Obama '08?

So the debate seems to have gone pretty well. Hillary may have won on points; the end especially seems to have been good. The "Xerox" line seems to have fallen flat and gotten some bad reaction. She didn't do a fight-to-the-death sort of thing -- she seems somewhat resigned to the possibility that she might not win. Of course, that shows vulnerability that may help her. I dunno. I've never really gotten the vulnerability-helping-her thing, even though I believe that it has in the past.

At any rate, there needed to be something big to shake things out of where they are, IMO (and IPO -- In Pundits' Opinions), and that didn't seem to happen. No huge positives for Hillary, no huge negatives for Obama.

Plus I think Obama won a meta-point -- was this debate really necessary? Was new ground really covered?

What I remind myself of though is that of course I've been following things closely for a long time but that doesn't mean every voter has. There may be a bigger impact than I expect in either direction -- those who thought Obama didn't have substance (see, he does) or those who thought Hillary's campaign is already off the rails (she seemed authoritative and calm).

N.Y. senator's rhetoric fails to shift the balance
By Peter S. Canellos
Globe Staff / February 22, 2008

AUSTIN, Texas - Barack Obama last night was wonky and detailed enough to set heads nodding in Capitol committee rooms, but delivered probably the most effectively boring debate performance in recent presidential politics.

Leading in the race for Democratic delegates and facing the complaint that he was offering what his opponent, Hillary Clinton - in her most stinging attack line - called "change you can Xerox," Obama knew he had to dial down his rhetoric and get specific. And for the most part, he did.

"What I've been talking about is not just hope and not just inspiration: It's a $4,000 tuition credit for every student, every year, in exchange for national service, so that college becomes more affordable," Obama said, launching into a list of specific proposals.

Clinton, for her part, did not let him rest on his laurels, or get away with claiming that there are few differences in their platforms.

She dogged him on the respective merits of their healthcare plans and did not waiver in her claim that he is insufficiently prepared to be president.

And while Obama was dialing down, she raised the volume a bit. Her tone of voice - which can tend toward the monotonous - rose with passion when talking about healthcare and drooped with sorrow when discussing the failures of the Bush administration.

She even added a new hand gesture, cupping her hands and reaching out to the crowd.

Having lost 11 straight contests, Clinton needed to do something powerful last night to change the dynamic of the race - a new line of attack, a deeper personal connection with voters, a dramatic new policy proposal.

But while Clinton did nothing to hurt her chances, she failed to deliver any such game-changing moment. And Obama did not provide one with any serious gaffes.

"I thought Obama played it safe," said Wayne Lesperance, political science professor at New England College. "He didn't take the bait. There were times when she tried to drag him in and he didn't bite."

Instead, Obama played the standard game of a front-runner, blurring distinctions between the two opponents.

"Senator Clinton and I have been talking about these problems for 13 months," Obama said near the start of the debate. "We both offer detailed proposals to deal with them."

When the conversation turned to foreign policy, where Clinton has excelled in most debates, she was again smoothly effective.

Clinton's plan for dealing with the change in Cuban leadership - look for signs of change and prepare to encourage them - was measured and presidential.

But so, too, was Obama's response, emphasizing his willingness to meet with any world leader, even an enemy of the United States, but saying he would allow significant time for "preparations" before sitting down with Raúl Castro.

Obama also beat Clinton to the punch in declaring that the economy is "in shambles" and calling for firm action to combat job losses and home foreclosures.

She followed with her own emotional evocation of the struggles of voters she has met, and her own, slightly more detailed, plan to prevent home losses.

But on an issue as important as the economy, a tie goes to the front-runner. And Clinton is no longer the front-runner.

That new reality of the presidential race was evident throughout the debate, from Obama's low-key opening statement to Clinton's emotional conclusion - a more scripted effort to summon the kind of feelings that emerged when she choked up in a New Hampshire diner, shattering her overly groomed image.

Her gracious closing - expressing pride in sharing the stage with Obama, promising that she will be fine no matter what happens in the campaign, and saying how fervently she hopes the same will be true for all the people she's met on the trail - no doubt sounded to some like a farewell address.

That would be premature. But it is now apparent that Clinton's early inability to define her candidacy - through constantly changing themes and slogans - deprived her of a positive message, a reason for people to stand up and cheer her.

When she finally settled on the theme of readiness and experience, it merely established her as a foil to Obama - the skillful sparring partner against which the talented newcomer gets to show off his stuff.

If that newcomer succeeds in beating the old pro in the big states of Texas and Ohio, which will vote in less than two weeks, there will be little hope left for Hillary Clinton.

The race is now Barack Obama's to lose.

I really think that Obama has a much more aggressive side, debate-wise, that will serve him well when a) he has a whole bunch of clear, bedrock differences, policy-wise, and b) he doesn't have to worry about being pegged as the big meanie if he's aggressive.

Actually since Obama is using one of Edwards' main speechwriters--can't remember the name--much of the phrasing and keywords in his speeches are the same ones Edwards used.

This is not plagiarism in any sense--most writers use similar styles and favorite words/phrases in their writing--but later on it could be used to his disadvantage if it can be made to look like it is just high sounding rhetoric to sound good and isn't really from the heart.

Nevertheless, I think Obama is the Democrat nominee and no matter what happens how, McCain is going to have to run the most stellar campaign in the history of the world to beat him.

(I think this lobbyist impropriety scandal has Hillary's fingerprints all over it though. The NY Times endorsed her, she has connections with the New Republic, and she is the one with the motive for taking McCain out now. Most polls show Obama beating McCain and most polls show McCain beating her. She needs to be able to say that she can beat McCain.)

You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. [..]

And you know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people [..].

The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.

All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.

This is the manuevering, the strategic moves that, to me, are so obvious and so distasteful. She still plays us, the American public, as ignorant and easily manipulated. Why? Because the majority, unfortunately, are. Just ask Mr. Bush.

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president.

Much like Hillary is getting votes of white bigots who will not, under any circumstances, vote for a black president.

So where does that leave it?

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. They consider women deficient because they were born without penises.

BBB

Foxfyre wrote:

Actually since Obama is using one of Edwards' main speechwriters--can't remember the name--much of the phrasing and keywords in his speeches are the same ones Edwards used.

Maybe you can't remember because it's not true?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "using." There are a bunch of advisors who contribute a little of this, a little of that.

But Obama's main speechwriter -- when he's not writing his own speeches -- is Jon Favreau (got it this time, Kicky), who uses a highly collaborative process. Favreau tries to channel Obama's own voice, and then Obama messes with things and gives it back, and so on.

Quote:

This is not plagiarism in any sense--most writers use similar styles and favorite words/phrases in their writing--but later on it could be used to his disadvantage if it can be made to look like it is just high sounding rhetoric to sound good and isn't really from the heart.

You do know that he's written two books entirely on his own, right? And that the first one was written in 1995?.

Quote:

(I think this lobbyist impropriety scandal has Hillary's fingerprints all over it though. The NY Times endorsed her, she has connections with the New Republic, and she is the one with the motive for taking McCain out now. Most polls show Obama beating McCain and most polls show McCain beating her. She needs to be able to say that she can beat McCain.)

Lots of people have motives. What seems most straightforward to me at this point is that the story started in December, the NYT tried to make it stronger (less anonymous sources for example, more heft), the New Republic got wind of this story sitting there without being published and started to write their own story about THAT, then the NYT didn't want to look bad (as in, protecting McCain from dirt) and went ahead and published.

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. They consider women deficient because they were born without penises.

BBB

blatham wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

nimh wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

You've never been to a European soccer match?

Thats the thing, innit. We reserve that kind of thing for stuff like football matches, and just get on with things when it comes to the rest of our lives.

citizens of postmodern states

Yeah. Like Canada. It was granted a Post-Modernist State Certificate in 1948, the year I was born, and that's why we differ from America and resemble European countries in this aspect under discussion.

Could it also be that most Americans also remember HOW this country was formed, and the sacrifices and the blood it took to become a country.
Remember, the US was the first country to ever break away from their colonial masters, we were the first country to ever declare our independence from another country, and we accomplished it.

Since then, most other countries have been "granted" independence from their european masters, and that includes Canada although to be honest I'm not totally sure how independent Canada is, based on their strange attachment to the queen and the royal govt.

Maybe thats why more americans seem to be more patriotic then more Europeans.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. They consider women deficient because they were born without penises.

BBB

You don't happen to have a personal agenda do you? Perhaps you can support this with facts.

I misspoke in my post--realized it when you mentioned Favreau. Favreau was Kerry's main speechwriter and THAT's where so many of the familiar phrases are coming from--speeches that Kerry gave with certain phrases now incorporated into Obama speeches.

"What is your theory of speechwriting?" Obama asked.

"I have no theory," admitted Favreau. "But when I saw you at the convention [giving a speech he wrote himself], you basically told a story about your life from beginning to end, and it was a story that fit with the larger American narrative. People applauded not because you wrote an applause line but because you touched something in the party and the country that people had not touched before. Democrats haven't had that in a long time."

The pitch worked. Favreau and Obama rapidly found a relatively direct way to work with each other. "What I do is to sit with him for half an hour," Favreau explains. "He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That's how we get a
finished product.

"It's a great way to write speeches. A lot of times, you write something, you hand it in, it gets hacked by advisers, it gets to the candidate and then it gets sent back to you. This is a much more intimate way to work."

Some speeches are much more the product of the candidate himself. Obama e-mailed Favreau his draft of his announcement speech in Springfield, Ill., at 4 a.m. on the morning of the campaign launch last February.

As for books, yes I have Obama's books or ready access to them anyway. That's a different thing though.

But why? Why did the New Republic decide to 'out' the NY Times?

And why did the NY Times run a story, without qualification, that they knew they couldn't back up with any credible source?

Nope. I suspect Hillary's fingerprints are all over that. I could be wrong, of course, but I would at least bet a Starbucks cappucino venti on it.