Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, in Nevada, Talks Electability


Barack Obama, D-Ill., visits with supporters outside a town hall meeting in Carson City, Nev., Monday. (AP).

By Peter Slevin
CARSON CITY, Nev. -- It was fitting, after a bruising few days in which the issue of race dominated the Democratic presidential campaign, that Christy Tews would ask Sen. Barack Obama whether America is ready to send a black man to the Oval Office.

"I don't want a candidate on the Democratic ticket that we can't elect," Tews, 68, told Obama. "Let's get down to brass tacks here. We have have never elected a black man to be president."

"Yes, that's a good point," Obama deadpanned, as an overflow crowd laughed. "I've noticed that."

Obama replied that he faced similar questions when he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, when people said, "You know, he's very talented. He can do a good job, but they would never elect a black guy named Barack Obama. You can't even pronounce his name."

He defeated a large Democratic primary field and raced to victory over an imported black candidate, Alan Keyes, in November.

"So I have seen how we can reach out and, you know, people will take you for who you are. I really trust in the American people, but I recognize that the presidency is different," Obama told the overwhelmingly white audience of more than 2,000 in a community center gym and an adjacent auditorium. "And I recognize that people will attack you."

Nevada will hold its caucuses Saturday.

"Running for president is not playing beanbag," Obama said. "This is tough business."

He pointed to polling data that suggests he can beat any Republican nominee now in the race, then referred to rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards. He did not, he said, want to sound naïve.

"Will there be some folks who probably won't vote for me because I am black? Of course, just like there may be somebody who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or wouldn't vote for John Edwards because they don't like his accent. But the question is, 'Can we get a majority of the American people to give us a fair hearing?'"

Obama said he proved in his Iowa victory on Jan. 3 that he can get a fair hearing and win in a nearly all-white state. The country, he said, has moved forward "in a significant way."

Obama said he believes that if he does not win the Democratic nomination, or the general election, "it would be because I hadn't persuaded the American people that I could make their lives better. And I think I can persuade them, because I've got a track record of making people's lives better."

The partisan crowd cheered.

And Tews?

"I thought it was a good answer. It told me he has a lot of information to throw back at the mudslingers," Tews, who leads Buddhist pilgrimages to India, said afterward. "He's not starry-eyed."

She remains, however, officially undecided.

By Washington Post Editor  |  January 15, 2008; 6:20 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Outbreak of Goodwill in Nevada
Next: A Last-Minute Pitch on the Romney Bus

Comments

So here it is, the whole election might boil down to a single issue campaign...And let's talk about what people are forgetting, that the GOP will remind them with a GOP candidate smearing truth into the final stretch.
And that TRUTH?! Well, it is the campaign contributions and bankruptcy law votes for credit card companies and banks three years ago.
Do you know how your candidate voted? Read the Mother Jones article July 11, 2007 called Campaign Contributions from Credit Card Companies? Priceless....

You are all in for a big suprise. The only Dem that can KILL the GOP bear, clean as a whistle? EDWARDS.

Posted by: theloneconsumer | January 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

So here it is, the whole election might boil down to a single issue campaign...And let's talk about what people are forgetting, that the GOP will remind them with a GOP candidate smearing truth into the final stretch.
And that TRUTH?! Well, it is the campaign contributions and bankruptcy law votes for credit card companies and banks three years ago.
Do you know how your candudate voted? Read the Mother Jones article July 11, 2007 called Campaign Contributions from Credit Card Companies? Priceless....

You are all in for a big suprise. The only Dem that can KILL the GOP bear, clean as a whistle? EDWARDS.

Posted by: theloneconsumer | January 15, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

dyck21005 - you sure do copy and paste a lot. I am sure these are real convictions you hold, but really - can't express them for yourself? I've seen you paste the very same stuff on different comment boards.
Typical, for a Hillary supporter.
I do think for myself and I do believe FDR was a great President as was Bill Clinton (a good President.) I think Hillary would be a good President.
But Obama would be a GREAT President. The beef you guys keep looking for is in the man and his entire history. The beef is a continuous record of choosing to work for the people over personal greed. The beef is standing in front of the teachers union telling them you believe in merit pay and telling auto workers they have to make more efficient cars, etc. Speaking turht to power - it's been a long time since we had an honest person in the White House so we don't believe it when it's right in front of us.
I don't find anything particularly beefy about Hillary's experience, or that it is any broader as an elected official than Obama's. Does he claim Michelle's experience as his own?? Should Michelle run for president after Barack and claim her years in the White House as "experience?"
One thing you cannot explain IS his "rock star" appeal. Is it becuase he's good looking? Puh -lease - Mitt Romeny, John Edwards, Hill looks pretty damn good too. Because he's black? Oh yeah, that's the ticket. Because he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review?
Hmmm. Could be getting there.
But if you have not gone to hear him speak, then this is why you don't understand it.
He is dynamic, he is transparent, and what he shows us is what WE can do to make things better for ourselves.
Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

Posted by: sheridan1 | January 15, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse


Sorry, wj phillips, I do remember John Anderson. I even worked in support of his campaign, and of McGovern's, too. And I have read enough about, and by, Obama to know that he is the one who will lead us through the mess he will inherit from Bush.

There's a new biography of Obama that I highly recommend: David Mendell's Obama: From Promise to Power. You might learn something to give you more faith in our man.

Posted by: sonoma | January 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I am not a young woman. I'm old enough to remember the excitement JFK brought to young democrats when I was a teen. I feel and see the same thing happening with Barak Obama. I LIKE a man that admits he used drugs....not "I didn't inhale." He's not using them now and is a credible role model for quitting - which we all know lots of young people need. I've read his positions and find them thoughtful and credible. I'm going to caucus for him rather than Hillary - because I want a new voice speaking for this country everywhere, not just a rehash of old positions from old familiar voices.

Posted by: cyndiu | January 15, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The surest way to keep a republican in the presidency, in spite of all the messes they have created, is to nominate a Democrat who is too left or that cannot appeal to independents. That is the sole reason Bush won a second term. As far as the "Bradley" factor is concerned, why would it effect Obama more than Clinton? If Clinton's experience is such a factor, why don't we have alternative energy plans, an economic recovery plan, a health care plan already submitted by her and at least in the senate logs? At least we know that McCain has fought against party lines and made some attempts in the Senate to work for the people. Clinton on the other hand wanted to spend our tax money on a Woodstock museum! What did she do when her health care plan failed when Bill was president? She didn't try to compromise or look for an alternative! She pouted and withdrew from the issue! If we want a democrat in office, Edwards or Obahma have got to win the nomination and since Edwards doesn't appear to be appealing to the voters this time around,( maybe too left?) Obahma is the only reasonable choice. He has already proven in Iowa and in New HAmpshire that he can get the independents to vote for him.

Posted by: oscarb71 | January 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

wj_phillips. What a sorry piece you have written. Shame on the young? What is that all about. I am staunch Obama supporter and I am not one of the youngsters. Our country is in crisis and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the younger generation shedding their apathy and getting excited over a "new kind of candidate." We need change and I think Obama can deliver. HRC is participating in dirty politics which only shows how the Clinton's work.

Posted by: claudiam1 | January 15, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It is not the color or gender of the person which is going to produce the fruitful results.

It is a person who is full of good judgement,good listener, good wisdom, and caring about people who put him/her in power.

Posted by: fridamulindayahoocouk | January 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

dyck21005 seems to have fallen hook line and sinker for Krugman's and the nytimes' lies about Obama, who happens to have a website Full of detailed progressive solutions to every problem facing the nation. Of course Obama is for alternative energy, what rot. If you were clever, dyck21005, you would seek out Obama's positions on your own, not lip-read lausy articles. It should be clear to everyone that the nytimes has decided to flaunt their one-sided support for HRC in shameless form; it matches their shameless hiring of the Weekly Standard's Guru. Without Rich and Dowd, it would belong 100% to the Clinton machinery. Just take the time to read Obama's website, if you are truly interested in issues. You'll learn of his detailed plans for every problem that is bringing the nation down. Krugman is counting on enough Dems and Independents Not to do this however. Why, he's got you in the palm of his hand.

Posted by: synkopen | January 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be a great president. The Clinton camp tried to drag him into mud with their slimey tactics but it didn't catch.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

AND ALSO TELL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TO POINT OUT THE MARCH 13 GALLUP POLL WHICH SAYS:

Results of March 13 Gallup poll: "ImpaGalct of Personal Characteristics on Candidate Support"

results--

They ask the question, would you feel completely comfortable voting for a:

BLACK 84%
WOMAN 77%
MORMON 60%
THRICE MARRIED 55%
72 YEAR OLD 42%

In other words, people are MORE likely to vote for a black than a woman, Mormon, thrice divorced person or someone McCain's age.

BY ALL INDICATIONS, OBAMA IS FAR MORE LIKELEY TO WIN THAN HILLARY CLINTON

Posted by: saraz1 | January 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE SOMEONE TELL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TO JUST ANSWER:

The latest Rusmussen poll shows:

If the presidential election were held last week, the results would be:

CLINTON 38% -- McCAIN 49%
OBAMA 43% -- McCAIN 46%

We have our work cut out for us even without the uncharismatic, inarticulate, politically tone deaf Clinton. At this point in the primary season, Obama is our ONLY chance of winning.

Posted by: saraz1 | January 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Dems -- this is very important:

We must win the GENERAL election in November. Hillary has too much baggage to carry the needed Independents and cross-over Republicans. Obama appeals.

Also, Obama is brilliant and logical enough to lead Washington in the NEW direction it needs to go in order to pull us out of the quicksand the last eight years has sunk us into.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | January 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I do not think as Democrats we can ignore the negatives HRC brings -- which have been so evident the past few days. I think she has serious flaws that will likely cost us the election in November. As a woman, I would love to see, and expect to see, a woman as President--just not this one.

Bill is a total loose cannon and has a disgust factor even with me, a die hard democrat. Lord knows what he has in store for us from his wreckless personal life.

Hillary cannot admit a mistake but lashes out and blames others and has not an ounce of graciousness about her.

Remember, we all have to live with the next president (and spouse) in our living rooms the next 4 years. Having the Clintons in our living rooms last time led to some of the most uncomfortable moments I had as a parent, trying to explain what was going on to my children. They have big time baggage that I think a majority of Americans don't want to deal with.

I have NEVER voted R for president in my life but I could do so (under limited circumstances) if HRC is the nominee. If someone like me is out the door, how do we have a chance with independents?

As a party, we need to get strongly behind another of the candidates and pull together and win in November. We cannot afford as a country not to do so.

Posted by: pcvd | January 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Obama supporters. Most of your are young and idealistic. I was at your age.

With age comes realism. "God grant me the stength to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I even voted for John Anderson and McGovern. (And you're not smart enough to even know who John Anderson was).

Going Obamanutty and beating up on what I said will not change the reality no matter how delusional you are over it.

The vicious assaults of Obamanuts actually turns off potential voters for Obama.

The sad thing is that Obama is far better than far too many of his supporters. Most of you Obamanut posters have missed his point about a new way. Shame on you!

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

wj_phillips:

Don't be afraid of the scary monsters in the GOP. "The Republicans know the electorate." Really? Is that why they've squandered control of all three branches of government? Is that why they lost control of the House and Senate in the last mid-term election? Is that why they've overplayed their post-9/11 fearmongering ad nauseum while doing precious little to actually protect us from real domestic terror threats? Is that why they switched from race-baiting against blacks to anti-immigration race-baiting against latinos, only the fastest growing electoral demographic? Great job knowing the electorate well enough to potentially doom your party for the next several decades.

Let's have a reality check here, people: Who benefits most, right now, from the idea that "America won't support a black candidate?" Hillary Clinton. Who is a close runner-up in that department? The eventual Republican nominee. Are there people in America who will NEVER, EVER, EVER support a black candidate? Absolutely. Is that the majority of Americans? Absolutely not. Would anybody who felt that way be particularly inclined to support a woman for President (or for that matter, a democrat)? Absolutely not.

After too many years of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq Fiasco, the sabre-rattling over Iran, the brewing disaster in Pakistan, and the failure to actually effectively wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, Americans want LEADERSHIP. People want vision, ideas, intellect, and the ability to actually improve our standing on the world stage. The vast majority of the American electorate is going to support the candidate that they feel best embodies those qualities. Or they're going to blindly follow WaPo and the other outlets for horserace journalism as political coverage. For me, Barack Obama is the best candidate available. He has my vote and my support.

Posted by: formulateinfinity | January 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

WOW! wj_phillips says that Obama can't possibly win a second term...Well, that cinches it for me! Why would i bother electing him if he can only be pres for 4 years!

WHAT TRIPE!
We must be getting close.
OBAMA 08!

Posted by: cassk1 | January 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

With the economy the number one priority for most voters it would be sensible to look at what John Edwards said months ago about the need for an economic stimulus plan. He's still talking about it but the knife fight in the Democratic Party isn't doing anything to help this country move forward to a sound choice.

Posted by: susjo | January 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse


I like Obama. It is his nutty vicious supporters I cannot stand. Judging by their posts they are worse than GOP swift boaters.

Like Andrew Young, I don't think 2008 is a good year for OBama. He may have enough liberal support to win the Demo nomination, but just like McGovern in 1972 he would lose big in November. No liberal Deomcrat has won since.

If Obama gets the nomination and loses big, it will be at least another generation before another African/American get a chance. This is a likely reason for old line civil rights warriors to be wary of Obama now.

The Republicans know the electorate. They know it is not ready to elect a liberal, especially a liberal African/American, and there are not enough Americans who consider themselves liberal for Obama to do other than go down like McGovern.

In 2016 or 2020 Obama will still be under 60. Right now his resume has a lot of fluff and puff in it. He can use the years ahead to build a solid record of accomplishments. He would then be assured of being elected.

Plus whoever wins the presidency this year will be handed the mess George Bush has created. Cleaning up after him will be a thankless job. Spending has to be cut and taxes raised if the country is to survive. A second term is highly unlikely unless divine intervetion happens. Is this what Obama supporters want?

But, of course, the Obamanuts are so delusional they think they can change reality. And delusional enough to think the world revolves around them and their views. Reality is not something they can grasp or understand!

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

During extensive interviews in recent weeks in Republican-leaning states, Politico found widespread belief among current and former Democratic statewide officials that Obama is the more electable candidate with their electorates. These politicians also frequently registered a fear that Clinton's personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters.That list includes states, like South Carolina, that have been off the table for generations for Democrats. It also includes places on the edge of the table, like Colorado, which in recent elections has been in play even though Republicans usually win in the end.

"One-third of our voters will be independent voters," Napolitano said. "Whoever wins independents will win the state. That's not to say she doesn't or can't. But he does better."

Do you believe Independent voters will ultimately choose the next President?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1541

.

Posted by: jeffboste | January 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Each of us can cite poll after poll which shows at one point or another, one candidate or another being "electable." I'm sure in 2001, after the heartbreaking loss for Democrats of the presidency, you could find polls that said Hillary Clinton -- newly elected to the US Senate -- was most electable." Times have changed. Seven years later and Hillary is not the "Great White Hope" anymore.

IMHO, Barack Obama has demonstrated superior judgment with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Clinton spin machine, try as they might to twist his anti-war stance into something else, cannot. They can lie about his opposition, truncate quotes in some amateur hour cut and paste session, and finger-point all they want, but the bottom line is that when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were on the bandwagon to rush into war with Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama wasn't.

The Clinton campaign can claim they provide "universal healthcare" for all -- with mandates -- when in fact, their plan will not insure about 15 million people. Bottom line, that 15 million people would be uninsured under anyone's plan (with the sole exception of Dennis Kucinich's single-payer system.) Barack Obama has a detailed plan which will deliver affordable healthcare to everyone, will require that children are covered and with the exception of Paul Krugman (for reasons truly known only by himself) has been embraced by experts in the field as a thoughtful, workable, implementable, affordable plan. But let's be realistic, no proposal by any president ever makes it through the legislative process unchanged. It is a collaborative work, and Barack Obama has demonstrated time after time his ability to forge alliances and work with his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

As our concerns turn more toward the economy, Obama announced a $120 billion economic stimulus package. (Again, Krugman doesn't like it, but Krugman is on the sidelines, critiquing proposals and not developing them. [Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.])

Barack Obama is electable. The worst baggage he carries is that he wanted to be president in kindergarten, experimented with drugs in his youth and admitted it openly (and permanently, in his book, "Dreams of My Father"), he used to smoke cigarettes. The same cannot be said of his chief rival and her husband.

This past week, filled with the ridiculous race-baiting from the Clinton campaign has demonstrated that voters need to be vigilant in sourcing the details of the storyline for themselves. And it suggests that voters must be watchful of who is ginning up the storyline and whom that storyline advances. Again, IMHO, the Clintons ratcheted up a story, based on two false premises: Obama's unwavering anti-war stance, from 2002 to the present, and the false notion that Obama had "compared himself" to JFK and MLK.

In Iowa, Bill Clinton claimed he was against the Iraq war from the start. That has been proved to be untrue. In NH. Hillary sought to cast herself as a modern day LBJ "passing" legislation (from the White House(?)) in a role superior to the black activist Martin Luther King, Jr. In Nevada, the Clinton machine seeks to disenfranchise voters -- both union and non-union -- who work on the Vegas Strip or surrounding area, with a lawsuit claiming a plan they helped create is -- 10 months later -- unfair to janitors (not part of the teachers' union (NEA Nevada)), a lawsuit filed at the eleventh hour, after Hillary did not receive the expected endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union - Nevada.

You get to make up your own mind. I will vote (caucus actually) on Feb. 5th for Barack Obama.
The change I'm looking for in Washington is not spelled "Clinton."

Posted by: jade_7243 | January 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm from Nevada and this Saturday, I'm caucusing for Mamie Eisenhower.

Yes, I'm a Dem, but I think being a former first lady is the #1 criteria to be president.

Doesn't matter that she's long dead, we need Mamie and need her wisdom now!

Go Mamie '08!

Posted by: mjzahara | January 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

peterdc. I don't know what ferrytale book you've been reading but the Obama camp never pulled the "card". How? He was accused of that before he ever responded. The Clinton spin reacted too fast in accusing him and Obama used that to his adavntage. That's the whole game. The clintons make a borderline statement and when they get a response, which didn't come from Obam but other people, they play the victim and start crying how dare you's.
Get you facts straight.

Posted by: mev47 | January 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

peterdc I respect your opinion but your wrong. Obama won in a 95% white state (Iowa) and lost 93% white state NH by 2% points against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Dont tell me he is unelectable. America is far more evoled than you think ... Give Americans credit we are a fair minded people. Obama himself " "it would be because I hadn't persuaded the American people that I could make their lives better And I think I can persuade them, because I've got a track record of making people's lives better."

Posted by: TennGurl | January 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Electability is a big issue. And one can never play down the "Bradley" factor of people not voting for an African America. But that being said I do think any Democrat can win this year.

But it is not race I am worried about in an Obama campaign. Though his people are playing that card now and it could hurt them in a general election. It is all the things we don't know about him that the Republicans won't be nearly as nice as the candidates in the Democratic primary. The issue of his church, drugs, the "present" votes, his background, all will be fair game to the Republicans. Do I think that is right, no I don't but let's not be naive about this.

Now Hillary has the largest negatives because of being attacked relentlessly. But Obama's negatives will rise dramatically as we move into the campaign if he is the candidate and it won't be the Republican candidate but the "swift boating" groups that will do it.

The other real issue to consider is if we are hoping to increase our vote- Hillary brings out more women voters and Barack brings out more African American voters, but since women make up more of the electorate she will have that advantage. NH showed how possible that is as 57% of the voters were women. There may be a fight now in the Democratic party but the reality is that most women-moderate republicans included, when they can vote in secret will pull that ballot for Hillary.

Posted by: peterdc | January 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Preferential Media Treatment

Among the Democratic Candidates who do you Believe is Getting the Most Preferential Media Treatment?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1540

.

Posted by: jeffboste | January 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I think Hilary's pre-senate experience is impressive, but not nearly as impressive as Nancy Reagan's or Barbara Bush's. On the other hand, she way out-performed Laura Bush, in my opinion.

Posted by: Seytom1 | January 15, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

BO misses the whole point regarding being a Pres. of the greatest and most powerful country in the world. It has nothing to do with color.

What is most important is experience, knowledge and an American Background, a person who born on the mainland of the USA and lived, and was fully educated in this country. A TRUE AMERICAN with the where with all of what this country is about and many many years of expeience in AMERICAN POLITICS. OBAMA MAY (AND THAT IS QUESTIONABLE) be a good senator----but President, I sincerely doubt it!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | January 15, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The other problem is that the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is not going to win you a general election all by itself. And for all of Hillary's own pandering to the right in her time in the Senate, it hasn't done a lick of good. Especially if she has to face McCain in the general--she'll get creamed.

Posted by: elroy1 | January 15, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

And as for your argument, Cheney and Rumsfield have more experience than Hillary. Did that help?

Nixon had more experience than Hillary, did that help?

How you view experience, Hillary has more than Franklin Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington.

So according to you, experience trumps. Well, I would take FDR, Lincoln and Washington over Cheney, Nixon, Hillary or anyone else.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | January 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

dyck21005 - Have you done any research on Obama or do you just clip and paste your blogs from pro-Hillary sites (which others have pointed out in your former posts)? I have looked at both Senator Clinton's and Obama's website and looked at the "beef" on both of them. And guess what, Obama's gives more beef. At least do some research on Obama... besides the pro-Hillary slant.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | January 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

dyck, admit it, You just want more Bush.

Sorry, I had to say that. Carry on.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 15, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Senators Clinton and McCain make the same argument that they
have
superior experience and readiness to be president from day one; whereas
Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee make a similar argument that little
or
no experience in national political office and in domestic and foreign
policy decision-making is not a disadvantage.

It is hard to dispute that Senators Clinton and McCain have greater
experience in Washington and, in the case of Senator Clinton, for eight
years on the front lines of key decisions in the White House. what
strikes
me as illogical, even irrational, is the Obama/Huckabee argument that
superior and national and foreign policy experience is somehow
inconsistent
with change. How can that be? Certainly one can have extensive
experience
and be committed to use it to enact fundamental changes. How can it be
argued otherwise? The data shows that Senator Clinton runs far more
strongly
than Senator Obama among working middle-class/working class voters --
certainly, the core of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"
since
FDR; whereas Senator Obama has greater appeal to the so-called
"Starbucks
voters" - upper income professionals and college students who have the
luxury of focusing more on cerebral political inspiration since they do
not
feel serious economic pain in their daily lives. history would suggest
that
Senators Clinton and McCain will ultimately be the nominees because
they
seem to appeal to the core values and historic bases of their
respective
parties more than Senator Obama and Huckabee. It will be interesting to
see
if Obama can try to shift his campaign theme from just inspirational to
more
substantive economic issues. Obama we are still wondring Where's the
beef?

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 15, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

You have to say that Mrs. Clinton is comfortable and knowledgeable
about
economic policy. there's something to be said for presidents who know
what
they're talking about.

The Obama campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad
economic
news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama's top economic
adviser
claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months
ago
is just what we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic
decline
in consumer spending." Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing,
and
that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a
recession-fighting measure - doesn't that sound familiar? on Sunday Mr.
Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his
health
care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus
proposal is
similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the
right.
Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy
initiatives
that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes
across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and
help
for state and local governments. Obama's really is less progressive
than his
rivals on matters of domestic policy.

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 15, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Mikel1 so you'd rather the Dems just go down in flames in yet another glorious losing effort from Hillary? This is going to wind up being a total replay of 2004.

Posted by: elroy1 | January 15, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

am color blind when it comes to politics being a minority myself. but i am not going to risk our future on another bush-lite presidency which obama will be. if he gets past the GOP gauntlet which he won't.

his history with indicted chicago political fixer tony rezco is going to blow him away. and his lack of sevice to the nation. and his lackluster junior senator tenure noted only for his campaign for presidency.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 15, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Best of luck to Senator Obama in Nevada! He's had my vote for months and for many reasons - electability among them. Obama in '08!

Posted by: maq1 | January 15, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

He (Barack Obama) is leading the pack on internet searches (for Dems):

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=30

That is saying something, one way or the other.

Posted by: davidmwe | January 15, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company