Obama '08?

Whether it came from HIM or not. It sounds like it's been his staffers who have been making some stupid decisions.

Since this is the second time, though, I hope he does something to shake up the campaign staff and make sure that the second time is the last time.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Obama said up front, he was going to run a "clean" campaign.

Then, we have:
At issue are documents distributed to some news organizations by Obama aides on a not-for-attribution basis that offered a harsh analysis of the Clintons. One appeared under the headline "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s personal financial and political ties to India."

A copy of the documents was obtained by Sen. Clinton's campaign, which then provided them to the Tribune and other news organizations. Obama's campaign confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

Full Article

It's not a matter of any apologies; he has to run a clean campaign, or he's going to play dirty. Ya can't have it both ways. If I have this wrong, please show me how?

You think any human being can completely control all facets of a multi-hundred-million dollar operation, including all the blogs, committees, groups, etc. who are supporting him? If someone is running, and one of his gungho-but-stupid supporters does something bad, what can the candidate do but immediately disagree with the bad thing publicly? What can any candidate who pledges to stay above the dirty politics do, but not personally start or participate in anything dirty?

If any of the candidates has something bad done in his name, and he refuses to disagree with it- say its wrong - or he just doesn't talk about it at all, THAT's the one's who I can see you condemning. But to try to say Obama is somehow proven corrupt or dirty or something because of this is just not being realistic, IMO.

0 Replies

Yes; if somebody says "I'm going to run an honest/clean campaign" knowing all the potential problems for making such a promise, I expect them to keep their word. Otherwise, don't make those promises.

0 Replies

What you are admitting is that it's not realistic for Obama to make such statements.

0 Replies

What promise, exactly, are you talking about CI?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I don't know what to make of this pattern. Either Obama can't decide whether he wants to go dirty or not -- minus points for leadership. Or Obama wants to go dirty, and the idealists he's hired mangle it because they're incompetent slime-throwers -- minus points for hiring the wrong people for the job. Or Obama doesn't want to play dirty and cannot keep his more aggressive-minded staff disciplined -- again, minus points for leadership.

And, to repeat, this isn't the first time something like this happened. I am not impressed.

When I first read about this, I thought it was the poor hiring option coming into play. Bad enough. If it's one of the others, feh.

It'd be bad enough if another candidate's campaign made him look bad, but his own?

0 Replies

I submit that the best ANY candidate with a nationwide-sized operation can do - even the one with the BEST moral fibre and rock-solid intentions in the world - is to immediately disavow and disagree with the actions of the loose cannons, zealots and otherwise misguided among his supporters.

No one could control all of them, but when a "macaca" moment comes, if he doesn't ignore it, or tacitly agree with it, that's about the best anyone can hope for.

0 Replies

Maybe it's one of those 'it's different in the U.S.' things.

I'd expect a candidate here to fire a staffer who mishandled things in this way.

0 Replies

I dunno, C.I. If it didn't come from him -- if he didn't say some variation of "hey, let's play up Hillary's support from the Indian community" and that's why this happened -- then he IS running a clean campaign. The problem is the rogue elements.

I do hope that there's a shakeup as a result though, not least because of the pre-existing grumbling I mentioned. He went into this whole thing pretty quick and hit the ground running and was a long shot when he started, I wouldn't be surprised if he could get a way better calibre of staffer at this point, especially at the higher levels.

0 Replies

50% unfavorables for Hillary = Obama the Dem candidate for prez.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe, Point well taken; I am probably expecting too much from the Obama campaign. I stand corrected.

0 Replies

Everybody can make a mistake (even in the hiring of staffers). And unless it is clearly planned out and reveals something otherwise hidden about the real person (i.e. 'macaca,') I'm not sure where the story is.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

sozobe, Point well taken; I am probably expecting too much from the Obama campaign. I stand corrected.

Why do you think you would have such expectations of Obama, as opposed to others?

0 Replies

I expect more from Obama, because this country now needs a leader that can be trusted. We must be able to trust his advisors and most everyone that works for him. It goes without saying the the current occupant of the white house and most in the administration has no standard concerning trust, fair play, or openness. I want Obama to be the candidate I vote for in November 2008. I don't want him to lose on the basis of campaign mistakes; there will be plenty of mud-slinging in the future without causing his own.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
sozobe, Point well taken; I am probably expecting too much from the Obama campaign. I stand corrected.

Why do you think you would have such expectations of Obama, as opposed to others?

Well, I cant speak for c.i., but speaking for myself, perhaps it was Obama's camp's repeated claims that he was going to do politics differently, take it to the higher ground?

That kind of started grating on me pretty quickly - Id rather have my candidate fight for my bread-and-butter issues than stand above it all on a more abstract-minded high ground focus on "political culture" and the like.

I'm guessing I wasnt alone in my slight annoyance, and that this is sort of boomeranging against Obama now - that some people who were getting annoyed about this anyway are being all too glad to catch his camp out being like any other. Not fair, but there you go.

0 Replies

Yeah, there you go.

And here I am still seeing a candidate who has remained pretty much above all the slinging.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, there you go.

And here I am still seeing a candidate who has remained pretty much above all the slinging.

"All the slinging"? You think Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, whoever, have done a whole lot of slinging that Obama has stayed pretty much above of?

I havent seen any of 'em do much more than any other, myself... It's been remarkably quiet, in fact, I thought.

Any examples of the mudslinging on the other candidates' part you're talking about?

0 Replies

In fact, the only attack ad I can remember in the Dem campaign so far was that Obama staffer's Hillary/1984 ad, brilliant as it was.

Hell, I wouldnt mind an Edwards staffer throwing something like that out.. get to the nitty gritty already.

0 Replies

I guess I've been paying attention to the wrong stuff. I've been listening to the candidates talk - reading where they stand on issues, and what they say about each other. I gotta get with the program...

No I haven't heard any of the others "sling" much, either. But we were talking about Obama, and I was replying to your comment about being irritated by his pretensions of being above it all. I think he has stayed pretty much above any slinging. That clear it up for you at all? I kinda think probably not - you almost seem intent on having some point of contention about this...

0 Replies

Now you get to deal with Bloomer, a real Dumbocrat in disguise.

Hope y'all enjoy him.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know