Obama '08?

Caught the debate this time!

I haven't seen one live in quite a while, though I've read all the transcripts. I have to say, Edwards is so bad at these!! [..]

Hillary is so shifty-eyed. I've said that before. When she's talking her eyes are constantly going. [..]

Obama did several good things, I was happy with what I saw.

Huh, thats odd.

Both Obama and Edwards enjoy strong support among segments of the Democrat electorate. However, my opinion is that both are vulnerable to defeat in the general election.

Thomas seemed to have the same reaction as me ("Tell me about it... :-(") any other thoughts on the apparent disparity, Thomas?

georgeob1 wrote:

Both Obama and Edwards enjoy strong support among segments of the Democrat electorate. However, my opinion is that both are vulnerable to defeat in the general election.

Then what do you make of polls showing that the margin of victory over Republicans is especially high for Edwards? ...........It's just a snapshot, sure, but on this snapshot Edwards is the only candidate who clearly wins against all probable Republican candidates, and always wins by the highest margin.

Bernie is a good guy and, no matter how much we may disagree, I like and respect him. Nutty political ideas are not a suitable basis for condemning a person. He can stay on or get off his bike as he chooses, and I will be unaffected.

His point about my failing to criticize Bush for his failings (and mis steps) while emphasizing Gore's has some merit. I did not raise the Gore/internet matter - I was just trying to counter Thomas' rather amazing whitewash of the thing (an uncharacteristically partisan act on the part of a usually very rational observer of the scene). Bernie also knows that I do have a hard time fully acknowledging all of his views on the current administration. He knows I am conflicted by my judgements of the merits and alternative views of his critics - things which seem to me at least equally as flawed. I'm doing my best at all this, and can only hope for his forbearance and tolerance.

sozobe wrote:

Thomas seemed to have the same reaction as me ("Tell me about it... :-(") any other thoughts on the apparent disparity, Thomas?

Maybe it's the degree to which individual viewers have made their peace with their candidates' ticks. To me, Edwards's permanent eye-blinking is a constant source of frustration. In retrospect, I think it was one thing turning me off about him in 2004. He 'looks' much better in transcripts and in his own writing, which I have found to be the more reliable sources to judge candidates by. But I can how others may have gotten used to Edwards's blinking and stopped being bothered by it.

(Do we really want the Breck boy, sleazy tort lawyer as President?)

(Obama)I believe many people have a strong sense of this and that the obvious media adoration of his words and utterances does very little to assuage their reservations. The country payed a high price overcoming JFK's dilletante amateurism, and I doubt it would chose it again.

If the Democratic caucuses were held tonight, here is how we think they would turn out:

First Place

Barack Obama -- Upward Momentum -- Obama has enjoyed a great week of press following his events with Oprah Winfrey. His organization is showing signs of real strength with its nearly 1,000 house parties across the state Thursday night, and he seems to have strong second-choice support. If the caucuses were held tonight, he would win.

Second Place

John Edwards -- Edwards may still have the strongest organization in Iowa, but that is no longer enough to keep him in the number one spot. His base of supporters is slowly shrinking, and many seem to be floating in Obama's direction. Edwards still has many talented activists in his corner and may be viable in more rural precincts than Obama, but if the caucuses were held tonight, we predict he would take second.

Third Place

Hillary Clinton -- Downward Momentum -- Clinton's campaign has demonstrated a renewed commitment to retail politics at recent events, but neither she nor her husband are drawing the large crowds they once did. Fairly or not, she is slowly being branded as the 'negative' candidate, diminishing her second-choice support. The excitement surrounding her candidacy is waning, and her campaign seems to be too busy putting out public relations fires from day to day to do much about it. The campaign itself, along with independent groups like Emily's List, have devoted significant resources to build an organization here that should not be underestimated, but, if the caucuses were held tonight, we think she would finish third.

Fourth Place

Joe Biden -- Upward Momentum -- Biden seems to be slowly emerging as the default second choice for caucus-goers who do not wish to support one of the top three candidates in the second round of voting. (This is a space similar in certain ways to the space Edwards occupied in 2004, when he won a surprise second place finish.) Other candidates can't seem to say one bad thing about him, which doesn't hurt.

Fifth Place

Bill Richardson -- Richardson's staff is diligent in the areas where they are working, but they can only do so much. His campaign has not caught on among enough traditional Democratic activists, who are crucial for getting out the vote.

Sixth Place

Chris Dodd -- Dodd has been living in Iowa, but it is unclear how many caucus-goers even know that. He is committed to retail politics and has a talented staff, but his candidacy still fails to generate much buzz. Everyone likes him, but most will not caucus for him.

Seventh Place

Dennis Kucinich -- Despite brief signs of life two weeks ago, Kucinich appears once again to be ignoring Iowa.

Eighth Place

Mike Gravel

[Editor's note: Iowa Independent's Republican Power Rankings will be released later today.]

Why Obama's Life Story Matters

By M.J. Rosenberg | bio

Anyone who thinks that Billy Shaheen's Obama slur was a blunder, rather than a calculated piece of the politics of personal destruction, should note that Mark Penn repeated it hours after Sen. Clinton apologized.

Penn got this right out of the Rove play book. Just as Rove took John Kerry's greatest asset -- his military record -- and lied it into a negative, so Penn takes Obama's -- his biography -- and tries to do the same.

The difference is that the tactic won't work with Obama. The patrician Kerry did not know how to deal with guttersnipe attacks. He was so utterly unused to them.

All African-American men are used to attacks, especially one who made it to Harvard Law, the US Senate and a Presidential candidacy despite his race, his name, and his exotic heritage.

In politics, it is an advantage to come from nowhere and nothing. You learn how to push back. Hard.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves. They (the Republicans and the neocon Democrats) will try to use Obama's biography to destroy him precisely because it is his greatest asset, as today's Washington Post profile indicates.

All the major Democratic candidates are smart and competent. But Obama's story makes him special. Special not because his story is unique but because, in so many ways, his story is so common.

Most Americans do not have it easy. They struggle. Many, probably most, have difficult relations with their parents or their kids. Obama's abandonment by his father is also a common American story. I cannot tell you how many young guys I've known over the course of my life whose ambition (or lack thereof) is a product of a bad or non-existent relationship with the old man.

And, of course, his race is a big part of his story. Non-racist Americans (most Americans) cannot help but feel that electing a young black guy as President will go a long way to revolutionizing America's image in the world and helping to end America's most enduring and deadly problem: racism.

That is why his opponents need to destroy him by attacking his story. If they can substitute, in the voters' minds, the image of struggling African-American who made it to the top with images of the hood, drug dealers, and hip-hoppers adorned with bling, they can derail his candidacy.

That is what Shaheen and Penn were trying to do. That is what the Republicans will try to do -- although taking down Obama will be harder for them than taking down Hillary precisely because he is African-American. Hillary-baiting -- sexist and vicious as it is -- need not be as delicate an operation as going after a black guy.

Hillary is ridiculed for daring to suggest that misogyny drives much of the animus toward her. Obama won't even have to mention racism for voters to know why questions are raised about whether his admitted drug use as a kid suggests he might have been a dealer. (Did anyone ever suggest that Bill Clinton was a dealer because he copped to using marijuana? But he's white. White kids use drugs. Black kids sell them).

So get ready. The worst people in America are going to use Barack Obama's race and his personal struggle against him. They are going to try to transform his unique assets into negatives.

Will it work? No. At one time, it would have. In 1932, the Republicans would have been able to use FDR's polio to destroy him although they didn't really try. In 2008, we'd look at FDR's triumph over polio as another reason to vote for him.

Dec 14, 2007 -- 09:50 AM EST | Tags: Obama

I heard Obama was once a drug dealer, is that really the kind of role model you guys want to look up to?

George, let me ask you a question:

Quote:

(Do we really want the Breck boy, sleazy tort lawyer as President?)

Quote:

(Obama)I believe many people have a strong sense of this and that the obvious media adoration of his words and utterances does very little to assuage their reservations. The country payed a high price overcoming JFK's dilletante amateurism, and I doubt it would chose it again.

I was wondering, what evidence have you seen that these are opinions shared by the general electorate?

I think that all of us have a tendency to engage in significant levels of Projection - I know that I do it. It seems so obvious to us that only one conclusion is the logical one based upon the evidence. But, are our own opinions accurate enough to make predictions about the mood or eventually choices of the general electorate?

I don't think that all polling data is necessarily accurate; nor does it paint a complete picture due to both the limitations of the methods and the possibility of of catastrophic errors on the part of the candidates... but it can provide at least some idea of what the 'state of the race' is. And I'd rather see the Dem candidates ahead then behind.

Cycloptichorn