CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama's Finally Campaigning
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Finally Campaigning

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Let's hope it isn't too short. He's got some catching up to do, according to the polls, but I suspect that most people's minds haven't already been made up. Still, it's quite a gap to close in a short time.

I actually think the timing's pretty good. People are just starting to pay attention to the candidates beyond just who's ahead. We'll finally get to see how good (or bad) of a candidate Obama is, especially against "the machine."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Nagourney
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 27 — Senator Barack Obama said he would start confronting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more forcefully, declaring Friday that she had not been candid in describing her views on critical issues, as he tries to address mounting alarm among supporters that his lack of assertiveness has allowed her to dominate the presidential race.

Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled — and in some cases shared — the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics.

In an interview that appeared timed by his campaign to signal the change of course, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was not out to “kneecap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for,” he said she was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and was less likely than he was to win back the White House for Democrats.

Asked if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.”

“I don’t think people know what her agenda exactly is,” Mr. Obama added, citing Social Security, Iraq and Iran as issues on which she had not been entirely forthcoming.

“Now it’s been very deft politically,” he said. “But one of the things that I firmly believe is that we’ve got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we’re going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election.”

For months, Democrats, including some within Mr. Obama’s campaign, have questioned whether his promise to pursue a brand of politics that transcended partisanship had so handcuffed him that he could not compete in the most partisan of arenas.

Alan D. Solomont, a former contributor to both Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton who is now raising money for Mr. Obama in Boston, said there was a growing consensus that Mr. Obama had to ratchet up his intensity and draw sharper distinctions with Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and other rivals.

“The only way that he’s going to be able to be clear with the American people,” Mr. Solomont said in an interview, “is to draw a distinction between his candidacy and his ideas about change and those of other candidates. It’s fair to say that he is beginning to do that, but he hasn’t done enough yet.”

In the interview, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, acknowledged that he had held back until now, though he asserted it was a calculated decision to introduce himself in early voting states before engaging opponents. At times, he said, he has taken lines out of speeches prepared by his campaign that he felt were “stretching the truth.”

But Mr. Obama said the plan had always been for him to begin taking on Mrs. Clinton more directly in the fall. And he glared and said no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics. “It is absolutely true that we have to make these distinctions clearer,” he said. “And I will not shy away from doing that.”

A test of just how far Mr. Obama is willing to go should come Tuesday night, when Democrats meet for a nationally televised debate in Philadelphia. [In a campaign statement issued Saturday in Iowa, Mr. Obama asserted that Mrs. Clinton had “repeatedly dodged opportunities to reveal her thinking about the best way to strengthen Social Security.”]

The interview came amid growing signs that Mr. Obama was looking for a fresh start for his campaign after nine months in which his aides said they were startled by the effectiveness of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and worried that her support was not as brittle as they had once believed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/us...erland&emc=rss
post #2 of 31
He has to close this gap. Hillary vs Rudy or Mitt isn't going to hold up well.
post #3 of 31
Thread Starter 
Hillary can win, but it won't be pretty. Obama has a better chance of siphoning Republican voters away from their party's candidates.
post #4 of 31
The more of these races I see (in other words, the older I get), the more frustrated I become with the voters themselves. There's such a tendency to throw support behind the candidate who's already most likely to win. I keep hearing things like "Well, I'd like to support Edwards, but I don't think he can win". That's insane. If everybody would throw their support behind the candidate they believe in, we might actually get someplace. Instead, we always end up with the ones who are already the most well-known. Results: Bush Part 2, and Governor Arnold.

I'm becoming ever more convinced that Hillary is who we're getting. Not because she has the best ideas, the most experience, or even the best political machine. It's because everyone already knows who she is. She requires no introduction. We truly are the culture of celebrity. If Adam Sandler ran, he'd probably kick her ass.
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
I completely agree. (How boring.) I generally don't spend too much time thinking about who can win because almost any competent candidate can win in this election cycle.

And I'm not for Obama merely because of his ability to woo Republicans. That shit is still obviously untested. Although fwiw, he did extremely well in suburban collar counties in Illinois (very Republican districts.)

I know a lot of people on the boards think he's a bit of an empty suit or inexperienced, but I think he's actually a fairly substantive candidate. And that's coming from someone who doesn't agree with everything he says. I just appreciate that he's not partaking in too much of that "talk often, say nothing" kind of campaigning that is all too common in the modern era of politics.
post #6 of 31
I think it's more of a preparation for the coming general. It's hard to be zealous about say, a Hillary, when you're a huge Edwards guy. I think you're going to support your guy/gal no matter what in the primaries, but if it looks like it's going to go a certain direction, yo don't want to become so attached to one candidate and against another that it becomes hard to be passionate and fight for the likely frontrunner in the general.
post #7 of 31
I think the canidate most like to win has to do with how long the US election is. How long have they been running for the nomination now...it seems like years.

If the American people really want some Campaign reform, they should change it so a canidate can't annouce they are running till 31 days before the first primary, or even start raising money for it.
post #8 of 31
31 days is too stingy, but it definitely needs to be shortened.
post #9 of 31
Other countries can do there whole election in 31 days, I"m not talking about 31 days from the first Nov. 2nd, but 31 days before the first primary, they would still have all the time in the world to campain during the primary season...but it would mean that canidates have more of a chance to win.

I mean, there hasn't been 1 primary yet, but the canidates have already been decied pretty much...not on the issues but on who has the most money months in advance, who has the biggest media profile. No on who has the best ideas or would be the best for the job.
post #10 of 31
Any Obama fans a little put off by the fact that he is promising that he will start distinguishing himself from Hillary and not actually, you know, doing it? I think he wants the presidency, but doesn't want to do anything that would compromise his chances at the #2 spot in the process.
post #11 of 31
Thread Starter 
Not really. It's not like he's gonna drop a litany of criticisms all at once. Also, I don't think you run for president to become vice-president. I'd be genuinely surprised if Clinton picks Obama as her VP.

So, do you think he's wrong in calling out Clinton for being evasive?
post #12 of 31
If the candidates spent more time talking about the state of the country and what they'd do to try to make it better, it would be interesting. But all we really get is them picking at each other, especially at Hillary because she's the frontrunner. Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't have to really make any deep points - which is what they are accusing her of - because she's the frontrunner.

It's BORING.
post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
Not really. It's not like he's gonna drop a litany of criticisms all at once. Also, I don't think you run for president to become vice-president. I'd be genuinely surprised if Clinton picks Obama as her VP.

So, do you think he's wrong in calling out Clinton for being evasive?
He's absolutely right to call her out on being evasive. She's trying to play it safe because she is the frontrunner. The less she has to say right now while going for the support of the base, the fewer statements she has to defend in the general election when she goes for moderate and independent votes. Obama is right to force the issue and make Clinton actually spell out her positions and policy proposals. But Obama's campaign seems to be going nowhere now because he has been playing nice this whole time. Maybe it's because he really does stand for high-mindedness and the audacity of hope. But it's so far kept him from articulating any real distinctions with Hillary. Now that he sees he needs to do that, he makes the same announcement he made two months ago that he is going to start attacking more. The few criticisms he's lobbed her way (on Iran and Social Security) have been pretty hypocritical, considering he has recently advocated the same positions. He's obviously pretty uncomfortable taking the gloves off, but that's the only chance he has of winning this fight.
post #14 of 31
I read an interesting post on one of the blogs about how attention is being drawn away from Bush's failures by making this a race against Hillary, rather than a race to replace Bush. Obviously Bush is somewhat of a liability to the GOP and this does sound like a Rovian bait and switch that's working nicely.
post #15 of 31
But for all the other candidates in the Democratic field, it is a race against Hillary. They can try to out-do one another bashing Bush all they want, but at some point, Obama (or Edwards, or Richardson, or whoever) has to make a case for why they're a better choice than Hillary.
post #16 of 31
Wonder who her running mate will be....
post #17 of 31
A few possibilities: Richardson, Ed Rendell of PA, maybe one of the other popular western governors like Schweitzer of MT. Bob Kerrey of NE is a dark-horse, if he'd do it. He'd be a great choice.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
I read an interesting post on one of the blogs about how attention is being drawn away from Bush's failures by making this a race against Hillary, rather than a race to replace Bush. Obviously Bush is somewhat of a liability to the GOP and this does sound like a Rovian bait and switch that's working nicely.
Yeah, but that's what primary races are for. We're not choosing Bush's successor, yet, merely who we'd rather have run against him.

I'm not as interested right now about how they differ from Bush, I want to know who they are in relation to each other so I can determine who I'd rather have as a candidate.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
I read an interesting post on one of the blogs about how attention is being drawn away from Bush's failures by making this a race against Hillary, rather than a race to replace Bush. Obviously Bush is somewhat of a liability to the GOP and this does sound like a Rovian bait and switch that's working nicely.
I think there is merit to this (on the Republican side), but it is driven more by candidates' self-interest than any desire to ease the political pressure on Bush. Bush is a liability with most voters, but still has a good deal of support from large portions of Republican primary voters. So, too much direct criticism of the president could alienate the very voters you need to win the nomination. It's a balancing act to show that you are different from Bush without trashing him in the process. And, as I explained in the 2008 Presidential Campaign thread, I think attacking Hillary at this stage makes sense for the top tier of Republican candidates to show the base that the candidate has the stones and presence to take on the presumptive nominee.
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors
A few possibilities: Richardson, Ed Rendell of PA, maybe one of the other popular western governors like Schweitzer of MT. Bob Kerrey of NE is a dark-horse, if he'd do it. He'd be a great choice.
My money is on Wesley Clark. Richardson would make sense if Hillary felt her support on the anti-war left was soft and Rendell would make sense to sew up a key battleground state and appeal to moderates (Rendell is pro-life, I believe).
post #21 of 31
Agreed - Clark is a definite possibility, and a General on the ticket would do a lot to counter the whole "a woman president would be weak" angle.
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
I think there is merit to this (on the Republican side), but it is driven more by candidates' self-interest than any desire to ease the political pressure on Bush. Bush is a liability with most voters, but still has a good deal of support from large portions of Republican primary voters. So, too much direct criticism of the president could alienate the very voters you need to win the nomination. It's a balancing act to show that you are different from Bush without trashing him in the process. And, as I explained in the 2008 Presidential Campaign thread, I think attacking Hillary at this stage makes sense for the top tier of Republican candidates to show the base that the candidate has the stones and presence to take on the presumptive nominee.
Anyone who would still presume to support Bush will never vote for a Dem, ever. So, if this is the case, the candidates are wildly misguided (so what else is new).

I disagree that attacking Hillary is a valid strategy. It only makes them look like Also-Rans. They don't have to take on the presumptive nominee; they should be challenging the narrative that she IS the nominee by making their own voices heard.

In my ideal world (and I accept that it's disconnected from reality), Edwards or some other candidate with integrity and a valid, non-commercially compromised perspective - would pull a Network without fear for his political future:



"I'm mad as HELL and I'm not gonna TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

I think the candidate that could pull off something like that would get a groundswell of support rather than the tepid "I want X but I know he can't win" or "I'm voting for Hillary because she's the lesser of two evils." I think Howard Beale's attitude is most reflective of how Americans on either side of the ideological fence feel about the situation we're in.
post #23 of 31
Ahem...



I do believe he ended up winning the Vermont primary, when it was all said and done.
post #24 of 31
The closest thing to a Beale the Dems and GOP have are Kucinich and Ron Paul, respectively. Neither has experienced a groundswell of support. Although I have to say, after seeing some of the Republican debate, I have a newfound respect for Paul. He may be batshit, but he sure as hell doesn't say the things he does for the sake of political expediency. It drew boos from the crowd, but I'm glad someone called the other candidates on how stupid their attempts to out-cowboy each other on Iran were.
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors
Ahem...



I do believe he ended up winning the Vermont primary, when it was all said and done.
Dean was gaining momentum before he was deep-sixed by the GOP attack machine (since we all know now why they wanted to run against Kerry). Then again, I don't think Americans were as desperate in '04 as they are in '08.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
The closest thing to a Beale the Dems and GOP have are Kucinich and Ron Paul, respectively. Neither has experienced a groundswell of support. Although I have to say, after seeing some of the Republican debate, I have a newfound respect for Paul. He may be batshit, but he sure as hell doesn't say the things he does for the sake of political expediency. It drew boos from the crowd, but I'm glad someone called the other candidates on how stupid their attempts to out-cowboy each other on Iran were.
Not exactly. They're great to have in the race because in the extremely rare instance that they're given the opportunity to answer a question in a debate, they do end up being the two individuals speaking the most truthfully and intelligently. But they are not MAD AS HELL candidates. Both are polite, articulate, truthful candidates who are ignored by the corporate media. ps. the time Paul was boo'd was in a room padded with "loyal Bushies."

That said, I think they have a lot more support than the corporate media is willing to acknowledge. I see more grassroots efforts for them, particularly Paul, than for any other candidate. You don't see people putting up Hillary banners on the freeway, but I drove past two for Paul on my way to work yesterday.

Personally I can't support Paul even though his honesty is refreshing because of his stance on so-called entitlements.
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
Dean was gaining momentum before he was deep-sixed by the GOP attack machine (since we all know now why they wanted to run against Kerry). Then again, I don't think Americans were as desperate in '04 as they are in '08.
That's just not true. Dean supporters in Iowa got cold feet because they didn't see him as "electable," and went for Kerry at the last moment. Dean finished in third and went into a tailspin. The GOP would have loved to face Dean. The race against Kerry was neck-and-neck. Bush vs. Dean in 2004 would have been an electoral blowout of historic proportions.
post #28 of 31
I seriously doubt the GOP attack machine had the power to greatly influence the selection of the Democratic nominee in 2004 (or ever). Now, if Kucinich wins Iowa and New Hampshire, I might be more open to the possibility.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors
That's just not true. Dean supporters in Iowa got cold feet because they didn't see him as "electable," and went for Kerry at the last moment. Dean finished in third and went into a tailspin. The GOP would have loved to face Dean. The race against Kerry was neck-and-neck. Bush vs. Dean in 2004 would have been an electoral blowout of historic proportions.
The narrative was that he was "unelectable" based on the Dean Scream that the corporate media latched onto and ran with. Kerry was about as unelectable as they get - or at least close enough for another election to be stolen.

The GOP spent over $1 million in negative ads against Dean in Iowa. He was the only candidate they campaigned against because he beat Bush solidly in individual polling -- just like Edwards does now when pitted against any of the GOP candidates.

The GOP has done things this way since the Nixon era, when they sabotaged Muskie in the primaries so Nixon could run against McGovern, whom they knew he could beat. Run against the candidate you know you can beat, and unleash the force of your attack machine on the one you can't in the primary phase.
post #30 of 31
But the scream, and subsequent total unraveling of the Dean campaign, came AFTER he finished 3rd in Iowa. Up until his bubble burst that night (when, like I said, his soft support all went out for the more "electable" Kerry), the conventional wisdom was that he was rolling to the nomination. His loss didn't have anything to do with the "GOP attack machine" or "corporate media" boogeymen you invoke. And Democrats ultimately made the right choice, at least in terms of Dean vs. Kerry -- Dean would have struggled to win 10 states in 2004, Kerry was one state away from victory.
post #31 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
The narrative was that he was "unelectable" based on the Dean Scream that the corporate media latched onto and ran with.
I love how the far-left calls the media the "corporate media" while the far-right calls the same media the "liberal media". I think it is just an excuse to blame others for reasons why their obviously correct messages fail to win over the American public who are mostly at the moderate center.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama's Finally Campaigning