Obama '08?

Why are all of you blaming only Bush for the illegal immigrant problem?

And since Bush has not done enough to stop illegals from coming to New York, it is entirely reasonable for New York to make them full fledged and legal in New York, so to give them all drivers licenses is totally logical, mm. It is so logical and consistent. Such common sense as explained by Hillary, Thomas, Lola, and others. We are so fortunate to be on this forum where such logic can be explained. All you have to do to get any answer correct on any subject on this forum is to just remember to blame Bush.

Question, if it makes sense for New York to grant drivers licences to illegals, which in essence facilitates more illegals coming to New York, then why criticize the Feds for not cracking down on it? She criticizes Bush for not doing anything about it, but she compliments Spitzer for doing just the opposite of Bush. All I am looking for is some consistency here. I don't see any.

If an illegal is caught driving without a license, how come they aren't deported? After all, they are here illegally. Why instead give them a license, which only says hey, you are breaking the law but we don't care, we will help you to continue to break the law; you are welcome in New York and we will even give you a drivers license to legally drive here even though you are not legally living here? Again, where is the consistency?

You bring up being evasive. It is Hillary that is evasive, inconsistent, and famous for taking multiple positions on issues.

"Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do it," Mr. Obama said. "Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do it."

"If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing," he said.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said the party would succeed if it was led "not by polls but by principle, not by calculation but by conviction."

Obama makes hay at JJ
David Yepsen
Sun 11.11.2007 2:28 AM

The leading Democratic presidential candidates showed up for the Iowa Democratic Party's big Jefferson Jackson Dinner Saturday night.

Five of them gave really good speeches.

Barack Obama's was excellent.

It was one of the best of his campaign. The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way. His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it.

Historically, the iowa party's "JJ" dinner is a landmark event in Democratic presidential caucus campaigns. All the key party activists, donors and players from the state are present. This year, about 9,000 of them showed up, most were from Iowa though there was some grumbling that Obama packed the place with people from Illinois. [Apparently there were many Illinois numberplates in the parking lot - nimh] The charge was denied by the Obama people, who were clearly pleased they beat the other candidates in the noise war inside Veterans Memorial Auditorium.

A candidate who does well at a JJ is quickly in the political buzz around Iowa. A candidate who does poorly can be quickly written off by some important players in the party. Candidates also know the event provides them with an opportunity to sound new themes, launch new attacks or mount a defense of their weaknesses. Local and national observers show up to chronicle the changes.

Obama was particularly impressive Saturday night. Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday's dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here, a point where he laid down the marker and began closing on Clinton, the national frontrunner.

For example: [..] he said the Iraq war "should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. [..] He said the nation has a "moment of great opportunity" and "we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office." [..]

He said "the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do it in this election. [..] Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers just won't be popular just won't do it. [T]elling Americans what they think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do it. [T]riangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do it."

He said he offers "change that is not just a slogan" and "change we can believe in." [H]e wanted to "stop talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care and start actually doing something about it." [..]

There were also references to not taking money from lobbyists. And he said "I am running for president because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking the only way to look tough on national security it talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans." [..]

His coup de grace came with this: "When I am the nominee of this party, the Republican nominee will not be able to say I voted for the war in Iraq, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or that I support Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like."

"I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s," a reference to the polarization of the Clinton years. "I don't want to pit red America against blue America."

[..] Obama can sometimes be flat or tired when speaks late at night. He can meander or sound wonkish and hesitant. Not Saturday night. (He came fired up and ready to go, to borrow a phrase.) At one point, he invoked Martin Luther King and his cadence even included the uplifting touches and quavering voice of a traditional black preacher's sermon.

While the Democratic candidates all had a good night, Obama clearly had the best. [..].

[Hillary's] supporters had the miscellaneous appearance of the genuinely downtrodden or socially forgotten, unlike the hale and hearty college students and lively, well-to-do middle-class families in Obama's sections.

Oooh! Looking forward to your account, Cycloptichorn.

- Young/middle-aged professional black people who either were wealthy or dressed way up for this event (or both) -- many of 'em looked opera-ready, they were that dressed up. This was a large group.

Look who is decrying the influence of polls!

Here are two quotes from a politician:

"…This party….has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led not by polls but by principle …."

And

"Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do it…..triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what [others] might say about us just won't do it."

Certainly one might be forgiven if one assumes that these are yet additional quotes from George W. Bush or Dick Cheney about how they govern on principle and conviction, not based on public opinion or polls. (I'm familiar with this because Bush is given to quoting the Gallup poll by name when he makes these statements.)

But wait! These quotes [..] actually come from Barack Obama, who was firing up the rhetoric this weekend in Iowa as part of his direct assault on front-runner Hillary Clinton. The quotes fit in with Obama's apparent decision to focus on a campaign strategy of positioning rival Hillary Clinton as a flip-flopper who changes messages in order to get elected.

In other words, Obama's strategy team has made the decision to co-opt the same talking points that Republicans used against Bill Clinton during his presidency. Not to mention, as noted, adopting a major staple of the Bush administration's rhetoric since its inception.

Well, it's important to remember that what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Barack Obama himself - according to at least one analysis by Mark Blumenthal a few months ago - employs four pollsters as part of his campaign team.

Plus, Obama's campaign finance report as filed with the Federal Election Commission in October lists a total of $314,911.80 that the Obama campaign itself spent on polling during the last quarter.

We don't know exactly what Obama's pollsters are doing for this compensation. But it's hard to argue that at least some of the information being collected by the Obama poll team is not "driving" his campaign. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Obama's use of the anti-poll talking point in his Iowa speech was in fact a direct result of his campaign team's analysis of poll data showing where his opponent might be most vulnerable.

There may in some minds a difference between using poll data to develop a campaign strategy, and using poll data to develop a campaign (i.e., the candidate's) positions on issues.

But, as I've discussed in great depth here, for an elected representative to be "poll-driven" simply means that he or she is driven by a consideration of the attitudes, beliefs, wishes, and concerns of the people he or she is elected to represent. It's hard to argue that this is bad -- that a candidate or elected representative should ignore the people, and not be guided by what the people's wishes and concerns are.

There are complex considerations taken into account when one discusses exactly how the individuals the people elect to represent them come to their decisions and plans. But I'll continue to argue that taking positions or changing positions based on at least a serious consideration of what polling shows about the underlying environment of public opinion is often exactly the right thing to be doing.

Obama in SF tomorrow - I'll report back.

Cycloptichorn