unfortunately their really whooping him this week. He looks so defensive on TV - the Clinton's lured him into their game and as the old saying goes - Never fight a swimmer in a swiming pool.
He should really just ignore them - as if they dont exist - and get himself an attack dog, like oprah to Hill's Bill. So he to could appear "above the fray".
Anyone notice how this has become a blacks vs white election now? This is sicking to watch the twisting of it. Since NH - theres been a 30% jump in Black Obama support and a 10% decrease in White support in S.C.
DESPICABLE specially for a man that was called the first black president, and who has the good faith of the African-American community. They count that there are more women than african-americans if you just frame this race right there is NO way she can lose.
Eli, you know what is even more interesting to consider is that Billary has been telling the African-American community that they face a difficult choice, and that if they feel inclined to vote for Obama then they respect that, but that they'll be there at the end if she wins the nomination and we can all sing together. well, if they keep up this attitude, then me and whole shitload of people will stand on the sidelines - voting for Obama - knowing that McCain will only get 4 years...
Looks like the negative campaigning did not work after all
But the Clintons are brilliant at trying to marginalize Obama no matter what the outcome. They are now pathetically trying to brand him as the "Black" candidate. Bill's comments about "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" are part of a strategic campaign to have surrogates defame and marginalize Obama. Hillary can now say that Bill "was ot of control." And so was the BET television guy and Bob Kerrey. The Clintons will stop at nothing and destroy anyone and anything in their path to have a 3rd Clinton administration.
This bit from the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour with Mark Shields and David Brooks.
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
...the bold portion of Caroline's speech is the reason why I am supporting Obama. If he does not get the nomination, that'll be the thing I take away from this experience.
The Chicago Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle both endorsed Obama. From the Tribune:
Editorial: TRIBUNE ENDORSEMENTS
For the Democrats: Obama
January 27, 2008
In 1996, this page endorsed a Chicago attorney, law school instructor and community activist named Barack Obama for a seat in the Illinois Senate. We've paid him uncommon scrutiny ever since, wryly glad that he lived up to our modest prediction: We said Obama "has potential as a political leader."
Since then, so much has been written about U.S. Sen. Barack Obama that it's easy to forget how far an entire nation's scrutiny of him "as a political leader" has led us all. No longer does every article obsess on whether voters are ready for a black man in the White House.
Most Americans, we'd wager, by now have concluded that the color of his skin matters less than his evident comfort within it. Yes, he is vilified by less-secure Democrats for acknowledging Ronald Reagan was a transformative president who "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Our takeaway: Obama has the confidence to speak truth, poll-tested or not.
Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.
By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war -- against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere -- that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.
Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."
Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.
Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue -- recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive -- feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.
As this campaign has progressed, Hillary Clinton in moments of crisis hasn't been an ennobling sight. Her reliance on her husband, the less-than-presidential Bill, to trash-talk Obama reaffirms that the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail. Depicting Obama's record on Iraq as a "fairy tale" is instructive: Think what you will of the war, but Sen. Clinton was an enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war.
The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.
Last week, Hillary Clinton attacked Obama for his association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.
Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.
One more time, Senator:
You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker.
Nor do we know of similar lapses during the 12 years we've been watching Obama.
To the contrary, the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.
I think any thread like this one needs the role of the commoner in ancient Rome who whispered in the emperor's ear after a triumph "Remember, you are mortal": so I'll take that role, as I'm doing in the Hillary thread.
I will first state that I do agree that Obama is the fresh voice, the one with vision, and is very promising, although I'm not yet totally convinced (speeches and eloquent words are easy, turning them into reality is a bit harder). The Clintons do smell of the past and their act is getting stale.
But I'll take just one statement from the Tribune endorsement "the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail". Exactly!! And I have news for you, Obama will need to do the same, if he wants to endure in this contest. The NY Times has an article today (see farewest1's post in the Hillary thread) about why Obama would be the better choice in November. The article, however, ends with this:
"If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense."
and
"If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales."
In my head all last week all I could think was "Barack! Theyre lying! Everyone knows it! Quit beating around the bush and just burry them on it!" I mean he said-as-much-in-not-so-many-words, but he never just came out with it and said "The Clintons have shown themselves to be liars, utterly without integrity, and after all their work now seem perfectly willing to utilize racial divisiveness for personal political gain. Its was that propensity for unscrupulousness which hamstrung them in the 90s, that which makes Hillary a fatally flawed candidate for 08, and more importantly, utterly without credibility as potential future president. There. I said it."
And it would be true. But what then? A huge bloody democrat battle-royale that benefits no-one? I mean like it or not there are a LOT of people who still respect the Clintons. They are very passionate (if flawed in their methods) about the same things he is. Is then just resorting to the same slash-and-burn, eating-our-own, damned-be-the-consequences tactitics that they are? Doesnt he throw the argument of productive, hopeful, coalition-building politics out the window? I mean if they really go off the deep end there may be no choice but for him to call a spade-a-spade, but I also understand that in the long-haul, general-election, future-of-the-party outlook, it behooves him to stay as cool and restrained as he can. Sometimes you can see it wearing on him, and sometimes he looks a bit tepid, but most of the time I think he has walked the fine line quite well.
Anger while a useful tool can't, and I cannot stress this anymore emphatically, be sustained.
It is tiring to everyone. That is why I really believe we stand on the precipice of something uniquely different in America. The old guard can either realize it and move out of the way or get driven over like a Mac truck running down a deer.
And once again I dont know if its a good thing or a bad thing. Im sure it helps in Mass and in some of the hard core dem circles, but after the whole cape wind hypocrisy debackle I have a tough time with our dear old fathead-Ted.
Oe, I don't really think that standing up to the Clintons necessarily means that Obama has to resort to slash-and-burn, eat-your-own tactics. I understand that he'll have to walk a fine line, but the thing that he can't allow to happen is to let the Clintons dominate the conversation, have it only on their terms (which is what their tactics are mostly meant to do), and that means he will have to be more forceful and sure of himself, and, maybe even more important, give off the certain impression that he is the tougher candidate to potential voters (vision is fine and all, but people also want to see toughness from someone who wants to hold that particular office).
I urge you to stop talking about Hillary so much, let's go (here) to the Obama '08 thread and write all the reasons why we support Obama.
One such thing is how Obama is better suited to go against McCain. I like McCain a lot (specially his stances on Climate Change and immigration), but Obama is better on both of those issues plus he bests him in domestic issues such as:
-healthcare
-choice for women
Also, McCain's support of Bush over Iraq gives Obama a great boost. She-who-should-not-be-named would not be able to take on McCain on this issue. Finally she will give McCain a majority; uniting Republicans and pushing away independents and even some democrats, as simple as that.
An Obama - McCain campaign would be hard but probably mud free, a Clinton-McCain would be bloody and nasty, and it would end with a Republican administration.
No single party administration is good - republican or democrat. You need a congress of one party and a president of another - historicaly it workds best with a democratic congress and republican president, recent years aside. I'd much rather see McCain Obama - and please remember that despite what you may have heard, republicans dont eat babies and kittens for snacks.
you are right evil, I am usually a conservative-ish democrat/liberal-ish republican, but this administration has left such a bad taste that I forget that republicans do not in fact, eat kittens, just the hard-headed, self-congratulatory, misguided, neo-cons that were put up there. McCain would be worlds away and I would be OK voting for him, I just prefer Obama.
i want to create a website, anyone want in on it? writehimin.com[org][...]
i will not vote for hillary if she is the nominee, i will write in obama. i think we should push that nationally, just in case. i know it won't matter, but i think we should do it just on principle.
agreed Eli...i think her tactical antics are indicative of her Slash and Burn, Seek and Destroy, Kill the Hearts and Minds ideological mindset. she foments hate.
what i appreciate about Obama is the same thing i appreciate about Ando and Zumthor; their work represents an ideal that i aspire to, a quiet, reflective idea and representative of the moral center - things i am not but hope to be, i am too angry, and don't have the quiet, almost buddhist sense within...i am trying though.
No, the Republicans don't eat babies and kittens, but they know how to take an opponent apart. Come on, this is big-time politics, not a tea party.
You guys think the Obama-Osama comment is just a little hick joke: I recently got an email (sent to me by people who should know better) that pretty much put Obama in the pocket of radical Muslims, implying that they will gain access to the very heart of this country through him ( this site pretty much debunks the falsehoods in that email). Gee, I wonder who started that email chain...Mark my words, that issue will be Obama's Swift Boats if he gets the nomination. The Republicans will of course will deny being behind the insinuations and will act shocked, shocked, just like with Kerry, but the dirt will be piled on and the damage done.
This week's New Yorker has an article about Newark's Mayor, Cory Booker, who the writer compares to Obama (they are friends). Unfortunately, the New Yorker has not put this one on line, although a recap is here. Although the two situations are very different (Newark is in the saddest of shapes and has a history of pretty much total corruption), the article does point out what can happen when a visionary hits up against harsh reality. Sobering reading, but also hopeful.
(yea, beta, Hillary foments hate along with Penguin, the Joker and Two-face...)
Elimelech, I have been posting on both the Obama and Clinton threads because I have not yet committed to either one. I was originally for Clinton (it's about damn time for a woman president), but I have been turned off by Bill's intrusion into the campaing: I want to hear what she has to say and see her act for herself, not through him. Now I'm considering Obama (it's about damn time for a black president), but haven't decided yet - I've expressed some of my concerns above. But I have to say that your idea of segregating the two threads is pretty silly: what good is a dialogue with people who totally agree with you? (There was a great quote from Jack Nicholson a while back: he was asked why he was reading Ann Coulter's book, did he agree with her? He responded something like "No, but I'm willing to see if I can be convinced".)
I would also say that the absolutism I see (from some people) on this thread towards Hillary is really not in keeping with Barack's philosophy of a fresh start, and end to divisionism - it's more like a continuation of 7 years of "axis of evil", "you're either with us or against us" and "Red and Blue states". But that's just me.
but, i think it's a little different, in that i too hate the bickering; i mean how could anyone be against this idea of looking toward tomorrow, of being a better place through activism and action, but somehow, someway that is just what the clintons seem to be advocating. that is infuriating, and i am angry, because at the end of the day - at least i was one month ago - i would have walked right in to my polling place and cast my vote for hillary in november, if she was the candidate. now, not a chance, and many people are suffering the same dilema, not because she's a women, god knows i'd rather have a competent woman, self assured, and not requiring her husband, than just about any other candidate, but she is so damn divisive and self serving...and too tied to the politics of old 1960's...
They want to reach 250,000 in January, plus them commercials in LA can be costly.
donate what you can (even $25 or less), but I would urge you to donate as it is important to show the support this campaign has, SPECIALLY BEFORE SUPER DUPER TUESDAY.
Gore didn't win Tennessee so I am not sure an endorsement would help that much.
Being from TN I think its hilarious in some respects that the backwoods Dems who claim to be not racist and all that crap have to decide between a woman and a black man. I think people's true colors will come out.
The other fantastic thing about the above stats is that most Edwards supporters will vote for Obama. Now if Edwards would just freakin endorse him already...
Yes, he did, but what a love-fest that was. I'm betting their two last names with be together on bumper stickers and posters in the fall (order to be establilshed...)
the 2 of them together might be a bad idea. First it diminishes Obama, second it may be too liberal for the republicans to resist against. Hillary teamed with Obama would erode a major source of Obama's base - moderate republicans and independants. They would take Romney or McCain any day over Hillary.
Obama '08
unfortunately their really whooping him this week. He looks so defensive on TV - the Clinton's lured him into their game and as the old saying goes - Never fight a swimmer in a swiming pool.
He should really just ignore them - as if they dont exist - and get himself an attack dog, like oprah to Hill's Bill. So he to could appear "above the fray".
Anyone notice how this has become a blacks vs white election now? This is sicking to watch the twisting of it. Since NH - theres been a 30% jump in Black Obama support and a 10% decrease in White support in S.C.
jason, it's not a waste, if you really look at what I want to see happen, i mean really LOOK.
I'd give my left testicle to see an Obama/Bloomberg or even a Bloomberg/Obama ticket. Charisma and competence, and neither of them are partisan hacks.
evil, it did not become a black/white election it was MADE that way by the Clintons:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-sc-bill-clinton_N.htm
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/bill-clinton-race-gender-may-cause-wife-loss-s-c
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8UC04G02
AND THE ONE I POSTED ABOVE:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomin.html
They are counting that these tactics will work among whites AND hispanics:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18375165
DESPICABLE specially for a man that was called the first black president, and who has the good faith of the African-American community. They count that there are more women than african-americans if you just frame this race right there is NO way she can lose.
Eli, you know what is even more interesting to consider is that Billary has been telling the African-American community that they face a difficult choice, and that if they feel inclined to vote for Obama then they respect that, but that they'll be there at the end if she wins the nomination and we can all sing together. well, if they keep up this attitude, then me and whole shitload of people will stand on the sidelines - voting for Obama - knowing that McCain will only get 4 years...
Photo surfaces of smiling Clintons with Tony Rezko. The Clintons attacks may come back to hunt them after all.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Expect more calculated nastiness from Bill:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080125/NEWS/801250491/-1/newssitemap
heres a great comentary from the wall St. Journal.
the clintons are uniters at last
Some advice for Obama:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182689/
Obama is projected to win SC
right now: Obama 54% to Clinton's 27%
Looks like the negative campaigning did not work after all
But the Clintons are brilliant at trying to marginalize Obama no matter what the outcome. They are now pathetically trying to brand him as the "Black" candidate. Bill's comments about "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" are part of a strategic campaign to have surrogates defame and marginalize Obama. Hillary can now say that Bill "was ot of control." And so was the BET television guy and Bob Kerrey. The Clintons will stop at nothing and destroy anyone and anything in their path to have a 3rd Clinton administration.
This bit from the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour with Mark Shields and David Brooks.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/redir/http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/01/25/20080125_sb28.mp3
Caroline Kennedy has endorsed Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?ex=1359090000&en=6ffb34e6f28e176e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY
Published: January 27, 2008
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
...the bold portion of Caroline's speech is the reason why I am supporting Obama. If he does not get the nomination, that'll be the thing I take away from this experience.
thanks for that beta!
The Chicago Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle both endorsed Obama. From the Tribune:
Editorial: TRIBUNE ENDORSEMENTS
For the Democrats: Obama
January 27, 2008
In 1996, this page endorsed a Chicago attorney, law school instructor and community activist named Barack Obama for a seat in the Illinois Senate. We've paid him uncommon scrutiny ever since, wryly glad that he lived up to our modest prediction: We said Obama "has potential as a political leader."
Since then, so much has been written about U.S. Sen. Barack Obama that it's easy to forget how far an entire nation's scrutiny of him "as a political leader" has led us all. No longer does every article obsess on whether voters are ready for a black man in the White House.
Most Americans, we'd wager, by now have concluded that the color of his skin matters less than his evident comfort within it. Yes, he is vilified by less-secure Democrats for acknowledging Ronald Reagan was a transformative president who "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Our takeaway: Obama has the confidence to speak truth, poll-tested or not.
Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.
By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war -- against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere -- that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.
Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."
Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.
Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue -- recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive -- feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.
As this campaign has progressed, Hillary Clinton in moments of crisis hasn't been an ennobling sight. Her reliance on her husband, the less-than-presidential Bill, to trash-talk Obama reaffirms that the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail. Depicting Obama's record on Iraq as a "fairy tale" is instructive: Think what you will of the war, but Sen. Clinton was an enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war.
The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.
Last week, Hillary Clinton attacked Obama for his association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.
Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.
One more time, Senator:
You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker.
Nor do we know of similar lapses during the 12 years we've been watching Obama.
To the contrary, the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.
"Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled."
What a great line.
I think any thread like this one needs the role of the commoner in ancient Rome who whispered in the emperor's ear after a triumph "Remember, you are mortal": so I'll take that role, as I'm doing in the Hillary thread.
I will first state that I do agree that Obama is the fresh voice, the one with vision, and is very promising, although I'm not yet totally convinced (speeches and eloquent words are easy, turning them into reality is a bit harder). The Clintons do smell of the past and their act is getting stale.
But I'll take just one statement from the Tribune endorsement "the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail". Exactly!! And I have news for you, Obama will need to do the same, if he wants to endure in this contest. The NY Times has an article today (see farewest1's post in the Hillary thread) about why Obama would be the better choice in November. The article, however, ends with this:
"If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense."
and
"If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales."
Couldn't agree more.
I'm really amazed by yesterday's win for Obama, and really pleased. Especially when I read that Obama got twice as many votes as John McCain.
Obama 289,126
McCain 143,224
Vermure ~
In my head all last week all I could think was "Barack! Theyre lying! Everyone knows it! Quit beating around the bush and just burry them on it!" I mean he said-as-much-in-not-so-many-words, but he never just came out with it and said "The Clintons have shown themselves to be liars, utterly without integrity, and after all their work now seem perfectly willing to utilize racial divisiveness for personal political gain. Its was that propensity for unscrupulousness which hamstrung them in the 90s, that which makes Hillary a fatally flawed candidate for 08, and more importantly, utterly without credibility as potential future president. There. I said it."
And it would be true. But what then? A huge bloody democrat battle-royale that benefits no-one? I mean like it or not there are a LOT of people who still respect the Clintons. They are very passionate (if flawed in their methods) about the same things he is. Is then just resorting to the same slash-and-burn, eating-our-own, damned-be-the-consequences tactitics that they are? Doesnt he throw the argument of productive, hopeful, coalition-building politics out the window? I mean if they really go off the deep end there may be no choice but for him to call a spade-a-spade, but I also understand that in the long-haul, general-election, future-of-the-party outlook, it behooves him to stay as cool and restrained as he can. Sometimes you can see it wearing on him, and sometimes he looks a bit tepid, but most of the time I think he has walked the fine line quite well.
Anger while a useful tool can't, and I cannot stress this anymore emphatically, be sustained.
It is tiring to everyone. That is why I really believe we stand on the precipice of something uniquely different in America. The old guard can either realize it and move out of the way or get driven over like a Mac truck running down a deer.
And once again I dont know if its a good thing or a bad thing. Im sure it helps in Mass and in some of the hard core dem circles, but after the whole cape wind hypocrisy debackle I have a tough time with our dear old fathead-Ted.
Oe, I don't really think that standing up to the Clintons necessarily means that Obama has to resort to slash-and-burn, eat-your-own tactics. I understand that he'll have to walk a fine line, but the thing that he can't allow to happen is to let the Clintons dominate the conversation, have it only on their terms (which is what their tactics are mostly meant to do), and that means he will have to be more forceful and sure of himself, and, maybe even more important, give off the certain impression that he is the tougher candidate to potential voters (vision is fine and all, but people also want to see toughness from someone who wants to hold that particular office).
for those obama-ites living abroad check out www.democratsabroad.org
Somehow, this gets better every time I listen to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ
fellow obama supporters,
I urge you to stop talking about Hillary so much, let's go (here) to the Obama '08 thread and write all the reasons why we support Obama.
One such thing is how Obama is better suited to go against McCain. I like McCain a lot (specially his stances on Climate Change and immigration), but Obama is better on both of those issues plus he bests him in domestic issues such as:
-healthcare
-choice for women
Also, McCain's support of Bush over Iraq gives Obama a great boost. She-who-should-not-be-named would not be able to take on McCain on this issue. Finally she will give McCain a majority; uniting Republicans and pushing away independents and even some democrats, as simple as that.
An Obama - McCain campaign would be hard but probably mud free, a Clinton-McCain would be bloody and nasty, and it would end with a Republican administration.
No single party administration is good - republican or democrat. You need a congress of one party and a president of another - historicaly it workds best with a democratic congress and republican president, recent years aside. I'd much rather see McCain Obama - and please remember that despite what you may have heard, republicans dont eat babies and kittens for snacks.
you are right evil, I am usually a conservative-ish democrat/liberal-ish republican, but this administration has left such a bad taste that I forget that republicans do not in fact, eat kittens, just the hard-headed, self-congratulatory, misguided, neo-cons that were put up there. McCain would be worlds away and I would be OK voting for him, I just prefer Obama.
that article ruined my morning...
Anybody too stupid to confuse Obama's name with Osama shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a ballot box.
i want to create a website, anyone want in on it? writehimin.com[org][...]
i will not vote for hillary if she is the nominee, i will write in obama. i think we should push that nationally, just in case. i know it won't matter, but i think we should do it just on principle.
agreed Eli...i think her tactical antics are indicative of her Slash and Burn, Seek and Destroy, Kill the Hearts and Minds ideological mindset. she foments hate.
what i appreciate about Obama is the same thing i appreciate about Ando and Zumthor; their work represents an ideal that i aspire to, a quiet, reflective idea and representative of the moral center - things i am not but hope to be, i am too angry, and don't have the quiet, almost buddhist sense within...i am trying though.
No, the Republicans don't eat babies and kittens, but they know how to take an opponent apart. Come on, this is big-time politics, not a tea party.
You guys think the Obama-Osama comment is just a little hick joke: I recently got an email (sent to me by people who should know better) that pretty much put Obama in the pocket of radical Muslims, implying that they will gain access to the very heart of this country through him ( this site pretty much debunks the falsehoods in that email). Gee, I wonder who started that email chain...Mark my words, that issue will be Obama's Swift Boats if he gets the nomination. The Republicans will of course will deny being behind the insinuations and will act shocked, shocked, just like with Kerry, but the dirt will be piled on and the damage done.
This week's New Yorker has an article about Newark's Mayor, Cory Booker, who the writer compares to Obama (they are friends). Unfortunately, the New Yorker has not put this one on line, although a recap is here. Although the two situations are very different (Newark is in the saddest of shapes and has a history of pretty much total corruption), the article does point out what can happen when a visionary hits up against harsh reality. Sobering reading, but also hopeful.
(yea, beta, Hillary foments hate along with Penguin, the Joker and Two-face...)
vamure, come on, you know i am kidding, i am the joker...
I know right Q,
Totally fucking inspirational!
beta, ;-)
Elimelech, I have been posting on both the Obama and Clinton threads because I have not yet committed to either one. I was originally for Clinton (it's about damn time for a woman president), but I have been turned off by Bill's intrusion into the campaing: I want to hear what she has to say and see her act for herself, not through him. Now I'm considering Obama (it's about damn time for a black president), but haven't decided yet - I've expressed some of my concerns above. But I have to say that your idea of segregating the two threads is pretty silly: what good is a dialogue with people who totally agree with you? (There was a great quote from Jack Nicholson a while back: he was asked why he was reading Ann Coulter's book, did he agree with her? He responded something like "No, but I'm willing to see if I can be convinced".)
I would also say that the absolutism I see (from some people) on this thread towards Hillary is really not in keeping with Barack's philosophy of a fresh start, and end to divisionism - it's more like a continuation of 7 years of "axis of evil", "you're either with us or against us" and "Red and Blue states". But that's just me.
but, i think it's a little different, in that i too hate the bickering; i mean how could anyone be against this idea of looking toward tomorrow, of being a better place through activism and action, but somehow, someway that is just what the clintons seem to be advocating. that is infuriating, and i am angry, because at the end of the day - at least i was one month ago - i would have walked right in to my polling place and cast my vote for hillary in november, if she was the candidate. now, not a chance, and many people are suffering the same dilema, not because she's a women, god knows i'd rather have a competent woman, self assured, and not requiring her husband, than just about any other candidate, but she is so damn divisive and self serving...and too tied to the politics of old 1960's...
The New York Post endorsed Obama. I think that was the endorsement we all have been waiting for ;-)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/30nypost-obama533.jpg
There it is!
Heh... This just might be the first and only time I ever agree with a New York Post editorial.
LIG,
I thought this would be the deal-maker for ya! ;-)
Call the Oval-shape interior Designers Obama just won!
Hulk Hogan endorses Obama
I love how these B and C-listers are making official endorsements.
Hulk Hogan vs. Chuck Norris. It's on.
I just love watching MSNBC bring on Chuck Norris to talk foriegn policy ha ha ha
Georgia Democratic Primary
InsiderAdvantage Obama 52, Clinton 36
Obama +16
Tennessee Democratic Primary InsiderAdvantage Clinton 59, Obama 26
Clinton +33
California Democratic Primary Rasmussen Clinton 43, Obama 40, Edwards 9
Clinton +3
Massachusetts Democratic Primary Rasmussen Clinton 43, Obama 37, Edwards 11
Clinton +6
Minnesota Democratic Primary Minn. Pub. Radio Clinton 40, Obama 33, Edwards 12
Clinton +7
compare these to the double digit leads Hillary had just a couple of days ago. Obama is on the move!!
except Tennessee, that kinda sucks. This is when an Al Gore endorsement would be nice.
Hey Obama followers:
The Obama folks are trying to get 25,000 people to donate by midnight:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
They want to reach 250,000 in January, plus them commercials in LA can be costly.
donate what you can (even $25 or less), but I would urge you to donate as it is important to show the support this campaign has, SPECIALLY BEFORE SUPER DUPER TUESDAY.
Gore didn't win Tennessee so I am not sure an endorsement would help that much.
Being from TN I think its hilarious in some respects that the backwoods Dems who claim to be not racist and all that crap have to decide between a woman and a black man. I think people's true colors will come out.
The other fantastic thing about the above stats is that most Edwards supporters will vote for Obama. Now if Edwards would just freakin endorse him already...
I think Obama did very well in the debate.
What about you?
Yes, he did, but what a love-fest that was. I'm betting their two last names with be together on bumper stickers and posters in the fall (order to be establilshed...)
the 2 of them together might be a bad idea. First it diminishes Obama, second it may be too liberal for the republicans to resist against. Hillary teamed with Obama would erode a major source of Obama's base - moderate republicans and independants. They would take Romney or McCain any day over Hillary.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.