NBC Poll: Voters Focused On Obama

While the top line number is familiar, 47-41 Obama, the story remains the voters' focus on Obama:

51 percent of respondents say they are focusing more on what kind of president Obama would be, compared with just 27 percent who say they’re focusing more on McCain. “This election is more about Barack Obama than it is about John McCain,” says Newhouse, the GOP pollster.

That is McCain's forlorn hope - to raise doubts about Obama. But we see that he and his campaign are just not good at it. Give the devil his due, Karl Rove knew how to play negative politics. McCain's team is terrible at it so far.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Journalist Peter Lloyd Free on Bond in Singapore | What Does Freedom Mean? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I saw that figure too (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:49:48 PM EST
    You say:

    Karl Rove knew how to play negative politics. McCain's team is terrible at it so far.

    Watching this campaign, I'd say that the McCain ads aren't half bad in this regard. Indeed, it's the only part of the campaign that works at all. (this has become my mantra.)

    But the messaging otherwise, well, it's been terrible.

    The smart move for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    is to lay low and let hubris destroy The Precious.

    Disagree (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
    He has to ignore the naysayers and the outrage and scorch the earth consistently - all the time.

    He has to forget about being a Media Darling. He has to move the discussion - eve if he takes a short term hit.

    He has to be as dirty as Rove would be.


    A couple of weeks ago (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    the story was the Rove was trying to install his people. I believe his people are already running the media shop.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:58:56 PM EST
    I hadn't heard about that.  If Rove is involved in the campaign in any aspect, it's bound to go negative in a big way.

    Of course it will go negative. (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Jeannie on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:24:00 AM EST
    But the GOP are just lying low - not just to let Obama be out front and make mistakes. They don't want to take a chance on the convention overturning Obama and putting Hillary in as the nominee. So they want to seem weak and they want Obama ahead in the polls (although he isn't cooperating much in that way). Then, when he has been confirmed, they will destroy him. It will be very nasty, I am afraid - but the openings for negative ads are enormous. Wright, Ayres, Pfleger, Chicago politics, Rezko, etc. And those are all true. If they have to, they will make up things like they did to Kerry.

    You are just setting yourself up to be crushed (3.66 / 3) (#175)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:52:41 AM EST
    again. There is no way, NONE, that Hillary will be the nominee. This collective fantasy that you and other Clinton holdouts have developed would be funny if it were restricted to riverdaughter's place, but here it's just kind of annoying.

    I think you are deliberately misunderstanding (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:52:00 AM EST
    what is going on at riverdaughter's site, or perhaps being deliberately obtuse.

    I attended a fundraising event for a downticket (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:59:18 AM EST
    progressive candidate last night.  There were five other women in attendance when I was there.  One made a big show of leaving to attend an Obama event.  While the men were applauding her, I noticed the looks of disgust on the faces of the other four women.  Later, I talked to those four.  All were Hillary supporters -- all are having a very hard time with Obama.  When I said I am not voting for him, two others smiled and agreed they were not either.  The other three were at various stages of grief/denial, and wanted to know was there any hope left?  I told them all to check out the link for Justsaynodeal.com, and explained what the site is about.  All were thrilled to hear there are others like them, and asked why hadn't they heard anything about these groups.  I explained it was probably because they didn't watch Fox, which has covered PUMA a lot, and that the MSM was otherwise in the tank for Obama.

    I see today that CNN is now covering PUMA. Five out of six progressive women democrats, party activists attending a fundraiser, women who donate money and do the groundwork for the party, not Obama supporters.  That can't bode well for Obama. My hope for change is that something good will happen in Denver.  I'm not holding my breath -- but sometimes miracles do happen.


    What??? Annoying??? (none / 0) (#187)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM EST
    Oooh and garden you just want to ruin all my fun. I find the collective fantasy delightful... like hope in the face of a hopeless situation. And nobody is going to be crushed. That's just... not going to happen. And riverdaughter... as an old man, I feel very uncomfortable over there.

    Why? Obama is doing the work for him (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    Overweening pride doesn't sell well in this country.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    It seems to me that your hate for Obama is clouding your analysis.

    Face it. (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    We have two weak candidates.  Both of them are being propped up.

    Hard to believe that this is the best we could do after Bush.

    Or is it?


    I also heard that Lance Armstrong (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM EST
    may jump back into the Tour.

    oooh, oooh, oooh, pick me....I have a (none / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    better candidate....maybe you will remember her? :)

    Does her name start with an "H"????? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:45:13 PM EST
    aaah yup! (none / 0) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    I don't think this tour thing is helping him (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    much.  We'll see after he hits Germany and the crowds.

    His daily tracking numbers just aren't great and seem pretty stuck.  That one Gallup 6-pt spread BTD cited was a big highwater mark in a remarkably flat and stable tide.  Today he's down to 4, also fairly high compared to recent numbers (mostly 1-3).  Ras him at up by 2, but also has McCain's favorability up by 2 also.  He's just flat.

    But myiq has a decent point.  With folks here at home struggling financially, a very large and very hyped Euro-Middle East tour probably doesn't come off so well with a lot of people, who would probably prefer to see their a potential president focusing on the economy and gas prices.

    Americans just don't like certain genres of arrogance.  That's why Dems always lose points on the elitism thing.  Big brash cowboy arrogance is fine, John Wayne is fine, America the home of the brave is fine, but arrogance tinged with even a small amount of snobbishness or condescension is not.  The narrative and mythology and history of this country is that no one's any better than anyone else.  And the tour narrative isn't that.

    Running around other countries posing for photo ops at the same time most folks back home are trying to figure out how to not freeze to death next winter is not a great vibe to send.  I'm not sure how many favors the media is really doing him making this into a huge hoopla.

    Will it be fatal for him?  Certainly not.  But it's not helping and is not helping with the people not already sold on him, who are really the people who matter now.


    I'll say this: the tour thing really (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:57:51 PM EST
    does make him a new kind of candidate---not in a good way, IMO, but it is different.
    It also is very high risk, much more so than anything else Obama has done to date.

    I'm stealing this... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:42:37 PM EST
    Americans just don't like certain genres of arrogance.  That's why Dems always lose points on the elitism thing.  Big brash cowboy arrogance is fine, John Wayne is fine, America the home of the brave is fine, but arrogance tinged with even a small amount of snobbishness or condescension is not.

    although I think that "snobbishish or condescension" are necessary aspects of "arrogance" -- that the masculinist arrogance described by "big brash cowboy arrogance" is perfectly compatible with "condescencion" toward 'pointy headed liberals', for instance.

    I think Obama's biggest problem arising from his tour is the presence of the three network anchors -- people now see this as "Obamapalooza" -- just one big fat overhyped media event, and all "mews" emanating from this tour will be viewed skeptically.  

    Finally, I think there is potential for a backlash arising from the big Berlin speech.... most americans don't see Obama as 'all that and a bag of chips', and forcefeeding them images of his popularity overseas at this point in the campaign may not go over that well because of the "Don't tell me what to do" factor.


    Feel free to steal! Btw (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:31:34 PM EST
    I thought your post on feminist perspective vs. perspectives from people calling themselves feminists over at Corrente was excellent.  You really nailed a distinction that has always been very troubling, but especially during this campaign season.  (I would have commented over there but I'm having trouble registering).

    I agree condescension is compatible with brash arrogance, but some flavors of condescension are  much more effective than the other.  The (R) brand of brash arrogance plays its condescension out as mockery of those who think they're better than anyone else. (yes, it's ironic) Most folks don't like being looked down on, and most folks don't feel like they're privileged (even the privileged don't feel that way).  

    Condescension mocking elitism is very powerful as a result.  Brash arrogance and mockery of elitism arrogance go together like chocolate and milk.  For some reason, the (D) brand as never been successful at breaking away from the idea that they all look down at us 'regular people', and it hurts them.  We like bold; we don't like snobby.


    Ha! It's funny you mention this... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:40:18 AM EST
    The Obamapalooza...

    And what did McCain do today?  He went grocery shopping with some woman and her kids in Pennsylvania (or something like that) and saw all those rapidly rising prices for milk, etc.

    Which one will ordinary middle-Americans relate to most?  


    I grew up in a state where the guy who walked the most miles was elected Governor, and he was a damned popular governor.  (Anyone remember "Walkin' Lawton Chiles"?).

    Would people rather vote for the Obamapalooza or the guy who walks the most miles in their shoes?


    What's funny to me is that (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:27:05 AM EST
    McCain basically isn't doing anything and his numbers are staying pretty stable, as is the gap between him and Obama.  And the number of undecideds doesn't seem to change much either.

    The numbers aren't moving at all. . . (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:32:34 AM EST
    'cause no one is paying attention.  Wait 'til the conventions.

    We're having the European (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:00:57 AM EST
    tour of Obamapalooza  with an entourage of thousands and no one is paying attention?

    That's a pretty rude response (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    And mindless adoration (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:10:17 AM EST

    Oh, I don't know. (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:20:57 AM EST
    I think Bush and Cheney and their friends have done very well for themselves. Both have sold the US a war and have made more money for themselves than they ever dreamed. Everyone knows it yet no one will do anything to stop them.

    I agree McCain should do this for right (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    now.  I am guessing after the convention and obama is the nominee, it will be open season on him.

    Waaaaait a minute... (none / 0) (#193)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:58:07 AM EST
    If you say that then what did you just give a 3 rating to Larry in NYC for? You are saying pretty much the very same thing... or am I missing something here?

    Nope (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    With all of Obama's natural advantages, McCain will lose unless he can shake up the race.

    Or a shakeup is engineered for him (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    that puts national security front and center again.  Ignored here are signs in that poll of how perilous may be Obama's lead.  He's seen as much more "risky," and much less CinC material, etc.

    mebbe (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    It's hard for me to imagine what would work. War with Iran? I think the political implications of that, especially in the context of the war in Iraq, are not as clear cut as you might think.

    The American people are sick of Bush and his foreign policy.


    You'd never know it (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    The American people are sick of Bush and his foreign policy.

    if you listened to Obama.

    What's he afraid of?

    Oh, right.  The American people.


    Nope. A threat to our shores. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:07:05 PM EST
    I'm not so sure McCain will lose (none / 0) (#173)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST
    I think Obama is seen as being much more of a gamble.  

    I also think that people aren't going to be willing to play craps or blackjack with their futures in November.  

    Other years, the gamble, the big new product, might have been a real winner but I think this year, people will turn towards something familiar and vaguely comforting (even if McCain isn't exactly that).  

    Even McCain's gaffes are viewed through the kindly prism of age:  "Oh well, he's old, and old people make mistakes."  Fortunately, most of his gaffes haven't been that awful -- I mean Czechoslovakia was a country for most of McCain's life.  Can he help it that the map has been redrawn and renamed a lot of times?    


    I disagree with you on this Grace. (none / 0) (#191)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:50:12 AM EST
    I wish you were right, but the American people have been playing craps with our future for so long -- a B actor twice, George I (essentially an unknown to the American people), Bush II twice -- that I fear one more time will mean nothing to the American voter.

    Since the 1920s when advertizing first became a major industry in the US, we have been a nation of trivial slogans and jingles. And with the rise of digital technology I do not see that changing any time soon.


    Well, I have to agree with you there (none / 0) (#194)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:07:41 AM EST
    We are a nation of cheap advertising jingles and new products --

    But I suspect this year might be different.  This recession certainly is different, if you listen to the guys on Wall Street and in Washington.  It sounds almost like we are going back to the Great Depression.  

    Based on that, I think people are going to want comfort foods (if they can still afford them) and comfort politicians.  


    too soon to tell (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    Kerry did pretty well until immediately after the convention--and that's when all swiftboat hell broke loose.

    If the Republicans don't attack Obama as soon as the Democratic convention ends, then it's safe to say that they'd rather not win with McCain. I'm really wondering if that's the strategy of the "movement conservatives": lose rather than let McCain win. That way, they can rail against Obama for 4-8 years and feel all righteous again. Sometimes in politics, it's apparently easier to be on the outside throwing stones.

    I voted for it before I voted against it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    was in March 2004.

    Yeah, and look at the ridiculous things (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    Obama said before March of this year.
    Claiming that grade school in Indonesia makes him more qualified to conduct foreign policy than McCain or Hillary is enough to sink him, all by itself.

    I get the feeling (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    that the rest of the world is not impressed with the glitzy Obama campaign... that he's not serious enough about the job or experienced enough to do it.

    This is not a good thing.


    I agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    I think the press here has been hyping his visit more than it's been making an impression.

    I feel the wind has left the sails of the Obama sailboat.


    Then it's time to try windsurfing. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    I get the feeling you haven't been (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    getting any news from Europe.

    Put aside your antipathy and try to look at this as coldly as possible.


    The hype about Obama visiting (2.00 / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:27:00 PM EST
    so many countries on a whirlwind tour seems to highlight the fact that this is the first time he has been to these parts and makes him look a little sophomoric. Then add the dog and pony media show and it has a "fake quality" to it.

    Why's that? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    That the rest of the world is not impressed, I mean.

    The rest of the world (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    has a better handle on the situation than the US media.

    Help me out here (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:16:17 PM EST
    got a linky or two?

    Here is (none / 0) (#28)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    a link to foreign newspapers.

    The Der Spiegel one is especially enlightening.


    Which article (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:38:37 PM EST
    says it best?

    If you're talking (none / 0) (#55)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    about this, I don't see it.

    This is the link to the site with the foreign (none / 0) (#59)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM EST
    press library...

    The "International Press Library" is Up and Running! (Useful Links to the Foreign Media)



    Obama, Japan (none / 0) (#40)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    Obama means "little place by the sea" in Japanese. There is a fishing village in central Japan called Obama. They have made a pretty big deal out of it over here. There is one little train line called the Obama Line that goes out there.

    And the (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
    Swift boat attacks began in early May 2004.  Kerry was attacked relentlessly for six months.  I actually think Hillary did Obama a favor by suspending rather than conceding the primary. I don't think the 527s will come after Obama until the nom is definitely his.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:15:22 AM EST
    I can hear Rove's silence. Fox is bewildered and twitching around in the vibrant stillness. But Rove... Rove is deafeningly quiet. I'm sorry but Rove draws out such oxymorons.

    The attacks began then but went nowhere (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:51:13 AM EST
    so the first swiftboat ad was in August.  Look at the polls then -- that's when it went bad for Kerry.

    And that was after the conventions that year.  This year, it may not hit until September. . . .


    Obama seems to be flubbing up (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    badly. What was the nonsense he said about Israel yesterday? It was Bush-level misspeaking.
    Then he talked about "his" banking committee---the problem is that he is not ON the banking committee.
    Sorry, but Obama looks like the weakest turkey since Mondale at LEAST. Of course, if the press props him up, it doesn't matter, but man will it be nervewracking!

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    If McCain does not consistently hammer Obama, nothing is going to stick.

    As I said in another comment, he needs to forget about being a Media Darling and just go all negative all the time on Obama to have ANY CHANCE.


    I'm not sure McCain has that in him (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    He floated to the Republican nomination and lost in the battle of the nasty in the 2000 Republican primary.

    This comment falls beneath your usual (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    level of perspicacity. Ask yourself: did McCain have to take out the other Republicans? No---they were so weak they fell of their own accord.
    MY thesis about Obama is twofold: first, he is a pathetically weak candidate by almost all measures---at least at this date; second, his stature is due to beating Hillary. This latter happened with a great deal of help from insiders, and even (IMO) cheating at caucuses. He BARELY sold himself to Democrats, and the more Dems saw of him in the high exposure primaries, the less they liked him.
    Can this buffoon last til November? Who knows. Bush did it, which should give YOU hope.
    Me----I'm nauseated by both of them.

    McCain does not need to go too negative (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    McCain's aware that many voters, see Obama as unqualified.  It's the reason I did not support Obama, when Edwards didn't make it.  The long Democratic campaign and the debates gave lots of voters a chance to see Obama clearly, and it wasn't a good impression.

    actually, he doesn't. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    As I said in another comment, he needs to forget about being a Media Darling and just go all negative all the time on Obama to have ANY CHANCE.

    bush didn't go all negative on either gore or kerry, he didn't need to. between the press and the 527's, all that was done for him.

    bush got reamed, by both gore and kerry, in nearly every debate, but you wouldn't have known that by the punditocracy. they were bored by "issues", and just thrilled that bush was, at some point, able to string together a marginally coherent sentence.

    while there may be some concern, by the MSM, about being accused of being racist, no such concern worries the republicans and their attendant 527's, they'll go after obama with both barrels blazing, after the conventions.


    He doesn't know (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    what committees he's on because he doesn't go. See? It's not his fault. -:

    Obama (2.20 / 5) (#48)
    by tek on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:22 PM EST
    misspeaks ad badly as Bush.  He's racing up Obamisms and he isn't even in the WH yet.  Maybe they have a common speech deficiency because they had a common addiction?

    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by badguppy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    Just wow.

    Press is focused on Obama; are voters? (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    We're continuously bombarded with a skewed reality: the media is NOT giving us a very accurate appraisal of how voters, across the board, are really feeling. Everyone, including media, pols, pundits, bloggers keep pumping Obama up touting his small lead, while the transformational figure of hope has almost completely disappeard: it's  surreal.

    There are many non-vocal voters, Democrats, who feel the same way I do: they'fd becoming more disenchanted with OB as each day goes by.


    incompetence, or a smart plan? (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    When Obama became the official presumptive nominee, I said that the smart thing for the GOP to do would be to take the (aprocryphal) "how to boil a live frog" approach -- chip away at his support slowly until right before the convention, then hit him with both barrels.  That approach would provide the GOP with the maximum advantage -- a full-scale attack on Obama's vulnerabilities starting in June could have resulted in Obama's replacement as the nominee.  Hitting him hard right before the convention makes it "too late" to change course -- but will lead to Democratic Party disarray because a lot of Clinton supporters will be "running around with their hair on fire" at the convention, because they know what is coming.

    So the question, IMHO, is whether McCain/the GOP is following that strategy -- I frankly don't know, because there does appear to be a lack of competence/focus/message discipline from the GOP.

    But perhaps that's all just part of the "playing possum" (as it were) plan?

    By God that's it! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by badguppy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    They are waiting.... yes, biding their time. Then both barrels! You just wait and see! Woo Nelly!
    Thanks for the perspicacious insight.

    We haven't had the conventions yet, and if (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    both are nominated by their parties we will have debates.  Until then I really think it's too soon to start changing the drapes.  Anything can happen, and three months is a long time, a very long time, in politics.  

    If your opponent is about to jump (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by wurman on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    overboard, hand him an anvil.

    If your opponent is making an international idiot of himself everytime he speaks, don't interrupt.

    When you have limited public financing for the campaign, keep your powder dry until the target is well defined.

    It seems reasonably certain that the GOP 527s are playing 'possum.

    posters (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by pennypacker on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    here are virulently anti Obama. a strong lack of objectivity when it comes to him or his campaign. I really enjoy the posts on criminal justice system but reading the comments about Obama has been really depressing.

    Not as depressing as the thing itself. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    Yes, they are beginning. . . (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    to affect me almost as much as the near-insane hatred of Clinton on the part of Obama fans during the primaries.

    Although not quite as vitriolic as the folks who constantly slammed Clinton (it's apparently permitted in the blogosphere to be grossly misogynistic while (fortunately) racism hasn't yet become widely acceptable) it's equally depressing to see folks criticizing an essentially decent and capable politician simply because he threatens their preferred candidates chances.

    Both groups remind me of the Naderites.


    I wish they would take Hillary's advice, honestly (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    Hillary, BTW, is doing a great job of her own thing. She just spoke on the Senate floor this evening.

    If Hillary wants me to believe her (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:45:22 AM EST
    and the rest of the Democrats, they need to send Obama out on the "Trust Tour."  

    And they need to supply him with plenty of "Trust" Documents, etc.  

    Frankly, I just don't trust him.  He doesn't have a long history.  Being President of the USA is not a supervised position.  If he had a Supervisor, I might feel a lot different about electing him, but this is like giving the guy the "King of the World" title -- and he doesn't have enough History for me to want to bestow that on him.  Seriously.  

    Throughout history, around the world, humans have had an amazing ability to elect THE WRONG PEOPLE in Democratic elections:  Hitler is a good example to start with.

    Presidents have huge amounts of power and they can use it to all sorts of bad ends -- look at how the Bush/Cheney ticket used their power.  

    I'm not willing to give up power to a complete unknown.  I want more information.  Unfortuantely, the Democratic party just seems to want to throw up more smokescreens but they don't want to provide more information.  And why did they put up this neophyte candidate to being with?  What is lurking behind that decision?  


    What was the speech about? (none / 0) (#100)
    by ajain on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    Housing Bill?

    She's not thinking. . . (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    of throwing him out, is she?

    HAH (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    Hey Larry, you do standup?

    Well done, sir (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    I don't usually laugh at Bill jokes, but that was (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    flat out funny.

    Energy. (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:32:10 PM EST
    In the end (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    It's not about the compromises your candidate makes, it's the compromises you make in supporting your candidate.

    It would be easier to take that opinion (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:30:58 PM EST
    seriously, had you not been the one complaining that TL was not sufficiently cheerleading for Obama enough.

    A little over half the country isn't beguiled by Obama.  They're just not.  The fact that some of the unbeguiled post here...well, that's the way it goes.  Complaining about it won't change it.


    Oh please. (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:52:46 PM EST
    I've never advocated for "cheerleading" for anyone.  The opposite of "senselessly attacking" is not "cheerleading" it's rationality.

    A little over half the Democratic electorate wasn't beguiled by Clinton.  That didn't make the near-insane vitriol directed against her something that should be let go without comment, at least in my book.

    Now, the shoe's on the other foot and it isn't any nicer going the other way.  I stood up for Clinton in the face of nonsensical, mean-spirited attacks, and I'll do the same for Obama.

    I'm happy to point out Obama's failings (such as FISA) and even make jokes at his expense (such as his propensity for statements of the form "Nobody has done as much as I have for. . . ").

    But I'm not going to let it go by when someone claims that Obama, with a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, will be no better for women's rights than McCain, with an almost 0% record.  Or that Obama, who ran a huge voter registration drive which was partially responsible for turning Illinois blue, is no different on civil rights than McCain, who voted against the MLK holiday.

    Or when someone skates very close to racial shibboleths by suggesting that Barack and Michelle Obama didn't "earn" their scholarships, or that Obama has never "had to work" for anything he's gotten -- both characterizations I've read here.

    The absolute panting for Obama to screw up is horrifying when you realize that people are hoping to see four years of McCain simply to vindicate their support of Clinton.

    I can't say whether Obama will be a good, bad, or indifferent President -- that's always hard to do in advance, and the next President is going to face enormous obstacles.  I had more confidence that Clinton would be a good President, which is why I voted for her.  But I know what McCain intends to do.  And I want no part of it.

    I'm not going to get the candidate I wanted, so I want the candidate closest to my preferred one -- and that's Obama.  But in all honesty, if people posted the same kind of senseless vitriol against McCain, I'd correct that too.  Hate is not a Democratic value, and it shouldn't be an Independent one, either.


    For anyone who wasn't a regular at DKos, (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:14:33 PM EST
    Larry did stand up for Hillary time after time, no matter who the poster was.

    Larry, I will say from my personal experience, many Clinton supporters who don't read blogs are just as angry as the ones you see here. I know men and women who say they won't vote for Obama who have never not voted for our candidate. I don't think her female supporters supported her primarily because she was female, but the anger they have because of the way she was treated is an anger in fellowship with her. We've walked in her shoes in a smaller way and it is hard to forget. That doesn't excuse some of the awful comments I read about Obama, though. I can handle the genuine criticism of any of them but not the personal ones.

    I'm in a really red area and my newspaper has tons of letters to the editor about the way she was treated. The anger is real. I have noticed that my friends who rarely watch the news are disappointed but not angry that she lost and they are voting for Obama. (I'm also less angry now that I leave my TV off.)


    I share in that anger. . . (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:08 PM EST
    and I think the front pagers, especially BTD, do as well.  But that anger is misdirected if aimed at Obama.  Just as the anger over the fact that Obama may have lost a couple of states because of genuine voter racism is misplaced if it's aimed at Clinton.

    The anger about Clinton's treatment is rightfully laid at the doorstep first of the pathetic, nasty, biased, macho news media we have in this country and secondly (and sadly) on American society, a large swathe of which clearly still has a problem with the idea of women leaders.

    Did that benefit Obama?  Yes, just the way racism benefited Clinton.  But even though the campaign was hard fought, even though the candidates were two enormously popular and enormously ambitious people, and even though supporters sometimes apparently found it desirable to gin up accusations of misbehavior against the other team I remain impressed with how clean the Democratic campaign was, especially compared to 2004.

    When I review the allegations of dirty tricks from supporters on both sides they seem silly and petty.  Each candidate let slip an utterance or two that I wish they hadn't made and that, I'm sure, they wish they could erase from history.  But compared with the way Gephardt and Kerry took down Dean (for instance) in 2004, this was clean city.

    Clinton always had an uphill struggle (in my mind) against those factors euphemistically referred to as her "baggage".  She had a fantastic result and, in the absence of a phenomenon like Obama, would have won.  I don't think politics is a game, but it is in this regard -- it's poor sportsmanship to hate the other guy simply because he won.


    You completely miss the point (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:58:17 PM EST
    and you utterly mischaracterize the reason most of us here are so dead set against Obama.  Most of us, including me, were not initially Hillary supporters, we came to her as the only alternative after being increasingly repelled by what we were seeing of Obama.  That dislike and mistrust has only grown as time goes on.

    There are certainly occasional over-the-top comparisons to McCain posted here, but you know very well how dishonest it is to tar everyone with the comments of a few.

    Most of us, including me, are still struggling with the decision about who to vote for in November.  For the vast majority, that's a decision between taking a barf bag and voting for Obama or not voting for the top of the ticket or writing somebody else in or whatever.  Outright voting for McCain is not even on the radar for most of us.

    That's not out of pique.  And shame, shame on you for saying it is and grossly belittling people's very real anguish about what's going on here.  It's an attempt to decide whether 4 years of McCain would be worse for the country than the much longer-term, possibly permanent cooptation of the Democratic Party.


    These two statements. . . (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:22:15 AM EST
    you utterly mischaracterize


    There are certainly occasional over-the-top comparisons to McCain posted here,

    If the second is true, then I'm guilty, at most, of over generalization.  But I don't believe you're being accurate when you say

    Most of us, including me, were not initially Hillary supporters, we came to her as the only alternative after being increasingly repelled by what we were seeing of Obama.

    I'll take you at your word that that's your situation.  But I know a great many of the other posters from here or Daily Kos and they're largely long-time Clinton supporters.  I was on the side of many of them in the Clinton wars at Daily Kos.  And yes, their dislike of Obama developed as the campaign heated up -- the stronger he was, the more they disliked him.

    That said, it's incomprehensible to me (even as a Clinton supporter) how someone could not be leaning one way or the other and come to detest Obama and like Clinton.  I can see how people come to detest the candidate who beats their own.  But for someone genuinely in the middle, Obama and Clinton are simply so damn similar.


    Put me in the same category (5.00 / 5) (#184)
    by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:21:33 AM EST
    as gyrfalcon. As much as I was following the race early on I was an Edwards supporter. When I looked into Clinton and Obama I found much to my surprise that I liked Clinton and how she worked, even though I wasn't in agreement with all her views.

    When I looked into Obama, I did my research away from the blogs and I was less and less enthralled and finally more and more aghast at the prospect of having to vote for him. I don't think that he and McCain are exactly the same but I do think that they would both be equally bad Presidents. This has nothing to do with Clinton, except to make me realize how much better my choice wouldhave been with her as the Dem candidate. But frankly I think that from a governance standpoint we would have been better off with Edwards or Dodd or Biden even. My reticence about Obama can be summed up in one word. Chicago.

      I don't think Clinton and Obama are essentially the same. He was always slightly to the right of her during the primaries and even more so now during the general and my impression is that the general election Obama is much closer to his true views than primary Obama was. And there are vast style differences. She enjoys and excels at the wonkery and the policy, he is all about the process and the power. I trust her to be responsive to her constituents, I don't see that with him. I could go on but I won't bore you.


    PS. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:40 PM EST
    I forgot to thank you for the kind words of support.

    The anger I have witnessed in others and (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    feel is about the system of putting a newbie out to get rid of Clinton, then the SD's who ignored the disparites of the caucus system and finally the DNC and MI.  I don't hate Obama, I just feel the "powers" again cheated me out of a fine candidate. I started out wanting to accept him, but it has been very difficult, considering.

    Obama put himself out. . . (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:02:34 AM EST
    If you read the Lizza article (or even listen to Obama's own honest statements), it's obvious that he's been aiming high, politically, for a long, long time.  

    He made a fantastic speech in 2004, Kerry lost, and that put him in position to make the run now.  He was well advised to since this is a miserable year for Republicans, he's star may well be at its zenith, and a Senate record is a terrible thing on which to have to run for President.

    I can't fault him for any of that.  No need to hypothesize a cabal plucking him from nowhere to "stop" Clinton.

    I can't fault the superdelegates for going for Obama anymore than I can fault so many of them for lining up behind Clinton before the first vote was cast.  Both candidates played the supers, some of the supers obviously had it in for Clinton, but that's politics.  I can fault the system for having superdelegates in the first place, but not the supers themselves for doing what they're supposed to (which is, whatever they want).

    FL and MI were a boondoggle, but I'm more comfortable listening to complaints about they way they were handled from people who objected at the time the original penalty decision was made.  The original issue, stopping states from infinite leapfrogging, was a worthwhile thing to pursue.

    In the end, they were seated about as required by the original rules (and as the Republicans were also seated) and, most importantly, it was clear that it wouldn't make any difference in the final outcome.


    The part I have the most trouble with (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    is this:
    He made a fantastic speech in 2004, Kerry lost, and that put him in position to make the run now.  He was well advised to since this is a miserable year for Republicans, he's star may well be at its zenith, and a Senate record is a terrible thing on which to have to run for President.

    I am having trouble with that. A fantastic speech puts him in a position to run for president. Wow.  That is my problem.

    Then I suggest. . . (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:15:59 AM EST
    your problem is with the American electorate (and there's nothing wrong with that -- I don't like 'em much myself).  But that's what happened and Obama took his chance -- just like Clinton took the chance of a vacant Senate seat to waltz into New York and become a Senator (my Senator, and a good one).  I don't begrudge her that, and I don't begrudge Obama the fruits of that speech.

    That said, I did choose to vote for Clinton.  But not because Obama was evil for even running for President.


    But, Larry, if they had been seated at 50% (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:13:39 AM EST
    in January, that would have made a huge difference. She would have had a nice lead going into Super Tuesday and she lost that momentum forever. Where would McCain be if Florida had been counted at 50% on May 31 instead of January? Obama was rewarded for withdrawing his name. They should have all been on the ballot and been counted at 50% from the beginning (not to mention that three other states moved their dates up and paid no price).

    This might be the (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    best user comment I have ever read at TL.

    People need to keep their eye on the ball.  


    My problem with your post (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:56:45 PM EST
    is that it's a generalized attack, and has the same effect you are saying you stood against for Clinton.  If you have a problem with particular comments, then say it then.

    No one's asking you to let anything go by.  But you are characterizing others' arguments in such a way that makes it sound as you're some brave truthteller and any who disagree with you are unbalanced.

    You did it again here.  Obama has made some very troubling statements regarding abortion and many here have expressed their misgivings.  But you cast Obama's nonsupporters in general as arguing that Obama's as bad as McCain.  It's a generalized attack based on the furthest end of a continuum of opinions expressed.

    It's an old debater's trick, and while often effective, as well as being much less crude and repulsive as the Dkos/whomever's CDS-based head-on attacks, it's no more legitimate a tactic.


    Well. . . (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST
    makes it sound as you're some brave truthteller and any who disagree with you are unbalanced.

    Arguing with people in an anonymous internet forum is not something I'd describe as "brave".  I'd say I consider myself consistent.  And I'm certainly not characterizing the folks posting unbalanced comments as unbalanced themselves -- everyone sounds a lot different on the internet than they probably are in real life (or perhaps it's vice versa).

    Nonetheless a great number of the comments here are unbalanced, in every sense of the word.

    Obama has made some very troubling statements regarding abortion and many here have expressed their misgivings.  But you cast Obama's nonsupporters in general as arguing that Obama's as bad as McCain.

    Obama has made some statements that have been made to appear by some posters here as troubling.  But they've been widely defended by various different pro-choice groups.  And they're not that different than statements that Clinton has made in the past.

    In other words, his statements on that subject are troubling only to people determined to be troubled by whatever he says.

    As for your claim that I "cast Obama's nonsupporters in general as arguing that Obama's as bad as McCain" I feel that's an accurate summary of my statement and that my statement is accurate.  Here, at least, in general anti-Obamists argue that they can't really see any reason to vote for Obama -- that is, that he and McCain are a toss-up when it comes to liberal issues.  There are a few Obama "nonsupporters" who do say "well, he's not my candidate of choice, but he's clearly better than McCain".  But in general that's not the feeling among Obama opponents.


    No, you are focusing on the end of (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:52:37 AM EST
    the continuum comments and painting everyone with one brush.

    Maybe the end of the continuum comments stick out more to you, whatever.

    You are still characterizing, circularly, anyone who's a nonsupporter as not legitimate by declaring that the only people 'troubled' are those determined to be.  There's more than one legitimate way to perceive Obama (or any of the candidates).  Yours is not the only right one.

    You are conflating motivation and fact.  I won't vote top of the ticket this election.  However, if I say Obama's inexperienced, it's either true or not, regardless of my motivation for saying it.  It's not more true because you, an Obama supporter says it.  The effect of your argument is that only Obama supporters can criticize him.

    It's just ad hominem, no different from any other ad hominem attacks except that you make the attack much less crudely than many on other boards.

    If you think that, eg, Obama's NARAL rating is dispositive, then by all means say so.  But the fact that not everyone agrees with your method of calibration doesn't mean that they're DK psychos.  For me, for any candidate, a positive voting record is necessary but not sufficient.  Only a negative rating is dispositive.

    Refute the arguments, not the person making them.


    That's really a quite disgraceful (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM EST

    I'm sorry you feel that way. (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    I can only assume that you do feel that it's okay to make attacks against Obama similar to the ones made against Clinton?

    Or that the claim that there's no difference between (Clinton, Obama: choose one) and McCain is somehow not similar to Nader's claim that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.


    I hope you don't leave (5.00 / 6) (#158)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:23:13 AM EST
    because I always enjoy reading your posts, and occasionally learn something new or even rethink one of my positions.  But this statement is, I think, a little unfair to the majority of posters on this site:

    it's equally depressing to see folks criticizing an essentially decent and capable politician simply because he threatens their preferred candidates chances.

    I don't believe that Senator Obama is an essentially decent and capable politician, and Clinton has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I have concrete examples that explain clearly why I feel this way; examples that have nothing to do with race, islam, or black militancy.  I've stated my concerns in what I hope is a constructive way on this board in the past, as have a number of other folks.

    There are always people with a great deal of passion on the outer edges of each dialogue but, for the most part, I am impressed at how well posters here explain their convictions and cite examples for their beliefs.  In fact, I can't count the times I've opened a thread on a subject I feel strongly about and just ended up uprating everyone's posts because they have basically articulated my thoughts far more precisely and eloquently than I ever could :)


    Thank you for the kind words. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:42:24 AM EST
    Obama is a politician, not a saint.  But as a politician, I find him capable (his political rise and legislative record are, I think, proof of that) and essentially decent (in that he holds pretty much the same liberal positions as Hillary Clinton).

    It's hard for me to see how anyone could disagree with that statement.

    As a politician, he sometimes disappoints.  For instance, by ducking hard votes or voting for political reasons.  But Clinton has always done the same -- one reason she did so well in the primaries was through careful management of her Senate record with an eye towards this election.  If Obama let me down on FISA Clinton let me down on the AUMF.

    I really see them as such very, very similar figures politically.  Clinton has more experience and, in my estimation, a more realistic view of the Republicans.  And, in the blogosphere, at least until recently, more rational supporters.

    Obama not "essentially a decent and capable politician"?  I can't see that.


    He has done several things (5.00 / 8) (#186)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    that distress me greatly, even before his recent FISA turnaround.

    I do not think a person of integrity would lie about passing legislation that mandated the reporting of nuclear waste leaks when he actually sold out to Exelon by legislating self-regulation. Expediancy trumps the welfare of his constiuents.

    I was appalled that his top economic aide, Goolsbee, was essentially telling a foreign government that Obama was lying about renegotiating NAFTA at the same time Obama was telling Americans to vote for him so he could renegotiate NAFTA. And then Obama lied about it some more -- repeatedly, even after the Canadian Goverment produced notes from the meeting.  He didn't admit to it until after the primaries.  This may not come even close to meeting the legal definition of treason, but it felt treasonous to me.  Then he essentially did the same thing with Samantha Powers telling the Scottish Guardian that the 16 month withdrawal plan he had sworn to was nothing more than a "best case scenario." Treacherous, treacherous behavior in my book, and not anything I want in my president.

    The Bobby Kennedy/assassination slur was a base and disgusting accusation to make, and not one that belonged in any political discussion, no matter how heated.  I cannot imagine a single other pol trying to use that against an opponent. Ruthless.

    The blurring of the Separation of Church and State is one of the things that has distressed me most about the Bush administration. I feel very strongly about this, and I feel betrayed that Obama is positioning himself in much the same way that Bush is. I don't ever want someone who is hungry to be forced to listen to prayers and hymns before they will be fed -- and that is already happening, even with organizations that receive goverment funds. I think this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent to drive.

    I am disturbed by Obama grinning at the reference to the "next president" as he helped gut our fourth amendment rights.  This all rolls up into the question of who he is, and what he really stands for.  I don't know.  What little I do know, based on his own actions and words trouble me. I simply fail to detect any integrity or moral center whatsoever in this candidate, -- and I would feel the same way if Hillary had said and done the things he did.

    Sorry to go on and on, just trying to give you an idea of why I really do not believe this candidate is decent or capable. I actually find McCain less egregiously dishonest, but I am not blind to the fact that his "maverick" label is media-driven and that he is conservative republican through and through.  I don't think think I agree with McCain on a single issue, except maybe campaign reform.

    I was so determined to be more knowledgable in the primary process this year -- I couldn't understand why dems kept nominating such weak candidates, even thought I obediently voted for them. Now I wish I had never even gotten involved because, quite frankly, I don't know that I'll ever vote again. So, I keep coming back here hoping to make sense of it all :)


    If it is hard for you to understand (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:36:21 AM EST
    how anyone could disagreewith that statement, why not try asking people, rather than blanketly asserting that they are comparable to the people you dislike(d) at DKos?

    The fact that you cannot imagine legitimate reasons why someone who supported Clinton can't support Obama does not mean they don't exist.  Until this year, I always, always voted for the (D) name.  Not this year, for a number of reasons that have been hashed and rehashed on TL so I won't start in on them now.

    However, a great many nonsupporters of Obama this year are exactly like me -- people with 20, 30, 40 years of voting Democratic.  But this year they're not.  Trust me, we all have plenty of experience with voting for a candidate in the primaries that didn't get the nomination.

    It's convenient, certainly, to assume that the only reason nonsupporters won't vote for him is only because he won, or that they're racist (I'm not saying you said that, but many have), or irrational -- but it ignores the question why so many yellow dogs would suddenly not vote Dem this year.  And casts fairly strong doubt on your blanket comparison of them to DKos users.


    I agree, Jane. (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:04:03 AM EST
    I was impressed by his speechmaking in 2004.  But as I saw more of him in 2007, I was turned off by his religiosity -- even though he tamped it down then for the primaries, but we certainly have seen its return.

    Then, as I read more about his background, including his own accounts that he had to admit were "fictionalized" but still claimed they were autobios, I had to wonder more about who and what he really was -- about the construction of Obama.

    Then reading more in Chicago media really concerned me, as I know too well the ways of the Chicago machine.  But I probably still would have found a way to be fine with him, as I do with the Dem every time -- until this time, because of his (yes, his) behaviors in the primaries.  Those were not the acts of a "decent" person, even for a pol.

    Add to that all his flipflopping since on issues that have priority for me, and I see only an overly ambitious pol, which could be his downfall -- and ours.  So I am left no longer a Dem, because of the actions of the party as well, and I remain undecided.  But for once, that's fine -- there are 100 days ahead to see what will be.

    And since my state no longer is a swing state, so what?  I'm paying more attention to state races.


    There are passions on both sides, of course, (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:49:05 AM EST
    but I think this argument was nicely done.

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by badguppy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:34:18 PM EST
    I've been made hopeful by some of the ardent Hillary supporters who have made some pro-Obama comments here or at least defended reasonableness. The haters are obvious and not as influential for being so.

    Okay, so what if, between now and the (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:47:02 PM EST
    end of the GOP convention (1) the situation with Iraq is looking more and more stable and Bush announces draw-downs and (2) gas prices continue to fall, which means prices in general will start coming down?  Obama can't claim credit for either of those situations, so doesn't some of the wind go out of his sails?

    I just think it's far more likely that people will be feeling like they can breathe a little again, and because they have extremely short attention spans and are more comfortable with the devil they know than the one they don't, I think we're kind of back to the same old tug-of-war with the GOP in which the margin of victory could be razor-thin.

    I have already heard a couple of reporters remark that the Obama campaign had to be reminded that Obama is not yet the president, because the campaign was justifying some of what was scheduled as "what presidents do."  Somehow, I imagine that will be worked masterfully into some ad and it will not be flattering.

    Really, the whole idea that the choice is between these two just makes my eyes roll back in my head.

    I saw some talking head say the other day that (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    both parties wish they could have a do-over.

    Well, the Republicans were expecting (none / 0) (#73)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:00:25 PM EST
    a strong Democratic candidate and didn't have much hope for this year. They must really be kicking themselves now.

    But I can't think of any strong candidate for (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:06:57 PM EST
    the Republicans right now. Can you? I thought McCain would be the strongest because of his "moderate" image but he isn't doing too well.

    Right, he's doing crappy (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    But 'member that joke about outrunning a bear.  I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

    My sense was that Republicans were pretty demoralized and defeated-feeling until near the end of the primaries.  When they started to go hmmmm...maybe defeat isn't inevitable after all.


    I think they will go all out to try and win but I (none / 0) (#101)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    really am surprised at what a weak candidate McCain is. Of course, I thought Bush was an awful candidate and he won (once anyway).

    I'm sure that (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    things are sure to turn around in the next 5 weeks.

    Keep the dream alive!


    Last night I was thinking about Obama vs McCain (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:07:43 PM EST
    Just general thoughts on why I would vote for Obama rather than not vote for either. I got to thinking about how Obama is a cypher, he's not really known, and what we do know says he can't be really trusted for good judgement, and that he doesn't listen to us. He could very easily be a really really bad president, and he hasn't done much to convince us otherwise.

    THAT SAID, I got to thinking about McCain, and his age, which isn't a sin, but there are certain things that go along with it that can cause problems, esp. considering dementia, alzheimer's, and just plain senility. Not to mention all the usual physical ailments. Couple that with his turnaround in values over the past few years, from bipartisan fave to Bush 2.0, and his fabled temper... and you have another really really bad choice for leader of the free world (and holder of the nuclear football).

    I think I'm going to have to accept that Obama is the less probable destructive candidate here, in a purely nuclear sense. As far as civil rights, supreme courts, constitutional fights, and other issues, I really have a hard time convincing myself he's going to be any better than McCain. So far, his track record is unimpressive at best.

    So there you go. Go Obama. Yay.

    You sound really fired up and ready to go! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    As someone who believes in what Democrats are supposed to believe in, there's no way I could vote for any Republican. I'm just not really enthused about Obama and doubt I ever will be. I'm in TN so it won't matter what I do but my aggravation isn't really toward Obama anymore but toward the leadership of the party and the media. There's no way I'm voting for a Republican, though, so if my vote mattered, I'd be in your shoes. With such a wimpy Congress, I wish Obama was a fighter - he could win a lot of us over if he was.

    Dementia. . . (3.66 / 3) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    As far as civil rights, supreme courts, constitutional fights, and other issues, I really have a hard time convincing myself he's going to be any better than McCain.

    is not only for the elderly, apparently.  Civil rights?

    McCain hasn't had any "turnaround in values".  This is a man who voted against the MLK holiday, is pretty close to 100% anti-choice, was censured by the Senate for corruption, it goes on and on.

    On almost every single political issue he and McCain differ and every time they differ, Obama is better.


    Thanks for the apology (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    And yes, I was hyperbolic on the civil rights issue, but let's be clear. Have you ever watched 'The Price is Right'? The first round is where 4 people line up and price a showcase, and they aren't allowed to go OVER the price. Well, the strategy for the last person is to choose one of the other prices add 1 dollar, so as to maximize their chances of getting closer than one of those other players, but still not going over the price.

    I feel like Obama, while he is, as you say, better in every way, I feel that he is just adding a dollar to the tally, and not really making a difference with his positions. He's just doing enough to not be Republican, which is a really pathetic strategy no matter how successful it is.


    That was perhaps. . . (none / 0) (#83)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:14:28 PM EST
    a tad severe.  I apologize for the first sentence.

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:20:02 PM EST
    The people who are like "McCain is just waiting until after the convention to really go after him!" are just as annoying to me as the people who are like "Obama is just waiting until after the convention to start talking about the issues you want him to talk about!"  Please, enough already.

    Except Republicans have a record (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    of potshotting & sniping during the summer then going to town after the conventions.  Doesn't make it inevitable, or that it will work, but there's a basis for making the statement.

    The Dems record is sort of the opposite -- start getting confident and excited early but then get blindsided in the last lap.  There's no pattern of strong issue emphasis post convention.  And so far this year, issue emphasis has been fairly weak from Democrats.  So projecting a huge issue-based campaign is less credible.


    Um, have you forgotten 2004? (none / 0) (#93)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:22:53 PM EST
    Have you? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    Did Bush wait until after the convention to attack Kerry?  No, he did not.

    It's clear to one and all that McCain is trying to attack Obama, calling him a socialist, saying he wants to cut and run in Iraq, deploying all the standard talking points.  He's just not landing these attacks very effectively.

    I'm confident things will get more intense as Election Day approaches, naturally.  But the idea that McCain has something massive in his back pocket that he's just waiting until after the convention to unleash strikes me as a silly belief, on a par with the other thing I mentioned.

    Maybe Obama will win, maybe he will lose.  But some people want so desperately to believe he is a fatally flawed candidate that they talk themselves into believing in anything, be it a whitey tape, a forged birth certificate, or whatever.  We'll see.


    Please don't be silly (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    Negative campaigning, and especially negative ads, always work best late in the game, especially against opponents the public doesn't particularly trust.  You think the republicans don't know this, especially when their funds are limited because of going with the public finance?  Please.

    Okay (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:21:38 AM EST
    Since I'm such a silly person, please remind me which presidential campaigns were won by last-minute negative advertising blitzes?

    That's odd....all I ever got was a pain (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM EST
    in my head watching msnbc...

    McCain is indeed a poor candidate and many (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    Republicans don't like him, but I really can't see the party faithful just rolling over and not fighting for "the Party."

    As some have said earlier, since Obama's not officially the nominee until after the convention, they're not going to bring out all of the big weapons now. McCain might be terrible, but he's "their terrible," and ultimately they'll hit the Dem nominee from every direction.

    Let's not forget, they successfully discredited the service of a decorated veteran, i.e., John Kerry, and I'm certain they've zeroed in on what they perceive as Obama's weaknesses, and are just waiting to launch a full-scale attack on him. If not McCain's campaign, the 527s have honed their expertise in character assassination and will show no hesitation or have compunction for using those special skills against Obama or any Democrat if deemed necessary.

    If that doesn't happen, then the Republicans have seen something that they like in Obama and will go easy on him. Now, that would be scary.

    Gergen and Klein tonight on CNN, AC 360, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jpete on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38:06 PM EST
    sharply criticized McCain for saying Obama would prefer to win an election to winning a war.  Strong criticism, said  he "overstepped the line."

    Last night, Gergen went after Obama (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:32:18 AM EST
    for overstepping greatly in having negotiation talks with Maliki -- and then revealing their substance. Only the president negotiates for the country, said Gergen.  He really considered it egregious of Obama.

    Sounds like Gergen, at least, is getting back into being an equal-opportunity critic of all candidates.


    Forget the daily tracking polls (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:42:32 AM EST
    They are robo-calls that would poll a dog if it answered the phone.  

    The average of the standard polls shows Obama has a solid 5 or 6-point national advantage, and that's very substantial theses days.  The state polls indicate a potential landslide of electoral votes.

    Moreover, the intensity factor for Obama is much higher - as shown in the subject poll.  44% of Obama supporters rate themselves as very enthusiastic - as opposed to 14% for McCain.  Robo-calls don't measure intensity, which is a very important factor.  Unenthusiastic poll responders often don't show up on election day - nor do they contribute money or time to a campaign.

    Hey, sorry to have touched a nerve ! (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by tree on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:48:32 AM EST
    I take it you don't like being told to "get over it"? Welcome to the lot of the Obama critic here, at least from some posters.

    I didn't point out that the best method to deal with annoyance is to let it go just to annoy you, or because you were annoying me. I felt it was a necessary statement given the drift of certain comments in this thread that offered the idea that this site would be better without the critical voices. I think that is a mistake. You get to make your statement, I get to make mine. You can choose to get annoyed with what I say. Its a free country, as they say. But it would be a lot less free without the annoyances, unfortunately.

    The tone of some posters lately that I have noticed, and I'm not including you here, is unhappiness with ANY criticism of Obama, no matter how well reasoned, or any defense of McCain no matter how deranged the attack. It sounds like they want to shut down any discussion that isn't glowing toward the "approved" candidate. I think that would be to the greater detriment of intelligent discussion on this site.

    Just wait. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Caro on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:42:08 AM EST
    For the moment, all McCain has to do is to hold his own, which he's doing rather well.

    After the convention, there will be no holds barred.  The Republicans say they have a 1,000 page dossier on Obama ready to be exploited.

    Carolyn Kay

    And the images! (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by badguppy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    Don't forget all those horribly unpresidential pictures coming back! He's embarrassing us over there! I bet no one shows up to that Berlin shindig.

    Many of the most annoying holdouts (2.60 / 5) (#176)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:55:25 AM EST
    do not want Obama to win. They would prefer to be vindicated.

    If they care about the issues, it's only because the issues have become convenient to foster their deranged hatred of Obama.

    I dislike the guy as much as just about anyone, but my pragmatism keeps me from hoping that he loses. Other people think that they're making different and better calculations, but they're really just being stupid.

    Emotions are important in decision-making (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by denise on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 03:20:45 AM EST
    I don't know what I'll actually do in November yet, but I rarely have such strong negative feelings towards anyone - certainly not towards Democratic politicians. My gut is telling me not to vote for Obama, and as of now I think I should go with it.

    You might want to call it deranged hatred. I think of it as my heart & soul telling me something important.


    I know what I thought about people (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    who voted based on gut feelings in 2000 and 2004. My opinion on that hasn't changed.

    I only respect votes based on issues.


    It is to early to believe that Obama will win (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    The fact is that Obama is ahead of McCain by a much smaller margin that Gore and Kerry were against Bush during the same time in 2000 and 2004.  

    I think the Obama followers are too eager to make this polls out to mean more than they are.  

    I have the feeling that people are setting themselves up for a very bad fall in the Fall.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    Gore was almost never ahead of Bush.

    The stuttering alone will make a devastating ad... (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:02:53 PM EST
    Mr. Eloguence will be reduced to babbling all over the TV...

    Rasmussen (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by tek on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    has McCain 6 points over Obama.  People read selectively.  Obama's not the candidate yet.  McCain would be foolish to go after him too strongly with a stronger Democratic candidate in the wings if Obama got toxic.

    I don't think there's a single thing (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:07:44 PM EST
    in this comment that is true.

    Including. . . (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:11:44 PM EST
    "and" and "the".

    C'mon andgarden.... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:15:44 PM EST
    while I'm highly skeptical of the McCain six point spread, Obama is merely the "presumptive nominee", rather than the candidate -- and it would be smart for the GOP to keep their powder dry when the Dems have a very strong "bench" (not just Clinton, but Gore and possibly Edwards) that it could turn to if Obama tanks before the convention.

    The fantasies of riverdaughter notwithstanding, (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    there is no conceivable chance that anyone other than Obama will be the nominee. We might as well be talking about McCain not being the Republican nominee.

    If one wants to entertain. . . (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    fantasies about one of the candidates not ending up with the nomination, I'd say there's a lot more chance that the Republicans would want to jettison McCain right now.  Maybe they could get Novak to run him over, or something.

    Obama is the candidate, his competitors (including Clinton) have conceded, and he's been doing a good job as candidate, especially on his "presidential material" world tour, while McCain just flubs around.

    Will there be ups and downs?  Yes.  Will he sometimes (as do all politicians) disappoint?  Yes.  Does McCain have a chance?  Not so much.  Is derangement syndrome as serious an issue when it strikes Clinton supporters as when it hits Obama supporters?  Yes.

    Look, I voted for Clinton as well.  Some of the stuff she had to fight against was patently unfair -- the media coverage, cultural baggage she has, through no fault of her own, accrued, and a possible bias in the electorate towards male candidates.  Some of it wasn't fair or unfair, it just is -- like the fact that this year is a "change election" big time.  And some of it, frankly, is her fault.  If her campaign had been running before Super Tuesday the way it was afterwards, she might well be the nominee.

    But she isn't the nominee.  The person who is the nominee is somewhat less experienced but, in terms of policies, almost indistinguishable.  Could we please just let go of this "his popularity is a disadvantage because people will turn on him in three weeks and demand Clinton" fantasy?


    This analysis, regardless how many times (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST
    repeated, falls apart.

    McCain IS doing a horrible job campaigning.  But that contradicts your point.  Republicans are in utter disfavor.  The economy is tanking.  Yet Obama's lead is barely above MOE.  That's not doing a 'good job.'  That is doing a 'barely keeping your head above water' job.  That is, selective citing of polls notwithstanding.

    There's no sign that he's gaining any traction.  He bobbles up for a bit, his fans get all excited, he bobbles down, silence.  Until the next bobble.  He may get lucky and on an up bobble right before the GE.  But sorry, I just don't see how anyone could think that's a cause for celebration.  I might as well run out and buy myself a new sports car now because I might get lucky and win the lottery next week.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:06:38 AM EST
    Clinton suspended her campaign; she didn't concede.  However, I agree that she is not going to be the "surprise" dem nominee.  In order for that to happen, the supers would have to grow consciences and develope spines. That's simply not going to happen.

    Didn't he just (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:27:28 AM EST
    crib her policies?  It appears he copied a lot of them but I don't believe these policies actually are his, or what he feels in his heart.  

    You are asking us to vote for someone who will be placed in the highest office this country has to offer on the basis of, not what that person believes in, but on the basis of what the person he beat believes in.  

    No no no no.  (Jeramiah Wright said it first but I'm stealing it.)  

    I am so sorry but I just can't vote for the pseudo-candidate no more than I can buy "American Cheese made of vegetable oil, without any milk at all!"  I can't vote for the product that has the same values on paper but 100% less character.

    Obama is not "just like" Hillary.  He's no more like Hillary than tofu being a substitute for a steak.  

    I won't vote for him based on his website because I know that that website does not reflect his actual values.  It reflects crap he's stolen from everyone and tried to co-opt as his values -- but I'm not buying it.  

    What does he believe in?  Is that so hard for him to answer and stand up for?  Apparently it is because he has spent a lifetime voting "Present" and riding on everyone else's coattails.  

    I'm a really frustrated Democrat who can't believe that Obama is the best person they could find to run for President.  This is really an embarrassment to the Democratic Party -- more than anyone else in the last 50 years.  They are putting up a freakin' Muppet who can read scripts well and asking us to vote for him.  

    This is almost enough to make me switch my party registration.      


    Apparently not (4.00 / 4) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:49:17 PM EST
    Some people are irreconcilable. I don't care so much, expect to the degree that the pollute the discourse here with nonsense and paranoid fantasies.

    Charming. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:16:02 PM EST
    Yes, I fear. . . (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    I'm not long for this world either.  At least the front page is rational.  Whither next?

    Oh, I'm not going anywhere yet (3.16 / 6) (#91)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:21:32 PM EST
    I think they can be kept mostly in line. Of course if this were my site, I would use a heavier hand.

    Andgarden... (none / 0) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    ...except (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST

    Ratings (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:01:15 PM EST
    Hard to know which is sillier, a false claim that McCain leads Obama by 6 (I assume a very bad typo, terribly informed, or an inability to read Rasmussen results) or the fact that someone gave such a false statement a rating of 5.

    McCain may be all negative on (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    him now and we just don't know it. That John, what a maroon.

    The problem is McCain (none / 0) (#20)
    by ajain on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    He is bad, bad, bad candidate.
    He can't stay on message. He can't drive a message home.

    Sounds like Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    He is bad, bad, bad candidate.
    He can't stay on message. He can't drive a message home.

    We're doomed.


    McWho. (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:30:59 PM EST
    I don't like name calling and I have a hard time taking seriously political analysis from people who use silly nicknames for McCain.

    But if I did have a name for him right now it would probably be "McWho?"

    If you don't like doing it... (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    don't do it.

    There are plenty of ways to be critical of the candidates without calling names.


    Yes, thank goodness (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:27:34 PM EST
    no one here has engaged in name calling with respect to Obama.

    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by badguppy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST
    made me think of this video from the Jerusalem Post.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#121)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    That was fun. I couldn't help wondering what that meant to those who could identify the political party of one candidate or the other.

    Larry, you just contradicted yourself. (none / 0) (#37)
    by derridog on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:39:33 PM EST
    All Obama has to do (none / 0) (#51)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:10:34 PM EST
    is run around looking and talking presidential, talking a good game, and avoiding the big scandals that the echo chamber can make the message.
    Right now McCain is making bigger gaffes than Obama but neither is registering with the public. If this goes on longer it will be media darling vs media darling and whoever gets more photo ops wins.

    McCain is much worse as a candidate than I (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    ever dreamed he could be. I guess I had never seen him give a speech before. He's just awful at it.

    I also don't think that McCain as media darling can compete with Obama as media star. I originally thought he would lose big but I'm starting to think he will win if he does like you say and avoids any scandals.


    I think Axelrod is doing just that. (none / 0) (#139)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:57:49 PM EST
    From what I have read, Obama takes no questions and keeps the press at arms lenght.  He must have learned from Bill Clinton, that if the press wants to "shape" a story line on you, they will.

    That word isn't allowed here, snark or not. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:01:13 PM EST

    I meant "Mr. Eloquence"....I'm tired! (none / 0) (#77)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:06:01 PM EST

    Maybe McCain is saving his good stuff (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    for a elected nominee, not a presumptive one....it's early.

    Yeah... maybe. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    Again, I hope that his political team is thinking along those lines.  I'd love them to take the summer off.

    Of course, one would think it'd make more sense for them to try to destroy Obama with all they have starting right now, causing the massive nosedive you believe is coming in the fall, panic in the Dem ranks, the movement you're hoping for to nominate Clinton instead, resulting in a real Democratic civil war that might actually lead to McCain's victory.  But that presupposes them actually having the "good stuff", doesn't it?


    You hold onto that hope, mmmkay (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:02:27 PM EST
    LOL. And you to yours. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:12:59 PM EST
    The wait-and-attack strategy has (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    been successful in the past, whether you (or anyone) finds it rational or not, and whether it should work or not.  Why would they shift strategies this year?

    Right now the Republicans seems to be popping out an ad or two here, an attack or two there.  They are test-marketing to see what gets traction.

    They did the same with the Swiftboaters.  The Swiftboater stuff started popping up in June (maybe even the end of May) in 2004.  But they didn't go whole hog until after the convention.

    It would be a very risky strategy this year IF Obama was up in the polls by a significant margin -- waiting would lessen their chances of breaking momentum.  Waiting has risks of its own, but is less risky the way things stand today.


    You missed one of the questions (none / 0) (#204)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    When asked who would be the riskier choice for POTUS, 35% picked McCain and 55% chose Obama.  Why is that, do you suppose?