Obama '08?

newdex said:
December 7, 2007 5:49 PM

[..] Hillary shouldn't have tried to prove that Obama really has been planning to be president for any number of years, she should have said, clearly, "Obama is attacking my character based on scurrilous, phony distortions pioneered by Republican smear tactics. Is that his New Politics of Hope?"

virginiacentrist said:
December 7, 2007 6:27 PM

Hillary's team did that for about 3 months straight: "What happened to the politics of hope?" and the media laughed at them. That's not an answer - it's a cop out. Obama had a great response: "The politics of hope doesn't mean hoping to not have your record challenged by your opponents." [..]

newdex said:
December 7, 2007 2:19 PM

I think the difference is in clearly articulating types of attacks. As you suggest, Hillary's complaints have been interpreted as objecting to being criticized, period. What she hasn't done is said something like, "look, if you disagree with my position on social security, fine, make your point. But when you accuse me of "dodging and weaving" on the issue, or taking two sides, or when you qustion my character by saying I've been "planning on running for any number of years," you're holding hands with Limbaugh. You're pimping Republican smears and embracing the tactics of personality assasination through distorted, manipulative lies." Obama's even made references to the Lincoln Bedroom, for crying out loud.

psantillana said:
December 7, 2007 6:21 PM

1. How is questioning - or attacking - someone's character automatically a "Republican talking point"? Isn't character - honesty, for crying out loud - an important consideration in a leader? Why is it off the table? Or is it a RTP because the R's have made the same point in the past, about the Clintons? And if so - so what? Were they right or wrong is the question, not just "but they're evil Republicans!"

2. In your next post you claim Obama is dishonest, that that was the point of the Kindergarten email. Fair enough, I say, although I don't agree that he's dishonest. But I don't think the issue should be off-limits. But why is it Republican/bad to question Clinton's character but ok to question Obama's?

nicklanyi said:
December 7, 2007 2:37 PM

It's an issue of credibility. Obama is running as a non-politician, someone who disdains the process but deigns to serve because his country needs him. In his stump speech, Obama even says he has "not been planning to run for president for however many number of years some of the other candidates have..." But Obama's ambition to one day run for president is a consistent theme throughout his adult life. I agree that the references to his kindergarten essay were stupid, but the Clinton campaign was right to highlight this small, but telling, contradiction. If Obama lies about this, what else isn't he telling the truth about?

austinexpat said:
December 7, 2007 5:03 PM

The reason "Caesar was ambitious" sounds "somewhere betweeb absurd and offensive" coming out of her mouth toward Obama is that you're predisposed to believe it about her and not about Obama. It's neither more nor less absurd a claim than the one Obama made about her -- in fact, it's the exact same claim. Obama IS ambitious, which is why he's running for president. Good for him. Ambition is what's gotten him this far, and a politician without it looks a lot like the running gag that is Fred Thompson.

Now, it's pretty intellectually dishonest to consider the stating of a simple fact some sort of blunder when Hillary states it instead of Obama. To a less prejudiced ear, Hillary's accusation is a rather apt highlighting of how absurd it is to criticize politicians for being ambitious. Might as well criticize a fish for being wet, she is saying. But many people find her obnoxious, and so they don't like the fact that one of their major criticisms about her has been undercut by being taken to its logical conclusion. It makes them feel petty and superficial -- as if the rationalization they've constructed to justify their gut feeling is just that, rather than a reasoned and trenchant criticism.

So the issue is reframed as her "tone-deafness" rather than their double standard.


virginiacentrist said:
December 7, 2007 5:12 PM

austin -

You've just made a very good case for Obama for PResident! Here's what Democrats should have learned from 2000 and 2004:

It doesn't matter if you're right if you're unlikable and lack charisma, oratory skills, and the ability to communicate.

HIllary is Gore + Kerry wrapped in Clinton's baggage...


austinexpat said:
December 7, 2007 6:16 PM

I've had two main problems with your analysis all along, virginiacentrist. [..] The first has been that you seem to take everybody's expressed dislike of Hillary at face value -- and more or less equivalent to your own. [..]

The second has been what reads to me as near-terror of Republican voters on your part. Your main criterion for choosing a candidate has seemed to be "don't tease the animals," and this has caused you to (in my view) drastically overestimate the number of Republicans who will really pull the lever for a Democrat -- provided that it's not Hillary Clinton. "Crossover appeal" is all very well when you're talking about phone polls and rallies, but it always tends to evaporate on Election Day. [..]

[Hillary] is likely to get every bit as many votes as any other candidate on the Democratic side, and if she doesn't appeal to any Republicans, well, by November 2008 Obama will be just as unpalatable to the GOP. [..]

vanwurs said:
December 7, 2007 7:39 PM

Gosh, Austinexpat, where does one begin [..]?

First of all there's the assertion that Hillary is really not that polarizing or unloved and not only will Democrats come home to her in November, but Republicans won't really be that united and resolute to keep her out of the White House. I don't have them at my fingertips, but the political websites are rife with polls verifying the sheer weight and persistence of Hillary's negatives. (Most recently, something like 49% of the voting public would never vote for her. Doesn't leave much margin for error.)

But polls aside, I can give you countless anecdotal examples of yellow dog Democrats who cordially despise her and everything she stands for, and although a few months ago they may have been inclined to hold their nose and vote for her on policy grounds in a general, the feeling is growing that her personal characteristics would make her such an unpleasant candidate and possible even a dangerous President (arrogant, secretive, distrustful, unable to compromise, paranoid....more a profile in Nixon than Lincoln) that it might be better for her to lose and purge the party of this infantile and regressive longing for a Clinton Restoration.

Which is not to say that the general election will not be hard fought and maybe even narrowly won (or lost) by any Democrat we nominate. But Hillary has no room to grow. Everybody already knows her and has a pretty fixed opinion of her, and she isn't going to add much to the 47 or 48% of the country that is willing to even vote for her. And if she adds points, she can only add a bare minimum to reach her 50 plus one. And then she has to govern with that kind of bare majority and a temperment and personailty unlikely to build bridges. [..]

I know plenty of Republicans who might stay home or at least give Obama a listen who will show up to vote, enthusiastically, against her. And this is one Democrat who will skip that box on the ballot on election day if Hillary is at the top of the ticket, and hope she loses emphatically [..].

about the simply insane Clinton hatred on the right, which was aided and abetted by a lot of seemingly respectable people.

about the simply insane Bush hatred on the left, which is aided and abetted by a lot of seemingly respectable people.

You can take this line...

Quote:

about the simply insane Clinton hatred on the right, which was aided and abetted by a lot of seemingly respectable people.

change a couple of words...

Quote:

about the simply insane Bush hatred on the left, which is aided and abetted by a lot of seemingly respectable people.

And still be correct.
There are examples all over A2K as well as in the halls of Congress.

Obama's American Idea

"Yes, I'm tough enough," he responded during a half-hour conversation. "What I've always found is people who talk about how tough they are aren't the tough ones. I'm less interested in beating my chest and rattling my saber and more in making decisions that build a safer and more secure world."

Obama, speaking less than a month before the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, continued: "We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgment. Part of our capacity to lead is linked to our capacity to show restraint."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** All tied up: With just slightly more than three weeks until the first nominating contest, three new MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon polls show that the Democratic contest isn't just a dead heat in Iowa -- it's also tied in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In Iowa, Clinton has the lead over Obama, 27%-25% (although that's within the poll's 5% margin of error), while Edwards comes in third at 21%. In New Hampshire, it's Clinton 30%, Obama 27%, and Edwards 10%. And in South Carolina, it's Clinton 28%, Obama 25%, and Edwards 18%. To borrow a sports analogy, the impressive underdog (Obama) has tied it up in the fourth quarter after trailing the once-seemingly invincible favorite (Clinton) for most of the contest. It's now anybody's game. But the polls also remind us not to discount Edwards in Iowa, where only Bill Clinton (72%) has higher favorable numbers than the former North Carolina senator (69%). In addition, the polls show Clinton and Edwards sharing similar supporters in New Hampshire. Is the same thing happening in Iowa? Chatter with smart analysts tells us yes. The old conventional wisdom: Edwards hurts Obama. The new CW: the longer Edwards is in, it helps Obama? (Here is the full data for the Democrats: Iowa Dem,
NH Dem, SC Dem.)

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- To appreciate Hillary Clinton's fundamental political problem, consider the 11 Democrats from Philadelphia who gathered last week to discuss the U.S. presidential race, almost all of whom would vote for her in a general election.

The focus group was moderated by an expert on such forums, Democratic pollster Peter Hart. The participants were informed and enthusiastic about their party's prospects, had no interest in the Republicans or third-party candidates, and were about equally balanced between front-runners Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

When Hart pushed the group during a two-hour conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, a different picture emerged.

Obama, they worried, can't win the nomination; voters aren't ready for an African-American president (a point expressed most directly by the two black women participants), and he may not be sufficiently experienced.

A couple of victories in Iowa and New Hampshire would cure most of those problems.

The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.

Those are a lot tougher to overcome.

It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their ``boss.'' Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.

... Obama will be motivating.

cicerone imposter wrote:

... Obama will be motivating.

If only motivation could cure cancer...

What will we need is a leader who knows the score, not a cheerleader shaking his Obama Pom-Pom.

Would anyone be willing to allow a first year med student to perform a heart transplant?