about how she was the one to win over the average person, so that means Obama couldn't.  Just who do you think they are going to use that against... McCain?

    Note the comments that the Repubs are saying... they snark about Obama's new type of politics and are calling him a hypocrite already.

    Obama may have declared victory and is moving on to the GE (unity?), so are the Repubs.  They are going after him for declaring victory in an effort to pick up more Clinton supporters.

    They are specifically going after Clinton supporters. You are going to see the Repubs praising Clinton and mocking the dems for picking a candidate who was the opposite of tough and experienced.  Obama smeared her character for months, a few sweet words from Repub surrogates and who do you think some will vote for?

    WSJ attribute association analysis of BHO and HRC (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by datadriven on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    A couple months ago they ran a story which had image attributes for both HRC and BHO. Clinton had about 25% over him on "smart" and "tough"; Obama had almost no image associations above 10% (probably a top two box hit) except, I believe, "optimistic" and "energetic". Even they were very low.

    Typically, this would be the sign of undefined or diffuse brand and brand management. Obama does come across in brand-speak as "different" but is he "relevant". Does he solve problems in everyday life? On the policy side he's completely vague, but Ben Page had this theory of purposive ambiguity-- if you were defined then the opposition candidate could run against you.

    The follow-up being that you would build an "emotional" bond, hence the "Lovemarks" approach to brand management. So maybe his handlers did it on intentionally. But frankly, if his image is so low on all the brand image stuff, then who would buy it? Wouldn't you want to know what you were buying if you were shopping for a Prez?

    Hillary, on the other hand, is very well defined and tough and smart. This should be the making of a leader. While the other side is quick to trot out racism as a explanation for everything in politics, a tough and smart woman may be more than some folks are ready for.

    He doesn't seem so energetic to me (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    and, in fact, that could be a problem against McCain.

    Not toughness (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    I don't think that changing male attitudes toward Clinton has anything much at all to do with this whole "tough" thing.

    The change is due to the change in the role that Clinton is perceived as playing --- she's not "Bill Clinton's wife" anymore, she has become her own person -- Bill Clinton is now married to HER, not the other way around.

    The misogyny directed at Clinton is based on her being the national symbol of "the wife".  Men find her more acceptable because she is "the candidate" now.

    Good point (none / 0) (#123)
    by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    While I think the toughness aspect is key, I think you are right that she has stepped fully out of his shadow now and that has helped.  But could she have gotten out of the shadow of the Big Dawg without breaking the glass floor, as Faludi puts it, to throw and take the punches like any tough man would?

    The reason (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    Obama is so exhausted from the campaign is that he's having to spend all the time pretending he's something he isn't.

    And tough is just one of the things he isn't.

    "Can't I finish my waffles?"
    "I've answered 8 questions already!"

    When the real Obama comes out, he isn't about toughness.

    Susan Faludi (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    Should be required reading this election season. And all of the big, blogger bully boys should have to read Stiffed before they're allowed to write another word. Might give them some insight on how the gender politics they're exploiting cut both ways.

    This is what the party elders are missing (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by goldberry on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    In the back of a lot of people's minds was the concern that she would bring Laura Ashley florals and touchy feely management tot he toughest job in the world, that she wouldn't be able to keep her stature with world leaders.  
    But she has been like an energizer bunny, never flagging, rarely showing any sign of discouragement and feisty when she needs to be in debate where she remains nearly unflappable.  You gotta admire that in someone who's taken the most brutal media attacks imaginable.  
    That's why their coming to her side.  She's smart, tough and tenacious and now they know it.  She's earned their respect.  

    I don't remember (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    I don't remember if it was here or in another comment section of another place, but someone cracked about the Bower's piece "So, this election isn't about ideology but compentence, eh?  Where have I heard that before?"  I almost died laughing, then I almost died crying, because we truly are slouching towards Dukaksisville with BO.

    The thing is, I'm sure he is kinda tough because look at some of the tactics he has used, he is truly the one who'll do anything to win.  But the Regressives were able to destroy actual war heroes, what in the Hell do you think they're going to do to him?  And no, I'm not "afraid" of the Regressives, but I'm not 20, and I know what those bastards will do.  They won't even touch race, certainly not directly, too risky and unnecessary when they have Ayers and the like.  That issue doesn't bother me (and niether does Wright actually for that manner.)  But Independents will be bothered by it.  Remember in 2004 there was a story about a guy standing in a food bank trying to get his children fed yet he was still going to vote for Bush because he wouldn't allow Homosexuals to marry.  We in the blogoshere are generally much more engaged than the average citizen, and know better, but because OUR world has fundamentally changed due to the Blogs, we think everyone's has, which is  a dangerous presumption.  Hillary won't win a majority of voters like him either, our point is that she will make McSame compete harder for those voters than will Barack.

    And now with all of these pronouncements that people like me aren't needed because the Obama people have a whole new party planned, uhm, okay I guess.  I have only voted loyally Dem since '88, so who f*cking needs me, right?  Kinda like Shrub was going to revolutionize the Republican party, and oh boy, has that been a roaring success.  Barack has my vote, and I don't think he'll be a bad President, but I don't think he can even win.  Let me put it this way, the Barack people are going "All In" on this hand, rending the Party asunder, defaming it's best President since FDR to achieve their goal(at least IMHO, LBJ was good but had the whole Viet situation, and Kennedy never really had a chance to do much.  I respect the hell out of Carter, but he was a crappy President.  Truman might be better than LBJ, but we are getting off track here a little.)  You'll have my vote, not my support (money, phone banking, door knocking) and there are millions like me, who will vote for BO, but will do it with a sigh.  But there are millions who won't.  He is not winning Nebraska and Montanna and places like that, he does have a chance in Colorado and Virginia, but the kind of support he is bleeding right now is exactly the kind that he will need if he is to win in those States.

    I'm not trying to start a fight, but I just think we're doomed with this guy, and his unseemly internet thugs smirking and dancing in the End Zone is getting a little more than tiresome.  Being called a racist HAS become tiresome.  His people had better come up with a better strategy then White Liberal Guilt, or we're going to get our clocks cleaned.

    Just my thoughts.

    LOL (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    Robot Porter beat me to it above about Dukakis, I need to learn to type faster.  :)

    Just friendly advise (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    cursing is not allowed at TL. It is also a well known legal blog and profanity causes them filtering problems. You can use different letters to get around this. Example: d@mn.

    Donna Brazil is not.... (none / 0) (#147)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    ...affiliated with the Obama campaign. She is a talking head for the MSM. Also, even if you assume that she was in some way speaking for the Obama campaign, I didn't interpret her comments as "we don't need you guys". What I got from it was, "let's not shortchange all the new people that have come along and participated in this process."

    It is true that Clinton has been getting a large portion of the traditional Democratic voters. It is also true that Obama has brought in a huge wave of new and energetic voters. What we really need now is to bridge the divide between the two constituencies. I believe it can be done and the tidal wave of Democratic votes would be enormous.


    The double bind (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    Faludi needs a history lesson.  There have been several "major" female presidential candidates throughout our history, starting with 1872 and most of them have dealt with these issues.  However, none of them has been so perfectly set up to be viewed as the masculine choice.  And none of them have been so brutalized by the major press.

    Obama enabled Clinton to draw in voters that may have been sexist before--because in the case of clinton vs obama, clinton is still the "masculine" choice.  Usually, a strong woman gets branded as b*itchy, like she did in the 90s, but in this case she succeeds because she's the more "masculine" candidate.  There is nothing new about minorities working hard and having to show toughness to get past a glass ceiling...it's just usually much harder.  

    However, clinton has been savaged by the press because our culture has become more misogynistic--NOT just sexist.  Looking at previous campaigns of female candidates for president, we seem to review them under different lenses and act like the concept of a woman leader is totally new.  Arguably in 1872, the candidate was actually considered strong because the idea of a successful businesswoman was interesting to the public.  However in the middle part of last century, the economic changes led the media to play up the domestic/kitchen images--even when the candidate was a multi-term US Rep/Senator.  

    What is new today is that the US has become very accepting of misogyny in discourse (not just sexism) and that Clinton is considered the candidate.  There have been radical changes in gender roles and expectations that are fueling clinton hatred at the same time as she is appealing to many voters as a hard-working, strong candidate.  I expect a strong backlash and a significant number of books about misogyny after this election.

    I sure hope you're right (none / 0) (#168)
    by BGP on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:35:08 PM EST
    I expect a strong backlash and a significant number of books about misogyny after this election.

    I hope there's this and more. If women were actually energized again, I might find this whole election less of a fiasco. When women get mad, they get things done.


    What Hillary has is an image of fakeness. (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:57:51 PM EST
    Polling shows this repeatedly. The gas tax holiday played right into this image, and Obama let her have it.

    I can't see how Obama has anything to learn from Clinton about image-building. Bowling lessons, a definite maybe. Image-making, I don't see it.

    Seriously, we're deep into Maureen Down territory now.

    they have split the white men vote (none / 0) (#11)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    it tells us nothing about one or the other vs. mccain.  

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    it does. It tells us that they value "toughness" and that they will vote for McCain over Obama since he is perceived as soft.

    i'm a white male (none / 0) (#16)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    i care about issues and judgment.  i would not switch my vote to another party b/c of toughness (especially to mccain who has let go of his complete  maverick image to appease the far right)

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    Well that settles it then.

    You are smarter than that. NONE of us is going to vote for McCain.

    but we are not exactly representative are we?


    For all the grief we give Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    about choosing candidates not suitable for their constituencies. . .

    The fact of the matter is that Democrats don't know sh*t about electability. It's how we almost had Dean and ended up with Kerry.


    Are you working class and white? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:55:09 PM EST
    Note that Faludi did not write about all males.

    yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST

    ROFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    tell that to all the dudes here in TX.

    You are part of that whole Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry coalition.  Sure you aren't moved by it, but you are not representative of the electorate.

    Why are wrestling and boxing so popular? Fighters dude.  Fighting spirit/Emersonian ideals of self-reliance.

    THAT'S what resonates.  Not how much the price of arugula is.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    football, NASCAR, garage fights, wrestling, hockey...and did I mention football?


    I think Hil would have it in the bag if she just could have brought herself to 'haul off and sock him one' in some 'situation.'

    Nah.  Guess not.  It's the Irish brawler in me who actually took a self-defense class in the 60s.


    Hillary got an endorsement from (none / 0) (#152)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    a NASCAR driver..a woman owner/driver named Sarah Fisher. I don't know enough about NASCAR to be able to say how big that is, but the NASCAR crowd is one that will appreciate a tough woman who won't quit.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#157)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    I remember reading that!

    Yes 60-40 (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    In Hillary's favor as of late. I think she will get a lot more in the coming weeks.

    have the media and pundits mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:05 PM EST
    the polling stats for WV and KY?
    Or are they just screaming for Hillary to GET OUT?!

    Personal poll (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    I got home from work early today, so I called WV for 45 minutes (I don't like calling after 5:00 because I think people are getting ready for dinner). Anywho, as expected, of my 30 calls, most were voice mail, but 13 answered -- of those 13, 2 were undecided, 1 was a Republican for McCain and 10 were def. for Hillary. None for Obama. I'll be calling for 5 hours (11 a.m. to 4 p.m.) on Saturday & Sunday.  

    All together now (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    NO They Haven't!!

    Exaggerated Media Images (none / 0) (#33)
    by 1jane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:03 PM EST
    Obama taps it down to avoid getting the " he's gonna grab my purse response" and Clinton ramps it up to look tough while her surrogates run around saying, "She's really really nice, really." Reality is somewhere in the middle.

    Politics has nothing to do with reality (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:34 PM EST
    Cosmic justice (none / 0) (#60)
    by aquarian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    Hmmm.  Some men who thought a woman would be too weak in the white house might vote for her because it turns out she's what they were looking for all along?

    Oh! the irony!
    Loved this article.

    SHE is the one they've been waiting for. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    let's see what type of dems we have here... (none / 0) (#69)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    who will vote for McCain against Obama?

    If BHO is the nom (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    I will be taking my calligraphy pen to the polls and writing in Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    why (none / 0) (#93)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    why the BHO use... ?  because you are who you are.  fantastic

    those are his initials (none / 0) (#98)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    aren't they?  I use HRC and BHO all the time. Oh wait, I'm being RACIST and saying that he's MUSLIM because I am using the initial of his middle name Hussein.

    Gimme a muthafreakin BREAK.  Barack Hussein Obama is the name that was given to him by his family NOT me.  I guess that's Clinton's fault too?


    if i thought (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    for a second it wasn't intentional, i would decline to respond. petty

    I think we've been asked to address (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:25:13 PM EST
    him that way here if we use initials . . .

    Hate to break it to you... (none / 0) (#115)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    but using BO, I find is much more offensive.

    Y'know...I think (none / 0) (#119)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    you're just wrong about the initials having any significance at all beyond the shorthand/code for VIPs which has developed ever since FDR, whenever it resonates easily.

    JFK, LBJ, RFK, MLK, HRC, BHO among others.  Some initials don't make the cut...don't sound quite right...so other shorthand develops for them...ie. "W" or "Big Dog."

    It's really a stretch to think that BHO stands out in some racial way...when in fact, it's very mainstream for any VIP.  What DOES sound unusual, slightly 'foreign' and out of synch is BHO's actual name when spoken or spelled out.  Ask yourself, before BHO appeared on the political scene, how many people had you ever heard of with names like 'Barack,' 'Obama' or 'Hussein?'  OK...I'll give you the third one...but for all the wrong reasons given the political climate and the Iraq war.


    GO with BHO...safer all around.


    Absurd (none / 0) (#131)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:45:35 PM EST
    I use initials for the candidates all the time. What do you want me to call him?

    Oh, that's right. The Chosen One.


    Hey, speaking of perry (none / 0) (#144)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    if he doesn't like his name, perhaps he could change it?  I really don't think anyone reading this blog is going to be fooled into thinking he's a muslim because of his middle initial.

    Don't be fearful (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:40:19 PM EST
    One of the surest ways to make sure his middle name will no longer have a polarizing impact on America is by keeping it in hiding.

    Of course.

    Say it loud.  Say it proud.

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama.


    That's what Wright did at the NAACP (none / 0) (#151)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    dinner that got praised as a "home run."

    Now that's just silly (none / 0) (#140)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    why did you refer to Big Tent Democrat as BTD?

    because you are who you are, I guess.


    comment directed to (none / 0) (#142)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    AgreeToDisagree original post questioning BHO use

    Ditto. (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#161)
    by smott on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    I will wirte in HRC....but not sure.
    I've always hated the people that said there was no dif between Bush and Gore...and helped Bush get elected.
    I don't want to be like them.
    But I'm not sure a McCain presidency with a strong Dem Congress would be so bad if JOhn Paul Stevens can hang in another 4 years.

    Or am I just rationalizing?

    I dunno.


    I will never vote for McCain but.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    ...haven't decided to vote for Obama either. There are other alternatives, including just voting down ticket. I have to vote my conscience dude, just like everybody else.

    This is a very tired question (none / 0) (#113)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    and I hope nobody bothers to answer it.  You are just trying to stir up s**t.

    You have asked (none / 0) (#136)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    this question too many times.

    why do I have to be a dem? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    that's what i've been asking myself lately.

    I'm starting to think (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    he needs to execute someone.

    Obama = Dukakis (none / 0) (#107)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:51 PM EST
    When I made this comparison some months back people found it ridiculous.

    Now it seems there seems to be almost a daily reference to this somewhere.

    still find it ridiculous (none / 0) (#111)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:26 PM EST

    It is ridiculous (none / 0) (#117)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    Obama will not win as many states as Dukasis did -- the better comparison is Mondale.

    something tells me (none / 0) (#128)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    you have no idea what you're talking about.

    and to think, this horrible, too liberal, too republican, elitist, fraud of a candidate has won the nomination.  he'll win the presidency too because he's on the right side of the issues, again and again....


    He has 2209?! News to me . . . (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    too liberal? (none / 0) (#138)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    Did someone here call him too liberal? Where?

    heh, says the guy (none / 0) (#150)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    who claims Obama has won the nomination. I don't know what I'm talking about -- physician heal thyself.

    if anyone takes this bet... (none / 0) (#135)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    they need their head examined!

    What Obama Has And Hillary Needed (none / 0) (#170)
    by tommyill on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:12 AM EST

    What I'm hearing here is the same old DLC whining: if Dems just act more like Republicans, we will win. I reject and denounce that attitude, as long as we are COMPETENT, this year we Democrats can be a big tent: latte sippers and hard-working White Americans alike. McCain=Bush=Fail.