Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Change vs. More of the Same

Shailagh Murray and Anne E. Kornblut report from Iowa on the duel between John Edwards and Barack Obama "over which man is the true messenger of 'change' in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination -- with both drawing heavily from Bill Clinton's themes during his first campaign for the White House." Dan Balz and Michael D. Shear report on Mitt Romney's response to Mike Huckabee's Iowa surge and capture this angry response from the former Massachusetts governor, now the political underdog in the Hawkeye State, to a recent John McCain advertisement (video by Michael D. Shear):

Matthew Mosk reports on Huckabee's increasing fundraising success: "Huckabee has raised $4,755,818 on the Internet since Oct. 1 -- double what he raised from all sources during the first nine months of 2007. He has a large new cast of big-dollar bundlers. And his efforts in Iowa and elsewhere are getting a major boost from independent groups that are able to raise unlimited amounts, often without disclosing the identities of their backers." With that success has come some new problems vetting backers, as well.

And in Style, Howard Kurtz unspools a yarn about Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's virtually secret autobiography and dispute with his publisher over its content and publicity efforts.

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 29, 2007; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Today at The Post  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Still Making Up Their Minds in the Earliest States
Next: From Edwards Campaign, Some Expectations Management

Comments

"He's all about himself, not America."

Then he's actually the perfect candidate here in the land of narcissicism.

Go Barack!!

Posted by: eeofdc | December 29, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Reading,

THIS IS THE ACTUAL QUOTE FROM OBAMA:

"she (Michelle) said we're not doing this again," he added, drawing laughter. "She actually didn't mean it in the way that it sounded," he continued...

Give me a break.

Is your next post going to be about Obama joking that Cheney is "the black sheep" in the family?

Perhaps something like, "Obama lied! Cheney is not actually a sheep- he doesn't even have black wooly hair! Cheney is actually a homo sapien!"

Posted by: julieds | December 29, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

First of all, because someone says something about a candidate (any candidate) which you or I personally disagree with, it is not an attack. To be so blind as to rule out all other view points is pretty much how we find ourselves in the position we currently are.
Secondly. For all of their human frailties I do not believe that Bill or Hillary are demonic monsters that only look out for themselves. Some of the allegations, supported or not, are just that and do not help anything. To some it wouldn't and hasn't mattered what these people say because it would be wrong. They have made a LOT of money from being in the WH. So has everyone else who has lived there.

I don't know who I will vote for however I can tell you this much I would favor Dodd or Biden or anyone else who knows their way around DC politics because I just finished witnessing what putting someone who wants to change the world because he or she thinks the world or our country will change just by their being there.

It will not help to burn and slash anyone from the Democratic Party because if we do so much damage from rumors we may just end up with another religious nut instead of someone who will at least try to do something for us as people a bit of the time.

The "trust me" argument just doesn't cut it. We as a nation cannot afford this attitude again.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | December 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

peterdc:

I will add that I think Hillary is doing this for herself. Her and Bill had a 20 year plan for him to be president and then she would be president. Obama isn't doing this for himself. That's why he may not run again. It might not be the right time next time. It means he is not desperate like Hillary seems to be to fulfill her plan for herself. Anybody that had a twenty year plan is definitely focused on herself. And Obama has also been in public service his whole life. And I would say that some of the criticism of her comes from her personality that can be cold and abrasive. Will she rally the nation when it is needed? No, because half the nation really doesn't like her. It will be a divided country again if she were to be President. She is not the right woman for the job.

Posted by: goldie2 | December 29, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

readingbetweenlines:

These are very strange attacks on Obama. I don't know what you are talking about. People very often only try one time for the Presidency, because the times change, the country changes, and they are looking for something new. No one wanted John Kerry to run again, for instance. Obama thought this was the time for him to run, and I think he would only run again if he thought the conditions warranted it. I think it shows that he's not desperate to become President, like perhaps John Edwards who is running a second time despite his wife's terminal illness. Perhaps John Edwards believes it is his time now, fair enough. I am not sure about his motives. I frankly don't like Edwards. But to talk down someone because they might not run again is plain ridiculous. And yet people constantly are trying to say, well Obama can run next time, we will have so and so this time. I think that is a very poor way to choose a president. It is not about taking turns. It is about choosing the best person for the job right at this moment. This is the time we have. I think we need Obama now. For me he is the best choice now, not later. We never know the future. We have to choose for this moment not some other one.

Posted by: goldie2 | December 29, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I agree that for Obama's wife to say it's now or never is crazy and shows that Obama is not doing this for the American people but for himself.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has committed her life to public service. She has suffered the slings and arrows of many people because of it but believes that what she can accomplish for people is more important than what she suffers for it.

In the interim she has managed to bring up a great kid and is now also caring for her mother.

Women just seem to be able to do more than men and seem to be able to multi-task in a way that most men can't. It seems that Michelle Obama agrees with that. Either Barack will be a dad and a husband or President -she seems to think he can't be both. Sad for both of them and their kids.

It is time that we elect a woman and Hillary Clinton is that woman. She has the experience, the intelligence and the guts to take what comes at her and she has proven that she can win elections even in upstate Republican New York.

The time is now. Go Hillary!!!

Posted by: peterdc | December 29, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Reading, lets also review what obama likes to skip
He grew up in an upper middle class family
He has no connections (before his marriage to Afro-american society
He went to an elite private High School


He's all about himself, not America.

Posted by: newagent99 | December 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

[It's now or perhaps never, Obama and his wife, Michelle, concluded, because, "We still remember what it's like to be normal," he told a crowd here six days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses.]

There you go... straight from the horse's mouth. And as the saying goes, "Out from the mouth comes what is in the heart." What does the Obama statement imply?

1. Afterall that's said and done, the fact is Obama does not have the character, the real calling, and the heart to lead America because he cannot and will not endure in the face of defeat.

2. Obama is a plain opportunist seizing only the moment when as an unknown, his blunders are not yet much to be spoken of... seizing only the moment when as a dazzler, his fresh tactics could still work... seizing the moment when the rhetoric of hope would still work; for when the most experienced and steady President wins and delivers, what else can he talk about next time?

3. His wife spoke so much against the politics of "fear". Yet here are the Obamas subjecting the American people to an emotional blackmail - instilling in the people the "fear of losing him for the presidency forever if they don't choose him now". This is cheap. This is pathetic. This is forcing the hand of America to choose him. Obama is not an urgent choice.

4. Obama does not consider the presidency worth pursuing at another time because he fears becoming "abnormal" in the course of waiting for his own time. That means Obama is not sure of who he is and therefore fears what he can become.

5. Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope.s about his candidacy.
Obama said, "If this country would sit there and not elect him when he's clearly the obvious person for the job, that shows we're just dysfunctional as a society..." America would be wiser not to elect someone who is unfairly contemptuous of its people and ignorantly judgmental of the choice they make (whatever it is). The presidential election is about America not about Obama.

Posted by: readingbetweenlines | December 29, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company