sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 09:43 am
Yeah, Thomas cited those comments by Obama as a reason that Obama lost his (Thomas') support. My own response to that statement, when it was pointed out by Thomas, was "Hmm, don't like it much."

I think it was a misfire by Obama, though I also see what he was trying to say. But Hillary's response is just, whoa. If Thomas defected to Hillary from Obama I'd be seriously challenging him now -- but I think Edwards is his current preference, which would be consistent with disliking both the Obama and Hillary approaches to this issue, and so I don't have a problem with that.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:08 am
sozobe wrote:
Yeah, Thomas cited those comments by Obama as a reason that Obama lost his (Thomas') support.

"Lost his support" is a bit too much. He's just not my favorite candidate anymore, only my second-most-favored. Meanwhile, Edwards who used to be my number two, has moved up to number one. So although I found it silly of Obama to repeat the Republicans' misleading talking points about Social Security being in crisis, it hasn't changed anything dramatic in my preferences.

On second thought, let me amend that yet again: About a year ago, during the Obama hype during the months before his announcement to run, I liked him, but consciously maintained a skeptical attitude about him. I half expected myself to gradually move towards the enthusiastic side of the spectrum as the hype subsided I learned more about him.

That hasn't happened. I read "The Audacity of Hope", and got away with the impression that sure, he's a good man, but.... Same with his campaign. One day he announces his healthcare plan. It's well thought-out, written by reputable economists who knew what they were doing. But it stops short of imposing a mandate, undermining the soundness of the system just created. And a few weeks later, yet another embarrassing gaffe emerges from his campaign. Again, the impression I got away with was "sure, he's a good guy, but ..."

So although I like Obama much better than all Republicans, and better than all Democrats except Edwards, I feel a bit let down at the moment. I expected Obama to increasingly impress me, but instead I got stuck in "sure, a good candidate, but" limbo.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:13 am
nimh said
Quote:
It's just mystifying that the idea wasnt shot down in time by a more level-headed mind in the campaign.


My guess, worth the little that it's worth, is that the speed of things is increasing rapidly now and this sort of mistake is likely to become more common. Nimh and I agree that Clinton's campaign was appropriately addressing Barack's line of attack/criticism on "long planning for presidency". But they clearly didn't predict how this would land in the media. Everybody, msnbc, fox, cnn, etc ...everybody jumped on this immediately with hobnail boots. Why? Because it so perfectly matches the narrative that has been established about Hillary. The campaign is very aware of this but, again, I think the perceived need to move quickly against any attack/criticism forces a decreased planning/vetting of PR statements. I sympathize. The narrative established about Hillary is as pervasive a mine-field as I can think of in the political world.

The David Corn piece that nimh posted on the other thread is more troubling to me. Corn said there
Quote:
Clinton is playing with fire.
And that's an appropriate metaphor.

The "whatever it takes" approach has allowed the new conservative movement to gain the power it has gained over the last thirty years or so and it is naive to think they will soon change. As a consequence, the left simply has to join the fight in the manner it has evolved in order to compete.

The conundrum is that they must, somehow, do it differently. Where the left lies or where they slime (using falsehoods and unjustified innuendo) or where they bully, they will deservedly lose the goodwill and trust and communitarian ethos which would differentiate them from what has gone before. That will hurt in elections and it will hurt after any election is won and where support of activists and the electorate is needed.

It is a hell of a problem.

(nimh, thanks for the hat tip, by the way)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:28 am
blatham wrote:
nimh said
Quote:
It's just mystifying that the idea wasnt shot down in time by a more level-headed mind in the campaign.


My guess, worth the little that it's worth, is that the speed of things is increasing rapidly now and this sort of mistake is likely to become more common. Nimh and I agree that Clinton's campaign was appropriately addressing Barack's line of attack/criticism on "long planning for presidency". But they clearly didn't predict how this would land in the media. Everybody, msnbc, fox, cnn, etc ...everybody jumped on this immediately with hobnail boots. Why? Because it so perfectly matches the narrative that has been established about Hillary.


I do think this goes back to the problem of whether things will resonate with people's gut feelings, though. We've gone over (and over) whether Hillary's weaknesses are all media-generated or whether she has some actual weaknesses. This is a big reason that I'm concerned about her as a candidate -- I think she has a whole lot of gut-reaction weaknesses that can significantly damage her campaign (whether purposely, by another campaign, or simply by her own missteps).

Everyone has some of those, of course, nobody is perfect. But the fact that she has so many, and that it takes so little to trip them, concerns me a great deal.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:29 am
Two little addenda....

first, notice that Hillary's camp is now describing this kindergarten thing as a "joke". That's important not just as a means of minimizing damage through claiming the intent was "x" rather than "y" but also because it suggests light-heartedness, humor, playfulness...all warm and unserious notions. They have to steer away quick as lightening from the converse notions that have arisen...cold, calculating, mean, etc.


second, damn, can't remember what it was...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:30 am
soz

I understand. There's no way I can claim I have this right nor even that I won't reformulate my notions on this matter.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:30 am
I think the "joke" thing is going to backfire, too, though. Nobody's going to believe 'em. That goes back to ruthless, say anything to win, dishonest, and other stuff that I think the campaign wants to avoid. Resonant stuff.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:32 am
blatham wrote:
soz

I understand. There's no way I can claim I have this right nor even that I won't reformulate my notions on this matter.


Oh, me either. And I do enjoy talking about this stuff with you, hope I'm not being too mean about it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:34 am
bernie can't answer...he's on the elevator up to the roof
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:40 am
sozobe wrote:
I think the "joke" thing is going to backfire, too, though. Nobody's going to believe 'em. That goes back to ruthless, say anything to win, dishonest, and other stuff that I think the campaign wants to avoid. Resonant stuff.


Confirms why I never cared for Hillary. Thomas brings up some good points about Obama, but I'm still on the sidelines; it's still too early to decide.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:40 am
Don't do it!!!

<rushes to get a large inflatable stuntman landing pad thingie>

<why yes I have one right here, doesn't everyone?>



Meanwhile I forgot to respond to Thomas -- I get the distinction you're making, sorry for misrepresenting your position. I sure hope Obama can still convince you -- I'm thinking that if he will, the next couple of months will be the time. He's shifted into a higher gear, and so far I'm liking what I'm seeing, over all (not everything). I'm feeling more hopeful than I have in a while that he's building momentum, and at just the right time.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:45 am
elevator stops...descends...

Just remembered the other thing I was going to say.

Do any of you watch Chris Matthews? A number of women writers I attend to have made me look at Matthews as regards his differing approaches to men and women. And it's profound. I hadn't noticed it until my attention was so directed.

It is evident not merely where a female is the subject of his discussions and interviews but also where he has a female among the pundits he has on the show. I haven't measured this carefully, but a tally of seconds/minutes where he allows/asks the female to talk might be about half of what he gives to the counterpoint male(s).

And where he worships (a tad strong perhaps, but it's close) the manly thing (Bush, Rummy, and now Rudy) he really does not respond to the feminine and this really colors how he conceives of and speaks about Hillary.

I doubt he is even aware of this stuff just as I wasn't until people like Digby, Joan Walsh and others pointed it out.

And I really want to underline all of this because I think it speaks to a really broad and below the radar current of gender issues in this race. I've mentioned this before, as you guys are painfully aware, but it just keeps hitting me in the kisser.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 10:47 am
Quote:
Don't do it!!!

<rushes>


An inflatable doll would be just the thing for a depressive but dirty stuntguy of my sort.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 11:36 am
An inflatable doll would have as good a chance at beating Rudy or Huckabee as Obama would as I see the race now.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:21 pm
blatham wrote:
first, notice that Hillary's camp is now describing this kindergarten thing as a "joke". That's important not just as a means of minimizing damage through claiming the intent was "x" rather than "y" but also because it suggests light-heartedness, humor, playfulness...all warm and unserious notions.

Except nobody's buying it...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:30 pm
By the way there was a debate yesterday that I somehow overlooked. Here's the transcript (I'm about to read it, haven't yet):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16898435
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:34 pm
nimh wrote:
blatham wrote:
first, notice that Hillary's camp is now describing this kindergarten thing as a "joke". That's important not just as a means of minimizing damage through claiming the intent was "x" rather than "y" but also because it suggests light-heartedness, humor, playfulness...all warm and unserious notions.

Except nobody's buying it...


No, of course not. But the attempt demonstrates what they wish to achieve.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:35 pm
Brand X wrote:
An inflatable doll would have as good a chance at beating Rudy or Huckabee as Obama would as I see the race now.


This is the first time I've ever seriously considered becoming first gentleman.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 02:07 pm
blatham wrote:
Brand X wrote:
An inflatable doll would have as good a chance at beating Rudy or Huckabee as Obama would as I see the race now.


This is the first time I've ever seriously considered becoming first gentleman.


Careful with that prick.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 5 Dec, 2007 02:44 pm
Karl Rove...the key to determining when he is lying is to carefully watch for when his lips begin to move...
Quote:
"Nobody can risk looking disrespectful to the president without paying a price, and they need to understand that," said Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's former top political adviser.



Republican strategist Scott Reed says that what the "White House critics fondly referred to as Bush's stubbornness" is beginning to pay dividends on a host of issues that voters care about, from the war in Iraq to a scientific breakthrough that shows embryos don't need to be destroyed for stem-cell research.



Still, some Democratic presidential candidates, most notably Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have continued to run against Mr. Bush. But that strategy will likely miss the mark, Mr. Rove told The Washington Times yesterday.



"If the Democrats make this about, as they seem to be inclined to do, 'I'm not Bush, and I'll do everything different than Bush did,' the American people understand that Bush is not on the ballot," he said.



"I think it's one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton is not doing well against named Republicans candidates, because all she can talk about is how she's not Bush."



Hovering at a dismal 29 percent approval rating just as Gen. David H. Petraeus, ground commander in Iraq, testified before Congress on the surge in September, Mr. Bush has since jumped to 36 percent in a poll late last month.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NATION/112040060/1001
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 279
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/04/2025 at 01:19:07