Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Return to Message of 'Change'

Over the next few months, there will be hundreds of television ads run by the candidates for president and scores of interest groups hoping to influence the primary and caucus electorate.

But no ad may be more important -- both literally and figuratively -- to an individual candidate than the commercial that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) began running yesterday in Iowa. Take a look:

Entitled "Believe," the 60-second ad features Obama speaking directly to the camera. "Every time I speak about my hope for America, the cynics in Washington roll their eyes," Obama says at the ad's start. "They don't believe we can actually change politics ... that's why we face the same problems and hear the same promises every four years."

Obama then moves to a discussion of his proposals to limit lobbyists' influence, his initial opposition to the war in Iraq and his bipartisan attitude toward governing.

The end of the ad is the most important. "I approved this message to ask you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington," Obama says as he moves closer to the camera. "I'm asking you to believe in yours."

The ad is a direct message about Obama's potential as a "movement" candidate. Even before he was elected to the Senate, Obama was viewed by many within the Democratic Party (and outside of it too) as a potential game-changer when it comes to how modern politics is conducted.

Obama's now famous "audacity of hope" speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention -- months before he trounced Alan Keyes to formally claim a seat in the Senate -- established him as a new force in American politics.

That excitement and sense of, well, hope, followed Obama wherever he went over the next two years and played no small part in his decision to enter the presidential race (despite having served less than two full years in the Senate). Obama supporters made no excuses for his relative newness to the national scene; a transformative figure in politics emerges rarely and can't be held back by the traditional "wait your turn" rules of politics, they said

The way in which Obama talked about his candidacy sought to tap into this sense of a growing movement. In Obama's announcement speech in February, one passage stands out:

"That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice -- to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."

Even then, Obama was casting his bid more than just another presidential campaign. The argument, according to Obama allies, is that his campaign is and always has been about mobilizing the masses who are sick and tired of politics as usual and are searching for an individual who promises to do things differently.

Over the intervening months, Obama has faced the complicated task of preserving that movement image while also answering mainstream critics who insisted his was a campaign heavy on rhetoric and light on specifics. The nature of presidential campaigns tends to bend even the most unorthodox of politicians to its (conventional) will. Obama has struggled hard against that tendency, but the reality is that most of his policy solutions don't differ all that much with the ideas presented by his main rivals for the nomination.

This TV ad seems to be an attempt to remind voters of what got them so excited about Obama in the first place. The Fix has long believed that it is extremely difficult to beat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). But Obama -- alone among the Democratic candidates -- has the ability to become something more than just a politician in this race.

To win, Obama must convince people in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and beyond that he is the only candidate running for president who can truly change the things they find distasteful and off-putting about politics. Obama is asking voters to believe in him (and themselves), not just vote or caucus for him.

It's an unorthodox approach but may well represent his best chance to win the Democratic nomination. The selling of the Obama movement began in earnest with his new ad in Iowa. Are voters willing to buy in? We'll find out in a few months.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 20, 2007; 9:46 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Republican Shays Dangles Retirement
Next: Bush vs MoveOn

Comments

Hi, there!..6ac6330bc803add9291ea8ec7ad87a41

Posted by: free mp3 | October 7, 2007 7:24 AM | Report abuse

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Barack does not have what it takes to beat any Republican. That's gospel truth. Even Ron Paul will trounce him in california."

I'm sorry Kessington, but where do you come up with this stuff? Gospel truth? Oh, is your use of a religious phrase supposed to make it more true?

Ron Paul will trounce him in California? Again, how do you come up with this stuff? You must be working under the right wing philosophy: just say it and it will be true.

So tell us, what does it take to beat a Republican? And what exactly does it mean to be "Presidential" and what makes Hillary more "Presidential" than Obama?

Its sad that most people do exactly what you just did, they make decisions based on nothing more than CNN and Fox soundbites they happen to hear as they are channel surfing.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | September 24, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm not at all sure who will win the dems, nomination. I do know this. Bill C, was known to be able to "feel our pain", his wife comes across as the one who will inflict it if we disagree. I'm independent but I'm voting ABC. Tag team wrestling isn't a change just because you put the woman in the rink. Any republican not sucking up to Bush would provide more real change than Hilary who would be recycled Bill without the empathy.

Posted by: Prof48 | September 23, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I do beleived that Obama is doing the right thing to win the Democratic nomination, and he has my vote.

Posted by: DAVMON MONDAV | September 23, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

If you want to change the politics in Washington, get rid of the Democratic and Republican parties! There have to be more choices for the people.

Get rid of the pork barrel spending.

Get rid of the electoral college.

Posted by: Dick Kahrs | September 22, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA drives a CHANGE MACHINE powered by THE PEOPLE. There is no stopping him. His intregity, respectability, believability and the pure sense of HOPE that pervade his message are captivating.

Posted by: Margaret | September 22, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

The way I see it, those who say that HRC will win the nomination may be right. If she does win, I agree that the best VP choice would be Obama. I like him because he voices the need to change. I also like Clinton because of her husband, whom I thought was a good president, regardless of his personal life.

As for the Republican side, I see Guiliani, McCain, and Romney as their front-runners. On our side, we have Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Right now, Guiliani may end up as the Republican nominee. If so and Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it will be the first time since JFK that we will have a president from the North, thus disproving my father's former professor's proclamation that we will never have another president from the North.

When it came to picking who would win the Democratic nomination, I have been perfect on every Democratic primary since 1984 when I first became interested in politics. Right now, I am not saying who would be the front-runner yet becasue Obama and Edwards can still beat Clinton for the nomination.

I will say one thing. I would rather see a Democratic president than a Republican president. I admire the Republican candidates who distance themselves from President George W. Bush, whom I think is a very bad president and will go down in history for destroying America's image in the world. The Republicans do have very good candidates in Guiliani, McCain, and Romney. I believe that they are the three front-runners of the Republican Party.

I will admit that as of now, I would vote for Hilary Rodham Clinton. She has already made history by becoming the first MAJOR woman candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination, she will make HISTORY!! She would be the first woman presidential candidate ever, and the second candidate to be on a ticket. The first one for a major party, in case people have forgotten, was Geraldine Ferraro. To my surprise, she is Clinton's campaign fundraiser!! :) Here is the link: http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/221614.html. I glad to see that. By the way, if Clinton does get nominated for the Democratic Party, it will mean that there are many Americans who will support her for the presidential nomination. :) What I do not understand is why many women would be opposed to haveing HRC as president. My vote is that if Clinton chooses Obama as her VP, it will be a very tough ticket to beat. I do not think Guiliani could put up a ticket that can beat the Clinton/Obama ticket at all. I do not think any Republican is ready for change and that they will continue down the path that will destroy the USA. On the other hand, I think the Democrats are going to save the USA from destruction, or at least slow down the destruction of the USA.

The way I see it is that the race will be between Guiliani and Clinton. They will fight it out and neither of them will have a landslide. The race will be very close again for the third time in a row.

Since the race is still too early to decide, I am leaning towards Clinton. Even though I said I would vote for Clinton as of now, Obama and Edwards still have a chance to beat Clinton.

Posted by: vietasianfox45 | September 22, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ad is just like any other political advertisement. He wants to end lobbiest power, but he takes a ton of lobbiest money from trial lawyers and others and even used this money for his own personal gain including getting into the house he owns. If he gets into office it will be a disaster. He will pull the troops out of Iraq too soon and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis will die, as happened in Vietnam. He won't take the terrorist threat seriously and will apologize instead of defend our country and we will be attacked again on our soil.

He will increase taxes and create a heavier burden for small businesses, even though he will claim he is just taxing the rich, this will cause our economy to go into recession (but it will probably be after he leaves office, and it will be blamed on the Republicans)

We already have proof from Rudy Juliani's tax cuts in New York that tax cuts spurs economic growth and actually increases tax revenue (as it did in New York by 30%) and through Reagan's presidency, where the same thing occured. ...Republican's do not hate America, but love this nation, and don't want to see it go down the drain through higher taxes, frivolous lawsuits, huge social programs that can't be paid for over the long run and failed policies.

America needs to focus on what made it great in the first place: God, low taxes, limited government, and the pursuit of happiness, which means freedom without too much regulation.

Posted by: Billy Bob | September 22, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it: barack Obama is too naive and as divisive as Dick Cheney and George Bush. Look closely at his ofiicial website blogs and you'll notice that there are more references to Hillary Clinton and what she says and does than there are to America and the problems assailing us.

Jimmy J ...you sir are a bold faced LIAR.

I am on the site repeatedly and his main blogs have nothing to do with Hillary. Now what comments others might make he doesn't try to control unless they are abussive. Unlike the Hillary site where people are not allowed to leave comments at all. Everything is filtered..it is a one way conversation. This from the woman who says lets have a conversation.

What most of you Hillary nuts fail to realize is that Obama supporters believe in HIM. They are very unlikely ( most of them) to ever support Hillary because she represents just the opposite of Obama. They have a better likely hood of supporting any other Democrat if he doesn't win the nomination but not Hillary. So where would that put the Democratic party in the GE when 1/4 of the base is unsuppotive?

Posted by: Grace | September 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

It is SOOO easy to simply sit in our virtual pulpits and declare what we believe to be fact as "gospel truth". But without facts such statements are simply something to feed and placate the weak-minded.

And to those who feel that Mr. Obama's declining to vote on the MoveOn.org condemnation is wrong, please consider this:

What do we teach our children to do when they are being harassed or asked to do something they shouldn't?

We tell them to ignore them.

And yet we expect our politicians to do just the opposite. Kinda silly, isn't it? What Mr. Obama did was give that bill the treatment it deserved. There was no need for that type of bill to be sucking up Congress' time and energy when there are MUCH bigger problems that require their attention. C'mon, folks! Get real!

Posted by: loudguyrick | September 22, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Why did Obama return a no vote on the Move on ad? This man just lost my support and that of my friends with that act. Now that he's running for President he can't stay on the sidelines hoping not to offend sworn enemies. He should have voted for or against the Senate Resolution. Why act nice trying not to offend Republican sensibilities and then expect Move on.org to support his campaign. Obviously, he is not man enough to rule this nation.

Posted by: Dave in Cleveland | September 22, 2007 4:44 AM | Report abuse

Barack does not have what it takes to beat any Republican. That's gospel truth. Even Ron Paul will trounce him in california. Hillary is mature and strong to lead. Let Barack back off his criticism of our President in waiting. Anyway, GW bush did all that too when it was dawning on him that Nancy Pelosi was soon to be get the gavel from Dennis Hastert. No matter the attacks Hill just stays strong and watch it: She doesn't exploit Barcak's naievity to score political points. She's just very Presidential.

Posted by: Kessington in Florida | September 22, 2007 4:39 AM | Report abuse

Let's face it: barack Obama is too naive and as divisive as Dick Cheney and George Bush. Look closely at his ofiicial website blogs and you'll notice that there are more references to Hillary Clinton and what she says and does than there are to America and the problems assailing us. He is a Politician and can not do anything he says he'll do. Change the Politics in Washington? Empty and vague promises. How will he accomplish that? By forcing rules down the throats of Legislators who have been there years before he met Michelle and then when there's a revolt what will he do about that? Veto their bills? He will be even more divisive than he potrays Hillary to be. Who best to unite the camps in Washington than a woman who every body agrees is a mother: Tough, Strong and sensitive to the issues affecting Middle class workers. Then Hillary is now more mature than the 90s. She's learned a lot since they were in the White House. Her past experiences would only prepare her for a more stable service in the White House. Barack would be too naive he'll have to make his mistakes to learn. That's why we believe Hillary would be ready to hit the ground running in the right direction from Day one. HRC 08 in the White House!

Posted by: Jimmy J | September 22, 2007 4:33 AM | Report abuse

Sorry I couldn't read every single comment.

I like Obama, his ideal to take back the government from both extreme sides of the political fence. If he gets nominated, he will have my support.
I'm one of those who is sick and tired of the devisive tone of government today...and it's been BOTH sides, dems and gop, who are responsible.
Kick out the lobbyists, install mandated term limits, and listen to ALL the people.
Get somebody in there who'll do what needs to be done.

HRC is clearly too divisive and provacative a figure. If she wins nomination, the partisanship will be worse than ever.

Obama could actually bring people back to caring about the country's problems instead of who's getting richer or getting laid.

Posted by: Jack | September 21, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Surely you know that the REAL candidate of change in this election is JOHN EDWARDS. You also know that Edwards, on every major issue, has lead and Clinton and Obama have followed. Enough said.

Posted by: rebelfriend | September 21, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your post really should have mentioned 1) that the Dean campaign had the same strategy of focusing on being a movement candidate and mobilizing disaffected liberals, and 2) that strategy failed. In other words, no matter how appealing it may be to political junkies that a candidate runs on his innovative campaigning, the general public just doesn't give a hoot.

Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Wendy,
The REPULICAN is crushing this COUNTRY like a mosquito. WE the PEOPLE must stand behind the PRESIDENT who look after the interested of its people.

Integrity and honesty is not a mask one can put on or take off. IF people would open their eyes and not their pockets. These student believe they felt his in OBAMA and they probably has a far more insight than you have.

There is a lot more to OBAMA than his looks.

A CARING NATURE goes a long way. THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING WITH OUR LEADERSHIP TODAY. THEY DON'T GIVE A RAT....A ABOUT ANYONE EXCEPT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS. HOW MANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN IRAQ?

Hilary, I love Hilary and liked Bill as well. I voted for him. Because of the climate of AMERICA needed a change. Their was too too much hate among American. This is where we are today, now it has gones beyond just American hating American.

I feel that the only person who can bring us together is OBAMA. Have you notice your surrounding, nationally and internationally?

This has nothing to do with looks or color. The best man/woman for the job is a intelligent, honest and caring individual.

od

Posted by: Odella | September 21, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

'He didn't have access to classified information that Hilary and Edwards did'
That's rediculous. The whole nation was sold on this war, and it wasn't any classified information that sold it. It was the lies Bush and Admin. told us all outright- mixed with anxiety about what had just happened.
Anybody who doesn't think it took enormous courage to be against the war at that time has forgotten.. Shoot, I joined the Army myself.
No Obama was one of very few who was right. And sadly I was wrong too, and probably most of you were as well.

Posted by: tom | September 21, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Look what experience has done to America. When Clinton ran for President, people talked about his lack (enough) experience to run for president. I said then and I say now. Sometime too much experience can do more harm than good. Which has been proven over the decade.
Obama projects a sense of honesty and trustworthiness. It is not just about America, but the rest of the world.
With a man like Obama I feel a sense of peace. At ease. When he is in the White House, we can all get a good nights sleep. I haven't been able to sleep since Bush has been in office. That man is EVIL and so is his side kick, Cheney. Look at these people, dishonest written all over them. And, Greed.
Obama would be like a breath of fresh air for this Country and the world. We need peace.
If America can accept Arnold, from Austria (of all places, as governor of Califoria. Why can't we trust one of our own.
WE NEED OBAMA. GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE. TRUST IN A CHANGE, A NEW BEGINNING.
VOTE OBAMA

Odella

Posted by: Odella | September 21, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Its interesting...when Democratic undecideds finally choose to go with Hilary, their reason is usually one of "well, she has the best chance of winning" or "well, she's going to win the nomination anyway". But when those people go for Obama, their reasons are based on what Obama believes or says he will do.

Its time we elect someone because we believe in them and their message, not because "they will win anyway"!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | September 21, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Olson Johnson -- "From your mouth to God's ears" Let it be so!

Posted by: Bob | September 21, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I have a simple thesis. If America chooses Obama, it will continue to be the leading empire in the globe. If another republican is elected there will be a continuous chaos. Look and examine prudently at all of the leading candidates of republican party. You sense arrogance and pride.
I read and hear people argue that Obama is not experienced. But Obama is very decent and humble. What America needs now is a humble person.
Americans, don't be confused he is not going to be a CEO of USA, he is going to be your leader. There is a huge difference between 'leadership' and 'management'. If you want managers, elect people like Mit Romeny and Juliani, if you want leaders elect Obama or Mike Huckbee.
God bless America, the beacon of freedom and the home of many nationalities and races.

Posted by: Bonjorno | September 21, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I personally have never seen anyone connect with me like Obama has through this commercial. I am a Hillary supporter mainly because of her husband who I think is a master of politics and smart. But, now...I am crossing the line to Obama. He really shows his stuff...real presidential.

Posted by: Daniel from VA | September 21, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Olson Johnson,

That was the best analysis of the primary process I have read so far! Thank you.

Posted by: Petbo | September 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I assume you were just as angry at Bush for not denouncing the swift boat ads, right? Interesting how when the right wing sends out its goons to lie and distort facts, the Rupubs can get away with saying "I am not affiliated with them and they have a right to free speach, blah, blah, blah", but if someone on the left sends out an ad that is in any way critical of this administration, all of a sudden they are called traitors and evil people and if they aren't denounced by each and every Democrat, then those Dems are by association just as evil. LOL, you guys never cease to amaze me! The Moveon.org ad is old news, time for you to move on.

You make a lot of mention about who is advising Obama, but you fail to give any details or proof of how he is just as devisive or what he has done to prove he is just another politician. And if this is your main complaint about him, then who exactly are you supporting for president (and saying that you haven't decided, but have an open mind is a cop-out)?

For you to say he has no experience running anything shows how little you know about him. Please, at least take some time to do some research before making your erroneous statements. Oh wait, that's right, I can't blame you. You are just repeating the standard Repub talking points. Keep on, good soldier!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | September 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

IMPORTANT NEWS

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16


Posted by: calumonit | September 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Done.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 21, 2007 8:37 AM | Report abuse

The Olson Johnson post at 1:29A sounds credible to me because it accurately describes the mechanics of the caucus. Please note it.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 21, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

"To win, Obama must convince people in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and beyond that he is the only candidate running for president who can truly change the things they find distasteful and off-putting about politics."

He can't even stand up and say just how distasteful and off-putting calling one of the few Generals who was critical of our strategy early on in the war a traitor by a few wing nuts.

He's not going to change anything. Take a look at Chicago politics and all those who are advising him. I am telling you, the last thing we need is to exchange the divisive and corrupt culture of Washington with the kind of divisive and more corrupt politics practiced in the state of IL and the city of Chicago. Obama didn't change anything here, he doesn't have any experience running anything or any understanding of our military, and he doesn't have the good judgment to see an opportunity to truly stand up to the Karl Rove style of politics of personnel destruction when it is put right in front of him.

This campaign is over for him. And if he doesn't stop ridiculing his fellow senate colleagues, it may have been one of the shortest lived national political careers we have ever seen.

Posted by: Chris Lawrence | September 21, 2007 4:20 AM | Report abuse

That ad was great! I think that type of ad, with heavy rotation, will do well in middle America, where people are tired of the angry tone that politics has taken on in the last 10 years.

I hope the media continues to ignore him. It will be a great day when he wins (or comes in second to Edwards) the Iowa primary and Hilary comes in 3rd. And once he wins Iowa, people on other states will finally begin to give him the credit and respect he deserves.

How many "Republicans for Clinton" sites are there out there? Obama is someone who can speak in a way that people who disagree with him on ideology will listen to him. There is not one repub who will listen to anything that Hilary has to say, so a win by her will give us another 4/8 years of deadlock and gridlock in Washington (unless the Dems can pick up 9 Senate seats in '08 to have a filibuster-proof majority).

I think the Repubs should be more fearful of an Obama nomination than a Clinton nomination. Obama can pull the Reagan Democrats back into the fold, appeal to the independents, and even get many moderate "suburbia Repubs" to vote for him. In pulling all of those groups, he can win in a land-slide and have the heads of all of those "blinder mentality" repubs in the Congress spinning.

It is amazing to me how all of the Repub canidadates are still playing the game of running to the hard right. They are playing the politics of what rights they want to take away from people, how they want to exclude people, and how they will keep us safe by turning the US into a fascist regime where its citizens no longer enjoy many of the rights that make this democracy so great. When you listen to their debates, this is all they talk about.

It is also amazing to me to look at the Repub candidates and note that they are all angry and bitter old white men who have a "my way or the highway" mentality (with the possible exception of Huckabee, he's not so old and not so bitter).

Meanwhile, the Dems are fielding a list of candidates that are much more representative of what our country has become and have done so for the last 25 years.

I, for one, and looking forward to an Obama/Edwards ticket for '08 (Gore is not running and is not a candidate, so let it go).

Oh, and for those who say "the country just isn't ready for a black president"...they said the same thing about Civil Rights in the mid 60s..."go slow, be patient, the country just isn't ready for Civil Rights. It will happen eventually, but not just yet". Its time for us to make the country realize that it is in fact ready for a black president.
PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | September 21, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse

There is a great post on the Obama site explaining "...why many of us feel so confident about Barack's ability to win...it helps to understand the Byzantine process...and here's how I see it.

"First, everyone not named Hillary Clinton believes there are 2 slots in this race, the Hillary Slot and the NOT Hillary slot, and whomever gets the Not Hillary slot wins because she cannot get past 40%. As you can see from the polls today, she is actually slipping in her support. She has been the default Democrat for most of the summer but as people are getting engaged and really start looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates both as a general election candidate and as a President, people are leaving her team and moving to undecided.

"Second, the Iowa caucuses are more than just showing up to place a vote. We are going to shock the world in Iowa and here's why:

"The most important thing to know about Iowa is viability.

"You must be viable in each of the over 1,900 precincts. That means you must have a minimum of 15% support in every precinct or you get no votes. So those folks like Biden and Richardson that are doing okay but do not have enough money to have a field program to make sure that they have viability in all 1,900 plus precinct will not make viability in most of the precincts. Their voters decide to either caucus with another candidate or go with none of the above (in 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second to none of the above).

"So here's the $64,000 question; where do these voters go? You have 3 candidates bunched around 25% which basically leaves another 25% in play. Here's what I think ... If you're not with Senator Clinton today, you probably aren't gonna be as a second choice. And in Iowa, where John Edwards has been for the better part of 6 years, it is unlikely that people default to him either. Moreover, our staff in Iowa is phenomenal with Paul Tewes (Gore's State Director) as our state Director and Kerry's Iowa Director, John Norris, helping out not to mention that we have 28 offices open around the state. I think Kerry had less than 10 at this point. This is where our resources makes a huge difference.

"One last thing about Iowa that is quirky. You can change your registration the day of the caucuses. About a month ago there was a poll that had Barack running fourth in the REPUBLICAN primary in Iowa, beating McCain.

"As I have said before, our opponents have either replaced their state director and have had even more recent staff shake ups or have the state being run by Jen O'Malley, Jim Davis's Campaign Manager. I think I'll take our team.

"After Iowa, everything is fluid. Senator Clinton is running a campaign of inevitability. That doesn't go over well in NH and as we learned in the Kerry race, NH voters break unbelievably late AND Independents can vote in either Party's primary. Early polling suggests that over 70% of Independents are going to vote in the Democratic Primary. Do you know many Independents who favor Senator Clinton? I don't and they could make up close to 40% of the primary vote.

"We then roll into SC. Every campaign will admit off the record that we are winning there now and that is with Senator Clinton winning the African American vote. I know of no one who seriously looks at politics that believes that on election day, Barack does not win the African America vote by a substantial margin no matter what people currently tell pollsters when the call folks. If that is the case, then EVERY poll taken artificially inflates Senator Clinton's numbers, regardless of whether it is a state poll or a national poll, if it includes any African American vote.

"And then there is February 5th. The national press and the punditry class have breathlessly talked about the fact that we will have a nominee by the morning of February 6th. I happen to think that is highly unlikely and here's why.

"You need to accumulate approximately 2,100 delegates to get the nomination. By the end of February 5th, approximately 2,200 will be distributed BUT unlike the Republican party, we don't have winner take all states. The delegates are distributed proportionately by the vote with certain bonuses for winning.

"Do you think that either Barack or Senator Clinton will concede if one of them is at 1,100 delegates and the other is at 850 with the other candidates with the rest? This is a war of attrition. John Kerry won 28 out of 30 states before John Edwards got out on March 4th. While Senator Clinton's campaign may face a wobbly moment if she gets beaten in 2 out of the first three contests because her campaign is about inevitability and getting whacked kind of hurts that argument, it is clear that we will pick up support at a much higher rate when other campaigns have to get out of the race than she will. We will be gaining steam and momentum at the critical time.

"If we continue to fund this movement for change, we will win this thing. The calendar works for us, the resources we have invested in this campaign are being used incredibly well and if we really want to change this country and the world, we have that opportunity..."

Posted by: Olson Johnson -- Rock Ridge | September 21, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's ad is sensational! I vote regularly and I am 68 years old. I do not want to see one more negative ad. I do not listen to negative & demeaning ads. I do not believe the information proclaimed in neagative and demeaning ads. The public wants to believe and trust their President. My first vote was for JFK. Senator Obama is JFK in spades. Check out Charlie Rose's interview with Ted Sorensen for his views and endorsement. Barack has so much support on the the ground that the polls do not capture in any way. He is such an amazing human being and that is what we all want.

Posted by: SFT, Elgin, IL | September 21, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has more going for him than the mainstream media and political pundits realize.

I think all of you are going to get a surprise when the actual voting starts. Barack is the right man at the right time for a change. Hilliary is the past, she and all of you just don't know it yet, or don't want to face up to it.

Posted by: Rosemary | September 20, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Wendy -- So you helped fill us in on what "doesn't matter," which I gather includes the ability to look at all sides of an issue, inspire people, and heal long-standing divisions in the country. Out of curiosity, what exactly DOES matter in your view?

You seem to be a Hillary supporter, so I suspect the word "experience" is going to come up if you do reply to this. Since Hillary herself, without Bill, hasn't been elected as long as Obama and hasn't passed ANY legislation of note since becoming a senator, that's a curious argument to me. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I have no idea what skills or abilities she's demonstrated that Obama hasn't. Fill me in.

Posted by: Colin | September 20, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

To Mr Cillizza and Kristin:

Dear Mr. Chris Cillizza:

Obama is handsome, articulate, inspiring. However, these are not the qualities for the president of United States. A poet can make an excellent Ad with even more moving rhetoric. An inspirational speaker can make you cry. Yet, none of these is enough for being president of our great country. Making an excellent ad should not be a criterion for voting for someone --He has enough money to hire someone to write a good speech or make a good ad. When it comes to facing enemy, making important decision in a split second is much more important than inspirational speech that can make people cry.

Dear Kristin:

Being a good professor who can listen to different opinions is far from enough to be elected as our presidents (I know lots of professors like him, but they can not be president).

When it comes to someone as fresh faced as Obama, sure he did not have chance to be attached yet as what Clinton experienced in the past 15 years, but wait. If he is the one gets the nomination, Republicans will crush him as they do to a mosquito! Please, we are talking about THE leader of our country, not a nice person, not a patient person, not an articulate teacher, etc., etc., etc. People do not understand that when it comes to the president of the United States, none of these matters.

Posted by: Wendy | September 20, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

like kirtsen above I too was a student of Senator Obama's. He's the real deal for the exact reasons Kirsten reveals: he's pragmatic, non-ideological, and committed to change.

As for the idea that Obama lacked guts in opposing the war:

1) Would you say Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Wes Clark lacked guts? I doubt it.

2) Obama was the only dem among all dems in his senate primary to be against the war.

3) voting against the war is important, but he also stated exactly why he was against the war and did so for precisely the reasons we see today. that's what's impressive.

Posted by: dpg | September 20, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

You want a CHANGE? Change that CD palyer by inserting my CONSERVATIVE MUSIC CD> No one else has put our passion to music--so I did!
www.conservativemusiconline.com

Someone had to put the light on Hillary, Edwards, and the Sean Penn crowd--and to music!

Posted by: Lance | September 20, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

There'll be a black president before there will be a jewish president. That's the truth.

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 20, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I find it fascinating that the people who say America will never elect a black person are usually black. I understand that when one has been the victim of racial profiling and dealing with predjudice and hypocrisy for an entire lifetime might give a person pause. Obama is a culmination of all things POSITIVE about America. He is not only black, and he is not only white. He is not all liberal, nor is he conservative. He is all the compexities that we all ARE and represent - he is you. He is the ONLY real candidate who represents the people of this country and not special interests or party. The polling numbers now do not reflect SO many things (including younger voters)- they are meaningless. The fact that Obama HAS created a movement and yes, we will go out in rain sleet or snow to vote for him and drag others with us, all will become clear when the real voting begins.

Posted by: sheridan1 | September 20, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Ah, but sincerely, your wishful plan is a good idea. Well, something about the best laid plans of Marks and men . . .

Some of the characters around here do drive me to drink [bless them for that, at least!]. I think if I am available tomorrow, I'll go spew around the NY Times blogs. Ever gone fishing there? But their layout--in pages, newest entry first, so that you have to read Chinese style upward--is a real PIA and inferior to this WPost format.

Then again, maybe I'll get a life ... tomorrow?

And that's the way it is, Thursday, September 20th... Good night, and good luck!

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Before Mr. Obama talks about change, he had better explain his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations; and his wife's membership also. This is an insidious organization that has managed to get the U.S. into the U.N., NATO, GATT, NAFDA, the WTO and the likely North American Union. Any candidate who is a member of the CFR ought to be disqualified, since it represents a real and significant threat to U.S. sovereignty. Obama is not alone; most of the other candidates are also members. This is not good.

As well, I like Obama personally. He is a smart and articulate man, but a junior senator does not quite yet merit the white house. Maybe in a few years, if he can shuck the CFR membership. Until then, Ron Paul has my vote. This man is taking about sweeping, breath-taking changes.

Posted by: zenpiper | September 20, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

RadPat,

Old as I am for 6th Street, I remember my days on the bounding main - but here the sun still battles against the raging gloom.

I saw the esteemed Chairman explain the need to delimit and decouple currency from the gold standard to support burgeoning economies and the requirement for central banks to match the money supply to the goods and services being exchanged.

But, enough of that.

As Judge and dcAustinite have noted, my plan to preserve a thoughtful thread went for naught. As a fictional heroine once said at the close of a technicolor adaptation of a Civil War potboiler:
"Tomorrow is another day."

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 20, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Let's bookmark this thread and use it and maybe che, and the anonymous cut-and-paster, and Rufi, and KOZ, and MikeB will NEVER find it. :)"

what grade are you in mark?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Mark-ourmanonsixthstreet ;)

Did you catch Greenspan on the Daily Show the other night? Guess what he brought up? He said the Fed was created to replace the economic stability that was lost when the US went off the ... well, I said I wouldn't say it again, so I won't.

Well, the sun is over the yard-arm, if you know what that means.

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I think the NYT ad was crude and sophomoric.
A better ad would have said

"MoveOn.org Encourages Everyone Who Sees This To Remember That, As A Professional Soldier, General Petraeus Is Subordinate To President Bush, And Thus The Slim-To-Nonexistent Chance That He Will Disagree Publicly (Or At All) With His Commander In Chief Should Cause All To Regard His Testimony With A Healthy Degree Of Skepticism."

But who's gonna read that? I agree, the shock value of what was printed was not only disrespectful but also juvenile, and thus counterproductive. However, I also think it's not necessarily as big a deal as the GOP is trying to make it.

On a related note, I'm sure you all noticed that one of the (three?) sheiks in Anbar who has been working with the Americans was promptly assassinated by al Qaeda after Petraeus finished testifying as to how much better things are getting there. A few days later, the oil-sharing agreement officially fell apart. Progress?

Posted by: Bokonon | September 20, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, it was nice while it lasted but now we have a racist fearmonger in here. So I guess this one is over.

THREAD CLOSED. :-)

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 20, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

roo and reason, you should both join up here, too [see my tongue-in-cheek proposal at 5:26P].

roo, I did not read that B.O. had said that the ad did not represent his position but I am relieved that he said it. He as much as any single candidate should have found the ad distasteful.

You know that I think MoveOn has the right to criticize, and under NYT v. Sullivan has the right to criticize a public figure so harshly, that the comments would be defamatory if not made about a public figure. But I think that the particular ad was gratuitously insulting before the fact, and sophomoric.

And I think your list missed the actual "MoveOn" option:

3. "We want to prejudice the audience by labeling the witness an untrustworthy liar before he testifies."


Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 20, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"President.......Hussein Obama"

Too late, Mark.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I wish commentators would stop playing the
mind games with the Obama for President
campaign. Stop wasting yours & the other
democratic candidates time. America is not going to
make a black man President. It is time to
stop these head games. I am a blackman &
I know it is not going to happen.

Posted by: Louis Russ Jr | September 20, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Just quickly looked at the threads today and only this one managed to survive.

psst! psst! bsimon, drindl, colin, truth, jd, blarg, bokonon, judge, dcAustinite, RadPat,AndyR, JasonL, lylepink, proud, Bobby C-W,vwcat,LoudonV, JimD, bhoomes, Mike the USAFA Falcon in NorCal,spartan,and others who drop by to engage:

Let's bookmark this thread and use it and maybe che, and the anonymous cut-and-paster, and Rufi, and KOZ, and MikeB will NEVER find it. :)

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 20, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Wouldnt it be great if we could have the following cabinet in Washington if Barrack Hussein Obama is elected President:

President.......Hussein Obama

Vice President..Louis Farrakan

Sec Of State....Jesse Jackson

Sec of Defense..Al Sharpton and his gang

Treasurer.......Rep. Jefferson, the refrig man

Supreme Court...NAACP

This could be the ultimate cabinet that could have the motto...JUSTICE FOR ALL...

I must have been dreaming as the alarm clock woke me up !!!

Of course not, it was NOT a nightmare !!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I wish commentators would stop playing the
mind games with the Obama for President
campaign. Stop wasting yours & the other
democratic time. America is not going to
make a black man President. It is time to
stop these head games. I am a blackman &
I know it is not going to happen.

Posted by: Skipper | September 20, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin--"5. He has made the purely symbolic gesture of voting against Iraq appropriations, and never did quite get a question off to Petraeus, and could not quite muster the absolutely minimal courage to say what Biden and Levin said about the MoveOn ad."

MoveOn again. Basically there should be two camps:

1. I do not think Petraeus lied, therefore the ad was inappropriate (but they have the right to say what they think.)

2. I think Petraeus is lying or at least misrepresenting facts while in uniform and with the precise intent to deny us the opportunity to make an informed choice. There is no more polite way to say that this is a huge breach--or betrayal--of trust.

Obama said the ad did not represent his position.

Posted by: roo | September 20, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Bush is bad enough but if we get Clinton or Obama, the "change" we'll get will be a fraction of what the slumping dollar now is worth. On Greenspan, no one could understand what he was saying while he headed the Fed. Now, he's loud and clear: wasn't his fault. Washington should be closed and turned into a historical theme park.

Posted by: Rodney F. Singleton III | September 20, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Let me add to the obvious, too. That kind of change is irrelevant to the kind of change we need."

Agreed, although I'd substitute "should be irrelevant" for " is irrelevant."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"And let me add the obvious: a generic black man as president represents just as much change (more in some quarters, less in others) as a generic woman"


Let me add to the obvious, too. That kind of change is irrelevant to the kind of change we need.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Judge C writes
"Unless I'm misinterpreting the rules the R NH voters would have to become I's to vote for Obama."

That appears to be correct. What, do they check your affiliation at the door & give you the appropriate ballot or something? Here in MN we get one ballot, but you're supposed to only vote for one party's candidates - but they're all on one ballot. I find it annoying, as I vote a split ticket & want to promote the best candidate in each race, who are rarely all from the same party.

Anyhow, here's another page on NH rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
"Unlike most other states, New Hampshire permits independents, not just registered party members, to vote in a party's primary."

If you scroll down, they have a couple charts showing who's hot & who's not.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"Peter, a woman as president doesn't mean change." Have to add to Blarg's comment by pointing out that THIS woman, in particular, represents relatively less change than some other currently hypothetical female candidate. There is an awful lot of Clinton-fatigue out there.

And let me add the obvious: a generic black man as president represents just as much change (more in some quarters, less in others) as a generic woman.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Peter, a woman as president doesn't mean change. At least, not meaningful political change. Change is about what the president does, not who the president is.

I, and a lot of people, find Hillary's experience to be highly suspect. And you illustrated why in your second paragraph: "She was the SPOUSE of a politician who..." How much of her experience is based on being married to someone who did something meaningful?

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"She can match her community activism with Obama's anytime. Obama is a nice intriguing Senator but he can't match Hillary for achievement and knowledge. A nice feel good commercial won't ever change that."

Wow, scared of Obama much?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Good point, bsimon but the only states that currently have open primaries are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election). Not NH or Iowa; not Nevada. South Carolina is in there but that's where I'd expect Obama's cross-over appeal to be most limited in the early going.

Currently, 43 percent of NH's registered voters are not affiliated with any party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501961.html). That's quite a lot of voters who could go either way. Unless I'm misinterpreting the rules the R NH voters would have to become I's to vote for Obama. Some might as they probably have some less-than-glowing opinions of Rudy.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

good ad but still not a reason to vote for Obama- His real problem is trying to convince anyone that a woman as President doesn't in itself mean change- Hillary has what Obama doesn't- the experience to lead and being a symbol of change both in one candidate-

Obama claims to have worked as a community organizer for a few years- he forgets that Hillary worked as a community organizer for most of her life- She was the spouse of a politician who led the movement for change in Arkansas education- she led the fight for Universal Health care even though she lost it- but people recognize that just for that reason she is the best person to lead the fight as an elected President-

She can match her community activism with Obama's anytime. Obama is a nice intriguing Senator but he can't match Hillary for achievement and knowledge. A nice feel good commercial won't ever change that.

Posted by: peter | September 20, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Judge
"Running even with HRC is very different than being 23 points behind in NH ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_hampshire_primary_clinton_40_obama_17_edwards_14 ). Those 23 point margins are awfully convincing even in a poll. 10 point polling leads can certainly be overcome. 23? Show me the historical example."

Isn't NH an odd duck, since independants vote there? It wasn't clear from the link that whether they counted independants or were just counting party faithful. I'm curious to see what the NH R & I voters do as it becomes more clear that the GOP front-runners are all bad choices. Stay home or vote for a Dem?

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

It's a good ad, not a great one.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It's a good as, not a great one.

There's no reason for anybody to drop out prior to the first voting, unless they have absolutely no support (which means no money, and they can't afford to stay in).

In sports when upsets occur they say, This is the reason we play the games!

Politics isn't any diferent.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

No one has yet mentioned that Obama has the strongest ground organization in Iowa. It's even better than Edwards' organization, and he's been in the state for the last six years. Edwards probably already has all the supporters he's going to get.

Additionally, Obama is the only candidate on either side who is attracting significant crossover support from Independents and Republicans, who are disgusted with the last 20 years of divisive politics, and who like Obama's optimism. We used to have "Reagan Democrats." Now we have "Obama Republicans." How long has the Democratic party been wishing for a Democratic Reagan? Now we have one.

Obama also attracts large numbers of people who haven't voted before, or who don't regularly vote. In order to get onto the pollsters' lists, you have to vote fairly consistently, so their samples start out with an anti-Obama bias.

Obama's support is far deeper and stronger than the polls are currently showing. He has a very good chance of winning Iowa with voters not showing up in the Dem polls, and solidifying the anti-Hillary vote.

And with those crossover voters, Obama is by far the strongest candidate the Democrats have for the general election. Any Democratic racists still around will easily be cancelled out by the upsurge in African American vote that an Obama nomination certainly will inspire. Racist Republicans wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

Plus, Obama supporters are mainiacs. They'll trudge through blizzards to vote for him, and they'll drag innocent bystanders along with them.

Posted by: Californian | September 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

lylepink--You miss what I thought was my blatantly obvious and single point. I don't care in the least who you think will win, or how accurate your predictions have been in the past (at least in your own opinion).

I want the best candidate for America. period.
What's best for our country, not for any party or any ideology.

Bush was able to win, twice [one way or the other]. Hillary is as bad as Bush, and clearly in some ways worse. She and Giuliani would both be bad for America, but she even more than that braying preencock Republican.

Actually, all I really want to know is what the going rate for a night in the Lincoln Bedroom will be in 2009.

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I love Mike Gravel. He acts white.

Posted by: Jesse Jackson | September 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The ad leaves me cold. I love what it's not -- no flags, no stirring music, no slow motion of him shaking hands with happy crowds of diverse well-wishers -- but I don't much like what it *is.* It seems platitudinous. It sounds like the same old rhetoric. He's very charismatic but I still am not sold that he is different.

Posted by: Meh | September 20, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"And have you looked at the early polls in Iowa? The 3 lead Democrats are basically tied. That means any of them has a good chance to win Iowa and get a boost in other states."

Hadn't looked at those, Blarg. I've been paying attention to the national numbers, watching Obama's slow downward drift. I sincerely hope you're right. Running even with HRC is very different than being 23 points behind in NH (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_hampshire_primary_clinton_40_obama_17_edwards_14). Those 23 point margins are awfully convincing even in a poll. 10 point polling leads can certainly be overcome. 23? Show me the historical example.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Love the ad! We Democrats don't need moveon.org smear. We don't need any smear. Obama speaks to us, and he means what he says.

Posted by: petbo | September 20, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Judge says
"Is there another strategy that Obama can use? Besides the just-hanging-around,-hoping-against-hope-that-the-Queen-makes-a-mistake strategy."

If this round of ads doesn't move his campaign appreciably, I would advocate a new strategy, rather than throwing in the towel. I don't think he needs to go on the attack, as the VRWC is already doing the attacking for him. If he were to lower himself to the mud-slinging level, I'd lose my willingness to overlook his alleged inexperience.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I don't buy it. I don't see how quitting before the first vote is cast is anything but defeatist. Especially for a candidate who's solidly in second place, and is first in fundraising.

You ask what options Obama would have if he hasn't moved up in the polls in the next month. And I say that he doesn't need any options, because the polls aren't everything. Yes, they reflect the current attitudes of the voters. But those attitudes tend to change greatly in the last few weeks before the early primaries. It's just too early to panic.

And have you looked at the early polls in Iowa? The 3 lead Democrats are basically tied. That means any of them has a good chance to win Iowa and get a boost in other states. Why would any of them quit before the caucus is held?

I'm not just saying this because I support Obama. I don't think anyone should quit in the couple months before Iowa and New Hampshire. There's nothing to gain from that. A candidate who's out of money can scale back their spending, like McCain has. But they can still participate in debates, still try to get media attention, and still wait for the possibility that they'll do better than expected. When a candidate stakes their chances on a strong performance in Iowa or NH and isn't successful, that's a good time to quit. But there's no reason why anyone, even Mike Gravel, should drop out in October.

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon: I ask again, Who do you support as of now??"

If the dems nominate Obama or Biden, I will vote that way. If they nominate HRC, I will not vote for her. If the Dems nominate HRC & the Repubs nominate Huckabee or McCain, I might vote for one of them, though they both have flaws. I won't vote for Giuliani, Romney or F.Thompson.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I ask again, Who do you support as of now??

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Regarding HRC's War Authorization vote on Oct. 10, 2002. She had every opportunity to show leadership and good judgement by reading the NIE Report. That report was independent of the Administration and would have signaled to her that going into Iraq was a very bad idea. If you go back and read her Senate Floor Speech you will see that she knew full well what she was voting for, she laid it all out, including the fact that U.S. Policy had been changed in 1998 from "containment" to "regime change". It was, in part, that very policy change that "set the table" for our current Administration to invade and occupy Iraq. What she and Edwards chose to do that day speaks directly to their "experience" and "judgement". Hillary had even gotten "advice" from Frormer Sec. of State Madeline Albright, who is now one of her advisors on her campaign. Edwards at least has shown some sense of regret for his vote. Hillary on the other hand still wants to put it off on someone else, I was tricked/mislead might fly for some of you who support her but I will NEVER trust her to make the critical desicions when it comes to our policies and what is best for America.

Posted by: HG | September 20, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Are you saying the 2nd place candidate should hang it up before the first vote is cast if the polls don't show him winning? That's a bit defeatist, isn't it?"

Blarg, bsimon: I didn't say 'winning,' I said his standing in the polls should have "improved by a few percentage points." As the above demonstrates, Obama lives or dies by his ad buys at this juncture. We've had multiple debates that have done little or nothing to improve his standing. Is there another strategy that Obama can use? Besides the just-hanging-around,-hoping-against-hope-that-the-Queen-makes-a-mistake strategy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan but I try to be a realist and I'll happily assert that Obama is as well. As this ad richly demonstrates, Obama's personality is his selling point. If even after massive ad buys it doesn't lead to an upward drift in his numbers (again, I'm NOT saying he has to lead in the polls and yes, Blarg, people don't make up their minds right away but unless you are a conspiracy theorist the polls have SOME meaning) in the primary states, what other options does he have?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

To heather: whomever you support, great job volunteering. If more people (myslef included) did what you are doing, we could pretty much halve poverty, crime and lack of education in this country.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Judge, there's absolutely no reason for Obama to quit in October. There's no reason for any candidate to quit that early, especially not the candidate who's second in the polls and first in fundraising.

Exit polls show that early primary voters often don't make up their minds until the weeks right before the primary. That's why there are always surprises in Iowa and NH; the polls are rarely accurate. Until the first couple of primaries are over, it's still possible for anyone to win. Though it's more likely for some candidates than others, of course.

It's reasonable to drop out before the primaries if you have no support or money, like Gilmore and Vilsack. And it's reasonable to drop out after weak performance in early caucuses and primaries. But Obama dropping out in October would just be crazy.

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"While its not a foregone conclusion, it is also not entirely out of the question that the US dollar will...continue to devalue, driving our prices up as the cost of energy continues to rise." - | 1:41 pm

Now, that interpretation makes sense!

Posted by: Man The Lifeboats! | September 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

lylepink says
"I am proud to say I have been 100% accurate. IMHO, Hillary will win in 08. I cannot, as yet, see anything or anybody that can change my opinion."

Well thats good news! We can avoid all the tedium of a long campaign and election & just hold the swearing in next week. Is Tuesday good for you?

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Radical Patroit: I have predicted/guessed the winner for Prez since 1948, many before the nominees were known, and I am proud to say I have been 100% accurate. IMHO, Hillary will win in 08. I cannot, as yet, see anything or anybody that can change my opinion. I had thoughts years ago about Hillary someday becoming POTUS, and 08 seems to be the perfect time.

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Some people are asking how Senator Obama is different. For starters he isn't giving lobbyists private sit-downs with members of Congress who decide who will get no-bid security contracts. He has fought long and herd to get Ethics Reform and Lobbying Reform passed. He is THE ONLY candidate, Democrat or Republican, who makes his earmarks available for anyone to see! He is the ony one who DOES NOT mandate health coverage. He has a diverse group of people working with him on his campaign with regards to foreign policy, healthcare reform, Tax Reform, ending our occupation in Iraq to bring our troops home, etc. Most of all he has been CONSISTENT in his positions and isn't pandering to special interests. He has the highest regard for our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our civil liberties, he believes in open government,ethics and lobbying reform, and quality education for ALL our children. Most of all he believes that the American people DESERVE TO BE TOLD THE TRUTH and that we can handle the truth.
Barack Obama - HOPE - CHANGE - TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Posted by: Heather | September 20, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been in elected office longer than Hilary. His experience is in the trenches, doing the work. The national polls mean nothing, watch what's happening on the ground in NH and Iowa. America, and The World, will be a different place the day after Obama is elected.

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Judge C writes
"If they haven't improved by a few percentage points by the end of October (at the latest) Obama should consider hanging it up."

Are you saying the 2nd place candidate should hang it up before the first vote is cast if the polls don't show him winning? That's a bit defeatist, isn't it?

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"The selling of the Obama movement began in earnest with his new ad in Iowa. Are voters willing to buy in? We'll find out in a few months."

Heck, CC, we'll find out a lot sooner than that. The Obama people are going to be paying very close attention to see if their strategy of ad buys featuring Obama pays off in terms of his polling numbers. If they haven't improved by a few percentage points by the end of October (at the latest) Obama should consider hanging it up.

Look for a lot more Obama ads like this in the early primary states, some of which will actually have an American flag somewhere in the frame (good catch, vwcat). Inspiration is Obama's most powerful weapon and "now or never" is about to catch up to him.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Of which Republican is this not true of, JD? Do you really not think there is anything the power-hungry Rudy would not do?"

Amen to that, Drindl. While I agree with JD that any politician has to be very strongly driven to even begin to run for President, Rudy strikes me as far and away the most power-hungry person running for the office.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

lylepink--I would never dispute the sad logistics of American voting. And I have never--unlike so many of those foolish prophet wannabes--made a prediction that so and so IS going to win the nomination or the general election or simply WILL beat the Dem/Rep candidate no matter who he/she may be, etc.

I certainly agree that the HillBilly team CAN win it all. After all, Bush won [sort of] in 2004. But that is the point. It is Hillary that I think is the WORST candidate [who can win].

I despise Bush for, to give just three reasons, 1] the way his "leadership" has so divided this country [worse, in many ways, than in the '60s], 2] his flagrant disregard for both the rule and the principles of the rule of law, and 3] his immoral self.

And Hillary is in every way more divisive in our country, more disdainful of the rule of law, and more immoral than even the team of Smirk and Snarl that runs the country. To use a reverse metaphor, she merely clings and hides behind the skirts of her husband [while he is in other skirts!].

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I belong to a group of Obama supporters here in Illinois. We have been inspired by his life, and his message. Our method of spreading the word has been to do community service projects. So far we have had the group send 40 boxes of care packages to the troops, and we have worked with Exodus International to provide basic household essentials (a Welcome to America pack) to a refugee family from Burma. Our next event is to coordinate with an organization that is providing new books for schools in New Orleans.
We feel that the movement is about WAY more than politics. It's about the heart and soul of our nation. Obama has the ability to inspire a nation. It's going to take more than a man, it's going to take a movement to put this country right again both here at home and in the world.

OBAMA '08!!!!!!!

Posted by: Merri | September 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"As an Obama supporter, I've listened to him speak many times. However, after playing the new ad, I just realized he and Dwayne Johnson (the wrestler turned actor better know as The Rock) sound a lot alike. Perhaps in a future ad, Senator Obama will turn to the camera, raise an eyebrow and say, "Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" His approval ratings with the WWE crowd would go through the roof."

Ummm, the rock could be his vice president. That would be awesome.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I read this post,

Isn't it amazing
The Obama Campaign & Movement


Change that we can believe in
Posted 9/20/2007 10:06 AM
The Barack Obama Campaign today rolled out it's latest TV spot. Titled, Change that we can believe in, the spot has Barack, alone, talking directly to one camera. No quick cuts, no frills, and no gimmicks. The message is clean and straight forward; no double speak; no parsing. Pure Obama on change that we can believe in. Go to www.BarackObama.com if you would like to have your spirits lifted; mine sure were.


after I wrote this one,

Isn't it amazing
The Obama Campaign & Movement

Change is definitely in the air
Posted 9/20/2007 9:17 AM
And, I am not talking about the weather. No surprise here; I'm talking area politics. The "reds" are on the run and the "blues" are strutting their stuff. Some "reds" are thinking about sailing off the Florida Keys, while others are taking to wearing "blue jeans and blue baseball hats".

The "strutters" on the other hand are in full throttle "look at me" mode.

Don't you just love it!



And, I'm thinking, Isn't it amazing

Posted by: pservelle | September 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

man the lifeboats says
""THEY [whoever "They" is] expect our economy to completely and utterly collapse sometime within the next 60 days." - MikeB appearing today as Chicken Little"


While some of MikeB's stuff is over the top, in my opinion, the article to which he linked points out some valid causes for concern. For instance, the decreasing size of the market for US Treasuries:
"There is now a growing danger that global investors will start to shun the US bond markets. The latest US government data on foreign holdings released this week show a collapse in purchases of US bonds from $97bn to just $19bn in July, with outright net sales of US Treasuries."

While its not a foregone conclusion, it is also not entirely out of the question that the US dollar will will continue to devalue, driving our prices up as the cost of energy continues to rise.

Campaign 2008:
"Its the economy, stupid."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I've listened to him speak many times. However, after playing the new ad, I just realized he and Dwayne Johnson (the wrestler turned actor better know as The Rock) sound a lot alike. Perhaps in a future ad, Senator Obama will turn to the camera, raise an eyebrow and say, "Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" His approval ratings with the WWE crowd would go through the roof.

Posted by: Rick in Nebraska | September 20, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"I love being right." - MikeB, the Happiest Man in the World, because he is never wrong!

Except about: 1)... Nah! The list is way too long.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

You Edwards supporters who KEEP saying he is electable. You say THE MOST electable !! That is crazy and in my opinion a subtle way of saying you really don't think American is ready to vote for a woman or a Black President. If Edwards is so electable, Why didn't he win his own state ? He should be running for reelection with Kerry now.

Posted by: Ciara, | September 20, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"THEY [whoever "They" is] expect our economy to completely and utterly collapse sometime within the next 60 days." - MikeB appearing today as Chicken Little

Posted by: Man the Lifeboats | September 20, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Smiley, who has really defined himself as a noteworthy power-player in presidential debates"

You were being facetious, right?

Posted by: Alan Keyes | September 20, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Radical Patroit: Hope I didn't dissapoint you. I've been around long enough to pretty well know the voting patterns over the years has not changed much. Getting more to register and vote is a good thing and I have spent a good amount of time doing just that. When we look at the numbers of folks that actually do vote, compared to those that could, well nuf said.

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

last one that's it. Your all on your own now. Good luck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

If I was a slave in the cave, krishnamurti, with the help of Bruce Lee, broke the chain that was holding me in the cave. It was for me to leave the cave on my own. As it is for you people.

"The first step of a journey starts with a step"

Good luck. Sorry to those I offeded. If I offened you ask yourslef why. If I am attacking Fox or the gop why are any of you offened think on that. Are you a man woman teacher steelworker american a nra memebr. What do you choose to label yourself as and why?

Peace in the middle east. Peace in america first.

Good luck. to contorl the media/past is to control the country. To control the country is to control the world (lone superpower). So whose country is it. Barack Obama? George Bush? dick Cheaney? Sean Hannity? Or mine and your's?

Peace. goo dluck. god Bless. Sorry for my tactics. You'll all understand when you get older :)

Posted by: rufus (JKrish) | September 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

O. and read my boy J Krishnamurti. He was the previous's generation's Great World Teacher. His words and talents were squandered by a society that didn't want to hear. To greedy and hateful to save themselves. We are currently waiting for the next incarnate of the Great World TEacher. Be on the look-out.

"Pride never helps, it only hurts"

Pulp Fiction

" and eye for and eye makes the word blind"

Gahndi.

People out there. Read my boy Krishnamurti. He will destoy the barriers that are keeping you slaves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/

http://kfa.org/

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

WEll, Chris.... I read some of the things that you have written before. I think the MSM, that includes you, are missing the boat on this Obama phenom. You guys are still thinking that since Sen Hillary spent 8 years as first lady, she has the "experience" to lead this nation. I think this is a false premise. Look what SEn Obama has done in the illinois senate and what he accomplished. He has passed more law's than Hillary and John Edwards. Why don't you guys focus on the record rather than just a hype? MSM is a diservice to the American people that instead of giving us the true picture of candidates, they are just a megaphone for false impressions..... what a deal!

Posted by: DAniel, Desmoines, IA | September 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

if anyone wonders why I dropped the rufus1133 post name. The reason is, I changed the way I post now. I am more agro. I attack and defend more. I didn't want to misuse that tag. Just an fyi.

what is 777. What does the number 7 represent? so the 1133 was 7+1. Me and the lord speaking. I now longer speak with such authority. I fell off. I got to angry and fell into the pit, fell into the trap.

"When you look in the pit at the devil, sometimes the devil looks back."

Soryy I have fallen. Forgive me.

Peace. I'm trying to get my faith back. Good luck to you all. Remember my words. I was not lying to you. The future is now.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

I'm done. I know you have heard this before. Remember me. don't forget my words.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Check it out check it out check it out.

My girl Naomi Wolf, you know the article I link to with the ten steps to fascism the gop has implemented. ON COLBERT. Yeah. Check it out to those that care. Remeber the good germans pre ww2. Remember the scared germans pre ww2.

If they would have shood up to fascism as the lef tis doing now hitler would be a trivia question. Fear stopped them from doing what they should have.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Tha's what I liked, DCAustinite, the tone. Obama didn't attack anyone-- not anyone. He doesn't have to.

Posted by: drindl | September 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Back to posting about the point of the article:

I like that ad. In the simplest of terms it makes me feel good about politics, not bad. I think that was the intent, and as such, it is well crafted.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, drindl, Colin, Andy R, truth, JD -

1. I meant no more than an observation about his personality. Personality is not a requisite for me, but I do not think a Harry Truman could be elected today.

2. The two striking positions that Colin reminds us of [demanding achievement from teachers and affirmative action NOT based on skin tone] are attractive to me.

3. He displays a skill I admire - the ability to listen to an opponent's point of view and synthesize that which can lead to
compromise with the opponent. I have said here that I think he would be a good labor negotiator.

4. His area of expertise is Constitutional Law. That is a big plus.

On the other hand:

5. He has made the purely symbolic gesture of voting against Iraq appropriations, and never did quite get a question off to Petraeus, and could not quite muster the absolutely minimal courage to say what Biden and Levin said about the MoveOn ad.

6. In the end, I have not crossed him off my list, he intrigues me, but he would not be my favorite candidate.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 20, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"He didn't have access to any of the classifed information on the war - Hillary and Edwards did - so they made a decision based on more information. Even though the intelligence turned out to be wrong, they could not have known that. And they were making better informed decisions."

wow. So who is at fault for the mistakes. The leaders or the followers. And if the leaders "cookd the books" should they not spend thirty years in prison each for their treaschery.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Colin: Of course it was a joke, there is no doubt Obama is a good speaker and highly intellegent. By making a joke out of his support, I am only trying to highlight the support he is getting from repubs, because they think he would be the easiest to beat among the "Viable" ones running.

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm not trippin mikeB. Me and my kids can't get any broker. :)

We need to overhaul our economy. The ceo's making 50% of the profits is insane. Without the workers and the sleas people and the support people and the shipping people, those ceo's would be nothing but slaves.

Screw the rich. Tehy have been screwing the poor since BC times:).

Money is nothing but what it buys. What this country needs is an econimic shake-up to scare the capitalists into a new mode of thinking. Hording weath wil lnot grow the economy. Trickle down economics, remember gop. for that to work, the money must trikle down. Be content with you BMW. You don't need that bentley/ Take you 10 room mansion. You don't need 40 rooms so you servants can live like pharohs. Trikle down econmics. The money must trikle down.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

On Wednesday, Bush hosted a group of columnists at the White House for a 90-minute interview session. Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke, who attended the meeting, said that Bush now "may be a lame duck" and appears to know that "his credibility is low." At the meeting, Bush acknowledged:

People listen to Petraeus, not to me.

But Petraeus' close ties to Bush have damaged his own credibility. A recent CBS poll found that, after Petraeus' testimony, the percentage of Americans who believe escalation is working fell from 35 to 30.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

drindle--nice 11:49 posting! The comment on Fred gave me a solid lol moment on the blog this morning--something I too rarely have, except in a Menckian sort of sardonic way.

It is always amusing in its own way when Dems/Reps say of Reps/Dems that "they will do anything to win." That is just a given [except for Fred], and not even worth saying.

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

there's a really good ad there against the nasty Jean Schmidt [Ohio, I think] featuring John Boehner talking about how the nearly 4000 dead in Iraq are a 'small price' to pay...asking her to refute it...very well done and shuold be effective.

Posted by: Cassandra | September 20, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Johanns is expected to seek an open seat in the U.S. Senate from his home state of Nebraska.'"


Are we due a Senate Line tomorrow? There has been a lot of change in that outlook since the last...

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

'President Bush announced Thursday that Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will resign his post. Johanns is expected to seek an open seat in the U.S. Senate from his home state of Nebraska.'

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

John writes
"He didn't have access to any of the classifed information on the war - Hillary and Edwards did - so they made a decision based on more information. Even though the intelligence turned out to be wrong, they could not have known that. And they were making better informed decisions."

Uh, neither read the National Intelligence Estimate that questioned the reliability of the cherry-picked intelligence the Bush admin was using to push for the resolution. Had Clinton, Edwards & many other Senators bothered to read the report before voting, they could have made the 'better informed decision' you imply they made, which they did not.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Truth, I don't think Obama's airy-fairy. We political junkies are cynical, and rightfully so, given the sorry state of american politics, but sometimes--rarely, but sometimes- a politican strikes a chord that feels genuine. And I realize that's an emotional, rather than rational reaction. They give you hope that things can be better. Kennedy did that, Clinton did that [at least for those who didn't hate him viciously] and Reagan did it for some [although not me].

But I read a lot of stuff like Kristin's post earlier on this thread, and Emilia's, which make me feel that there's a lot of substance to Obama

Posted by: drindl | September 20, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

A moderate Republican who was retiring.. the GOP had no hope to win that seat.

Plus Obama was running in a Democrat primary at the time - so he tried to move to the left.

He didn't have access to any of the classifed information on the war - Hillary and Edwards did - so they made a decision based on more information. Even though the intelligence turned out to be wrong, they could not have known that. And they were making better informed decisions.

Posted by: John | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I love being right. For those "economists" and Hillary nut jobs that have been disparaging my take on globalization, the news out of Europe!
We are well and truly in trouble. The dollar is down against every major currancy in the world and THEY expect our economy to completely and utterly collapse sometime within the next 60 days. Ms. Clinton's craven and duplicitous willinness to align herself with the globalizers has doomed her candidacy. We now have three candidates that have any inkling of what is transpiring, that provide any hope for avoiding a complete crash. Those candidates are Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich. In the end, even Republican's will either support them, becasue the alternative is economic suicide.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/19/bcnsaudi119.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

"...Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates in lockstep with the US Federal Reserve for the first time, signalling that the oil-rich Gulf kingdom is preparing to break the dollar currency peg in a move that risks setting off a stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East.

Ben Bernanke has placed the dollar in a dangerous situation, say analysts:
This is a very dangerous situation for the dollar," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas. Saudi Arabia has $800 billion in their future generation fund, and the entire region has $3,500 billion under management. They face an nflationary threat and do not want to import an interest rate policy set for the recessionary conditions in the United States, he said.

The Saudi central bank said today that it would take "appropriate measures" to halt huge capital inflows into the country, but analysts say this policy is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the collapse of the dollar peg.

As a close ally of the US, Riyadh has so far tried to stick to the peg, but the link is now destabilising its own economy.

The Fed's dramatic half point cut to 4.75% yesterday has already caused a plunge in the world dollar index to a fifteen year low, touching with weakest level ever against the mighty euro at just under $1.40.

There is now a growing danger that global investors will start to shun the US bond markets. The latest US government data on foreign holdings released this week show a collapse in purchases of US bonds from $97bn to just $19bn in July, with outright net sales of US Treasuries.

The danger is that this could now accelerate as the yield gap between the United States and the rest of the world narrows rapidly, leaving America starved of foreign capital flows needed to cover its current account deficit - expected to reach $850bn this year, or 6.5pc of GDP.

Mr Redeker said foreign investors have been gradually pulling out of the long-term US debt markets, leaving the dollar dependent on short-term funding. Foreigners have funded 25pc to 30pc of America's credit and short-term paper markets over the last two years.

"They were willing to provide the money when rates were paying nicely, but why bear the risk in these dramatically changed circumstances? We think that a fall in dollar to $1.50 against the euro is not out of the question at all by the first quarter of 2008," he said.

"This is nothing like the situation in 1998 when the crisis was in Asia, but the US was booming. This time the US itself is the problem," he said.

Mr Redeker said the biggest danger for the dollar is that falling US rates will at some point trigger a reversal yen "carry trade", causing massive flows from the US back to Japan.

Jim Rogers, the commodity king and former partner of George Soros, said the Federal Reserve was playing with fire by cutting rates so aggressively at a time when the dollar was already under pressure.

The risk is that flight from US bonds could push up the long-term yields that form the base price of credit for most mortgages, the driving the property market into even deeper crisis.

"If Ben Bernanke starts running those printing presses even faster than he's already doing, we are going to have a serious recession. The dollar's going to collapse, the bond market's going to collapse. There's going to be a lot of problems," he said.

The Federal Reserve, however, clearly calculates the risk of a sudden downturn is now so great that the it outweighs dangers of a dollar slide."

Posted by: MikeB | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Worth noting --

Obama's screen time ends with him saying:

"This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe -- not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."

But this is not where the ad ends -- and it's not where the messaging ends. The screen quickly goes to a solid color field superimposed with an equally simple line of text:

"Change we can believe in."

This line reminds viewers that, at the end of the day, Obama IS asking voters to believe that HE is the one with the "ability to bring about real change in Washington."

But the line also harbors an extraordinarily deft subtext:

"You can't believe in Hillary Clinton OR the 'change' she's trying to sell you."

This is a subtle warning that Obama is preparing to bring his game.

Expect to start seeing this line everywhere you see Obama.

Posted by: horizonr | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I watch o'reilly for years, years attacking anybody and everybody anti war. We could speak. To me, when olberman came out saying waht he said, it opened the door for the anti-war left to stand up. We couldn't speak out before that. Why? Because we wern't represented in news? If you control the media, do you control the country? does Fox control the media if they scared all news "right".

Read above to see what should be done about "newspeople" who have zero credibility

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I agree drindl, most politicians act that way. If you had to make a list of who wouldn't cash in their ethics, credibility, or whatever just to win, it'd be a short list, on both sides of the aisle in my opinion.

HRC has it in spades, as does Rudy. Edwards and probably Mitt too. Obama, not so much, at least I hope not. McCain has slipped, as you say, with his recent ads reminding us of his military career. I don't know enough about the fringe people on either side to judge; not that it matters since they have no chance.

I think we'd all agree that Bubba was the uber-Machiavellian of the last 100 years.

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

John -- Obama was running for Senate when he opposed the war authorization. You know, a STATEWIDE federal position? To replace the retiring REPUBLICAN Senator? At a time when most democrats at the federal level were so scared of opposing this administration that they fell all over themselves to avoid conflict.

Agree ot disagree with the guy, he took that position when most other Democrats did not. So yes, he should and does get credit for it from many of us who will actually vote in the primaries.

Posted by: Colin | September 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

chris does hillary stand in the way of change

This Video Is Showing That Hillary is a hypocrite for saying obama has no experience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

Posted by: kyle | September 20, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

John, so what if it was easy for Obama to oppose the war? The point is that he opposed it, and that was the right thing to do. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards didn't oppose the war. They did the wrong thing. Why does it matter whether it was easy for them to be wrong or if it took real political courage to be wrong? The result is the same: They were wrong, and Obama was right.

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Last Sunday, Obama drew record crowds (over 15,000 breaking previous record of 11,000) to the annual Harkin Steak Fry in Iowa.

The media has ignored the obvious movement surrounding him. When over 3,000 (alls ages & colors, even walkers and wheelchairs) gathered across the street for a pre rally with Obama and then marched with him 20 abreast and 1/2 mile long to the Steak Fry entrance you know something is happening.

Here's our photo slideshow of the event: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13848490@N06/

In the middle of Harkin's speech he said "Now I know theres such a huge crowd this afternoon, you didn't come to see me you came to see"... he was interupted when the crowd erupted into a sea of Obama signs and the deafening roar of Obama! Obama! Harkin turned and smiled at Obama (50 mins into c-span video).

But by watching the media coverage you would never know that the Obama signs and supporters right and left of stage center far outnumbered Hillary and Edwards signs.

Iowans are speaking and their voices will be heard around the world.

The movement is alive and growing even if the media chooses not to cover it.

Posted by: Emilie | September 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Obama makes it sound like it took political courage to oppose the war in 2002. He was a state senator from a liberal district in Chicago - it would have taken political courage for someone in his position to support the war!"

You must have not been living in america in 2002. Someone like me would not be allowed here, back then. from 2001 to 2005-6 there would be no talking out against the war. Anyone that did was a tratior anti-american "crazy", a number of things.

OOOHH. What a short memory the gop has. Fascism. You stomped out desint for 5 years. People taht spoke out were( and still are) ruined by fox and other right wing attack dogs. O how soon you foget how you people treated anyone opposeing the war.

AND THIS IS THE REASON THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT IS NOT ONLY SO ANGRY, BUT SO STRONG.

We were silenced in the most important time. By who? Those that lost all credibility. Read above on what to do with these people

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

'She knows what it will take to win, and will do it at all costs'

Of which Republican is this not true of, JD? Do you really not think there is anything the power-hungry Rudy would not do? If so, you don't know who he is. Or for that matter, Mitty, who has already proven he will change any position, any time to win, or sad to say, John McCain, who I respect, but am embarrassed for him to see the reactionaries he is pandering to...

The only one who is different is Fred, who appears as if he will do nothing to win, not even campaign.

Posted by: drindl | September 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Lyle -- are you kidding when you say Gravel would be better than Obama? If so, I'm worried about you. :)

It's all well and good to prefer Hillary, but I think you're the first Democrat-leaning voter I've ever heard say Obama isn't impressive in his own right. He's an inspiring speaker and an intellectual heavy weight. He's quite possibly the best salesperson for progressive principles in a generation, but isn't an ideologue. Whether he's your first choice or not, what's not to like?

Finally, why do you think he's the weakest candidate? His polling numbers in the general are actually great. Personally, I think HRC, Obama, OR Edwards would all win in a general...

Posted by: Colin | September 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

goofygoofer, read Colin's post, it is an excellent summary of what does make Senator Obama different.
I think Senator Obama represents a real sentiment of the electorate, especially younger voters. Truly, growing up in the 1980's and 90's, we were led to believe that everything was just hunky-dory. During these past seven years, it has been a real eye-opener to see just how divise political discourse has become, which seems more than linked to the complete and utter ineptitude of our government when it comes to infrastructure, the economy, public education, you name it. Frankly, it's time for a new generation to take charge, and Obama represents that. Politics seems like a neverending, meaningless, half-a$$ed cirucs act - I'd rather watch Britney's VMA performance on loop. Here is someone new, different, and real. I for one am tired of photo-ops and yay America speeches, Senator Obama seems like he has the ability to sit down, crunch the numbers, and do some freaking work.
I sure do hope younger Iowans get out and vote - we need you!!!

Posted by: squintz | September 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama makes it sound like it took political courage to oppose the war in 2002. He was a state senator from a liberal district in Chicago - it would have taken political courage for someone in his position to support the war!

He didn't have the same access to intelligence and millitary advice. He wasn't required to vote to authorize the war.

It was EASY for him to oppose the war. Had he supported it- he probably would have faced more opposition in his liberal chicago district.

Posted by: John | September 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Ah, I was waiting for lylepink to come in with his/her/its usual blind support of Team HillBilly to say something anti-Obama.

Now, I wait with bated breath for "Jan", the "Clinton haters are the stupidest people on earth" [I'm quoting her], to join in with his/her/its latest jewel of wisdom.

Most people would rather die than think--and most do.

Posted by: RadicalPatriot | September 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"I'm sure if any other candidate on eithe rside could do that, or want to. Their so partisan. Obama is not."

I'm NOT sure any other candidate. They're to partisan on both sides. That is

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Rufus-

I'm not out to smear. I think we need to do a better job of vetting the governing style of potential nominees. Obviously we've failed to do so in the past. Everybody has his/her flaws. As IL state government is basically a basket case (case in point, its Democratic governor has, in both recent polls, polled worse than Bush among IL voters.) I just think it would be helpful to talk more this, and less about tit-for-tat insults.
"

Change cannot come without cnflict. If I am trying to change people then that conflict is mental. Sorry if I offend you. Not my intention to insult any of you, other than zouk the lying facist:).

But I, like obama, am trying to provolk change. In my own small way. That change has to come with internal conflict. Or not. Peace.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Tell them more about the next president of the united states. I see him as a lincoln or JFK figure. Someone to bridge the HUGE gap that has divided this nation. He's the only on who can, imo. clinton and to a lesser extent edwards would alienate teh gop. I don't think that would happen with obama. I think he would worl to bring both sides together. I'm sure if any other candidate on eithe rside could do that, or want to. Their so partisan. Obama is not. He wants change, not just for the gop, but for the dems also. That is what it means to NOT be a hypocrite, GOP. That is how you practice what you preach.

Speak on Obama Kristin. You are the only one that knows him, here. your word is tantamount. Don't worry about these other people. Speak on it. Tell them about Mr. Obama

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I would have expected more of Mark in Austin and Drindl than to go for an airy-fairy media-handlers touchy-feely message, if that is what they are saying.

We did that with our current "compassionate conservative" president, and before that veered to Jimmy after Watergate looking for an honest, "values" politician. Please.....

I think Biden actually is the most honest of all of the candidates.... he certainly hasn't become rich from his years of service in the Senate and has measurable family and other values. Yet, he's extremely bright and proposes a real way forward for Iraq....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Rufus-

I'm not out to smear. I think we need to do a better job of vetting the governing style of potential nominees. Obviously we've failed to do so in the past. Everybody has his/her flaws. As IL state government is basically a basket case (case in point, its Democratic governor has, in both recent polls, polled worse than Bush among IL voters.) I just think it would be helpful to talk more this, and less about tit-for-tat insults.

Posted by: Greg | September 20, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

thank you for your insight Kristin. A Lot of these people who like to bash dems all day. They will never listen. Rush limbaugh and newt got them so scared. They think the term democrat means they are a politicain that wants to tax you to death. They are ignorant to current politics. Please continue. enlighten them. Speak on what you know.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I got to know Barack when he was a professor of mine at Chicago Law in the mid-90s. Though he was only 34-5 at the time, he had a unique energy and an ability to connect with people like I had never before experienced. He was brilliant, but also easy going and approachable. Most importantly, he had the ability to manage a great diversity of opinions (at a VERY conservative law school) in a deeply respectful, open-minded manner. This has continued to be true, during the past decade, as he has demonstrated an ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is our best hope to change the tone of politics in our country and get things done.

Hillary, while brilliant in her own right, comes with too much baggage, in my opinion. We've all seen how the GOP responds to a Clinton administration and I see no reason to believe they will be any less obstructionist w/her than they were with Bill (probably more so; republicans & independents strongly dislike her - I even know many dems who say they will sit on their hands if she is the nominee). As a result, I worry that she will be unable to accomplish much of what she sets forth in her platform once bogged down with the partisan ugliness that has become commonplace. I, for one, don't want four more years of the same nasty fingerpointing, bickering and divisiveness. My greatest fear, truthfully, is that the dems will lose the general election if she gets the nomination.

Having gotten to know Barack a bit, I can attest: he is the real deal. The man I see standing in front of 10,000 people at rallies is the same one I knew 12 years ago. He is genuine and sincere and could bring about meaningful change in this country if we choose to support him. Please consider it.

Posted by: Kristin | September 20, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The add did nothing for me. I am unable to understand how he gets the support he does, and continue to believe he is the weakest of the dems being given any hope of winning in 08. Even this guy Gravel, spelling?, would be better.

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Chris- If we're going to talk so much about Hillary's time in the White House, perhaps we should talk more about Obama's dealings in Illinois, and not just token Tony Rezko stuff. "

What. You don't get enough obama hit pieces. here you go. If you want hit pieces, go to people who smear for a living.

www.drudgereport.com
www.politico.com

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Well said Andy R. And you didn't even have to attack anybody to post your well thoguht out post. Good job buddy. Very insightfull and right on.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"Sure HRC and Obama might dislike, or even hate, each other, but if HRC is ANYTHING, she's a Clinton. She knows what it will take to win, and will do it at all costs. She was paying attention when her husband and Dick Morris perfected the triangulation strategy; NAFTA, welfare reform, managing bimbo eruptions, etc..."

See the reverance amonst the gop for clinton. She's a conservative. Running clinton as the dem nom is the only chance the gop has. Running clinotn is gop vs gop. That is their only hope at winning.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

As a close follower of Illinois politics--easily the most corrupt of any state I've followed--I can't reconcile Obama's legislative background with his message for change and an end to politics as usual.

Obama endorsed nobody but machine candidates in 2006 in local Chicago elections. Further, his "mentor" Emil Jones, is regarded by every player in the state as ethically challenged, at best.

Chris- If we're going to talk so much about Hillary's time in the White House, perhaps we should talk more about Obama's dealings in Illinois, and not just token Tony Rezko stuff.

Posted by: Greg | September 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

This commercial is a continuation of the movement that Howard Dean started four years ago. The whole change idea is new, but the idea that 'you have the power' is word for word from Dean's 04 campaign. It works really well with younger voters, which will be ESSENTIAL to an Obama victory.
I personally have been bouncing between Edwards and Obama (I ruled out Richardson when I realized that I could out debate him). I think they both share similar views on many issues and they seem to genuinly get along. Obama's positives are obvious, extremely intelligent, the best public speaker I have seen since Nelson Mandela, etc.. The positive I see for Edwards is that he is the most electable of the three front-runners. I am leaning more and more to Obama though. It is about time our country (and Washington in particular) get a political wake up call.

I still think though that Edwards will win in Iowa and ride that to the nomination and then you will see a Edwards/Obama ticket.

Posted by: Andy R | September 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

vw, you sure about that? If Obama were given a choice, would he rather run for Pres in 2012 or 2016 as Vice or former Governor? This all assumes that HRC gets the nom, and assumes that Obama gets the offer. I believe both are likely.

Sure HRC and Obama might dislike, or even hate, each other, but if HRC is ANYTHING, she's a Clinton. She knows what it will take to win, and will do it at all costs. She was paying attention when her husband and Dick Morris perfected the triangulation strategy; NAFTA, welfare reform, managing bimbo eruptions, etc...

She knows that her negatives are huge (her ceiling is probably 55%), and the two of them would beat what I believe will be the GOP team of Rudy and Fred/Huckabee.

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

this is not the 70's. We are not playing by same rules as when clinton or bush carter. The rules have now changed. The old political games are what they are. They are histroy. The future is now. Change is now or never. But make no mistake all you old times who have seen it all before. Times, they are a chagin. What changed the rules?

1. 9/11. Innocent non-combatants paying the price for political decisions, in america.

2. The internet. You are being watched, if preidential/congress/public servant nom. You can no long play to the crowd. Pick a side/issue stick with it.

The rules have changed old timers. Believe what Obama says. Leave you cynisism at hom. the future is now.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Politik. I like your youtube video. wonderful.

Posted by: vwcat | September 20, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

vwcat-- thank you for pointing that out. i love that there's no flags -- I get so sick of the republicans shtick of wrapping themselves in a hundred flags in every ad --it's clearly a dog whistle to their well-trained Pavlovian base.

Posted by: Cassandra | September 20, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I don't think that Idealism is a platform. His policy for 'change' is to render lobbyists impotent? Ok. What else? That's the plan for being President? He can be a Senator or Attorney General or Vice President and still effect that change.
He has the EXACT SAME idealistic vision that Hillary had 16 years ago when she sought to overhaul health insurance. What makes him better than her now? I think she has 16 years of valuable experience that he doesn't.
Voting for "change" is no different than voting to keep gays from being married or because you're scared of the terrorist in your closet... it's empty. A trick. A ruse designed to inflame emotion.
"I"m not a Washington Insider." OK. Fine. What are you, then? Everything else? That's not enough for me. Until he's explicit, I laud his enthusiasm, but will support Hillary.

Posted by: goofygoofer | September 20, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

jd, obama is not running for vp and will never be one to Hillary. IF she is the nominee it will be vilsack.
she wants a mild and tepid lackey. Plus, obama and HRC cannot stand each other.

Chris, you get it. you understand what it is about Obama and that he is a force of change long before people knew of him.
I get upset that the pundits and such always complain that he is not answering according to washington CW, doesn't run his campaign like everyone else or panders and fights and calls names when there is no reason.
he will fight and fight hard when the time and place are right. Hillary's attack or the one from Howard in Australia, ect.
I like the ad for it's starkness in not having music, or frills and flags, ect. Just him, in a nice setting, talking to the people direct. I think it is actually more important than at first view for it's minimal and natural look and feel.

Posted by: vwcat | September 20, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"I like Obama's attitude, and his ticket is punched. I still believe he's running for Vice though, HRC is too powerful to not get the coronation"

I hear an awful lot of republcians saying that. Why is that jd? Last night on o'reilly when dicussing the gop candidates he said "we already know clinton is going to be the nom.".

We know clinton is getting money from fox.

So my question is. Do you republicans really think you can force the dem's hand? After the last 15 years? The democrats are going to nominate who THEY want. You times of burning the candle at both ends are over gop

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

'Go ahead zouk. Talk about the clintons and the 90's some more'

oh please, don't provoke him. he has been on here lying about the same crap over and over again for like a year.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Obama's actually different than HRC and Edwards on a few fronts. Without a doubt, the guy is a progressive Democrat but he's not an ideologue. You can see this by the fact that he's proposed some form of merit based pay for teachers (and, indeed, made this proposal in front of the NEA), has advocated a move away from race-based affirmative action towards socio-economic affirmative action, and has said that, in addressing entitlement programs like SS and Medicare, all options have to be on the table instead of simply pandering to one group or another.

In short, the guy is a democrat and a lot of his policy views unsurprisingly are similar to the other candidates -- but where his views DO diverge, I think that shows the type of flexibility in ideology and approach that will allow him to achieve results that no other Democrat - or republican - would be capable of. Also, its worth noting that he was the only major candidate that was right about Iraq from the very start. Irrespective of his relative experience, I find that example of his judgement important.

Posted by: Colin | September 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- The dollar fell to a new low against the euro on Thursday as the european currency breached $1.40 for the first time since its debut in 1999. The dollar also sank to one-to-one parity with the Canadian dollar, a level not seen in more than 30 years.

Breaking the $1.40 barrier for the euro has long been seen as a key turning point in solidifying the euro's position in global currency markets, providing more impetus for it to be the reserve currency of choice -- a position long held by the now-weakening dollar, which has been battered by a recent half-percent cut in U.S. interest rates.

The dollar also fell against other currencies, dipping against the British pound to $2.0082 compared with $2.0025 late Wednesday, after U.K. retail sales in August rose by 0.6 percent from July.

The dollar slipped against the Japanese currency to 114.96 yen from 116.09 late Wednesday.

Posted by: the american peso | September 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama-Gore 08. unbeatable ticket that has both the right and the modererate's on both sides quivering in their botties. Their pot of gold is about to be taken from them. Good. I hope everyone found with selling out the country NOW goes to jail. That's NOW. Go ahead zouk. Talk about the clintons and the 90's some more. We need a history lesson. Sonce your still living in the ninties and all

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I like Obama's attitude, and his ticket is punched. I still believe he's running for Vice though, HRC is too powerful to not get the coronation.

And if he doesn't get offered Vice, or HRC doesn't win the whole thing, Obama gets to be Illinois governor next; HRC stays the barely less-annoying senator from NY; Edwards is done, cooked, toast.

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm just naive but I care about what someone stands for not their "leadership" We all saw what leadership got us with George Bush

This ad did absolutelty nothing for me

If you look at Obamas positions on issues they are almost identical to Hillary and Edwards

How is he different from the other 2?

Posted by: Will it really work | September 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

i had an idea last night. When wacthing dan rather with his suit. I figured out how to restore us as one nation and stop the divide and conquer tactics. I know how to stop the lies spin and misdierction by both the media and here and elsewhere. It's huge. Ready?

Credibility. Dan Rather went off the air bbecause he lost his credibility. Credibility. What is credibility?

"Credibility is the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Traditionally, credibility is composed of two primary dimensions: trustworthiness and expertise, which have both objective and subjective components. That is, trustworthiness is a receiver judgment based on subjective factors. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived but includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message as well (e.g., source credentials or information quality). Some secondary dimensions include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness, for example."

So this is how we save the nation. Ready?

WE REMOVE ANY AND ALL MEDIA HOW HAS LOST THEIR CREDIBILITY BE LYING TO USE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Like rather. If you have no credibility left you should step down. This way all the propogandists and liars that attack people all day for profit would be on the street. then we can restore our political dialogue and build the nation back up together. We are a self-government. In a self governmetn we need all the real news we can get, with none of the lies and propoganda for profit.

Sound like a plan. Credibility. That is how we save the media and the nation. Where to start where to start?

Removing Fox "News" from the air is the best start I can think of. Who's with me?

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Mark A--I agree with you about Obama. There's something that's actually inspiring about him--and when you have been involved in politics as long as I have --which necessarily makes you incredibly cynically -- that's saying something.

And I ask the same as bsimon, coul you/would you vote for him?

Posted by: drindl | September 20, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"I want to leave an irrelevant comment too

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 10:33 AM
"

nOT ME. But I got you.

Why do the republcians hate this country so much


"Habeas Restoration Act Fails Cloture
By: Nicole Belle @ 5:39 PM - PDT
Let's be clear and unvarnished...44 of our Senators hate the Constitution and basic civil rights. They do not believe in the fundamental right of due process. RestoreHabeas.org has the breakdown.

Absolutely unacceptable. With all the horrors that we hear about Hamdan, about suicides, about innocent people rounded up for bounties and left to rot in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, it is absolutely immoral that 44 senators feel that entrusting basic civil rights of any person to the Bush administration is the way to go.

Senator Dodd has not given up the fight:

"America's moral standing, and with it the security of the United States, suffered another setback today, atop a pile of setbacks that has accumulated over the past six years. The outcome of this vote is both symbolic and tragic. Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world, or to help dig deeper the hole of utter disrespect for the rule of law that the Bush Administration has created. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues chose the latter, and my disappointment runs deep. But I will not rest my case with this vote. Instead, this defeat will only deepen my resolve to restore the rule of law and with it American security, for far too much is at stake - for every American - to simply give up the fight."

www.crroksandliars.com

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

excellent comercial! also check out this user generated comercial that I produced for Obama which focuses on judgement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq54KoIgf6E

Posted by: politik, jacksonville, FL | September 20, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too

Posted by: rufus | September 20, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"To the extent that politics is shaped by personality, this asset of Obama's can carry him a long way, either in 2008 or in the near future."

Mark, that's a fairly neutral observation. Is his personality enough to convince you to support him, or are you sticking with 'not ruling him out'? (Or have I put words in your mouth?)

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Will the press gang up on Obama and lie about him the way they did about Gore?

'The press didn't object to Gore's statement until Texas Republican congressman Dick Armey led the charge, saying, "If the vice president created the Internet, then I created the interstate highway system." Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner released a statement with the headline, delusions of grandeur: vice president gore takes credit for creating the internet. CNN's Lou Dobbs was soon calling Gore's remark "a case study ... in delusions of grandeur." A few days later the word "invented" entered the narrative. On March 15, a USA Today headline about Gore read, inventing the internet; March 16 on Hardball, Chris Matthews derided Gore for his claim that he "invented the Internet." Soon the distorted assertion was in the pages of the Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe, and on the A.P. wire service. By early June, the word "invented" was actually being put in quotation marks, as though that were Gore's word of choice.

For the record, here's what Gore REALLY said:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative"--"in creating the Internet," he said, before going on to describe other accomplishments. It was true. In the 1970s, the Internet was a limited tool used by the Pentagon and universities for research. As a senator in the 80s, Gore sponsored two bills that turned this government program into an "information superhighway," a term Gore popularized, and made it accessible to all. Vinton Cerf, often called the father of the Internet, has claimed that the Internet would not be where it was without Gore's leadership on the issue.'

Posted by: Liam | September 20, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (Map, News) - Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC, News) said Thursday its profit plunged 62 percent in the third quarter, as turbulence in the debt market rocked the investment bank's credit portfolio.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse


On March 20 of this year Mitch McConnell said this:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Four years into the Iraq war, all sides in the bitter debate agree that President Bush's "troop surge" plan represents the final drop of American patience for the war. If Iraqis fail to control the violence, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, "The American taxpayer has a reasonable expectation that we will bring our people home."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has steadfastly supported the mission, said Republicans' patience is nearly exhausted, too.

"This is the last chance for the Iraqis," the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with The Examiner. "The last chance for them to step up and demonstrate that they can do their part to save their country."

http://www.examiner.com/a-628513~Patience_for_Iraq_war_waning_on_all_sides.html

Can you believe a single word these people say?

Posted by: Susan | September 20, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I think no other candidate is as personally appealing as Sen. Obama. That appeal should not be underestimated. I think back to his drawing 20k+ in a light rain outdoors on a Friday afternoon in Austin, and I said then that I doubted whether any other candidate could have done that.

To the extent that politics is shaped by personality, this asset of Obama's can carry him a long way, either in 2008 or in the near future.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 20, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Fantastic Ad! I am looking forward to winning the Primaries and the General with Obama and all that can be accomplished.

Posted by: Jordan | September 20, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July.

The delay, noted in a Pentagon report to Congress on progress and problems in Iraq, highlights the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in some areas.

It is the second time this year the target date for completing what is known as ``Provincial Iraqi Control'' has been pushed back. The Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Monday hinted at the possibility of further delays.

Posted by: iraq 4ever | September 20, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the real deal.

No doubt about it.

Watch as his momentum builds in the approach to the early Primaries. Then continue to watch as he becomes unstoppable on his march to not only the Democratic nomination - but the Whitehouse.

I'm Tony Story, and I approve this message.

Posted by: Tony | September 20, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Tom Joyner had Tavis Smiley on his morning show last week. Smiley, who has really defined himself as a noteworthy power-player in presidential debates, expressed his disdain for black Republicans who have remained silent on the fact that the leading Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential elections have declined invitations to the September 27th PBS Debate. What is the significance of this debate? It is being held at the historically black Morgan State University and is clearly aimed at African American voters.

Smiley is quoted as saying that the silence of these black Republicans is "deafening."

I am a black Republican, and, for once, I absolutely agree with Tavis Smiley. What a lot of Republicans don't understand is that it is no longer a choice between winning Southern conservatives and making inroads among black voters, as it was from the 1960s to the 80s. I think good candidates (like Mike Huckabee got 42% of the African-American vote) can keep southern whites, while appealing to independent and conservative black voters who are closer to the GOP on issues, but have been turned off by our party's tactics and neglect over the years. The same holds true for Hispanics, who are now the largest minority and the fastest growing group in absolute numbers. The leading Republican candidates also declined invites to a debate targeted to the Hispanic audience.

Posted by: racist Rs | September 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

'Buy in' -- how about 'beleive'? I like what Obama has to say. He sounds real.

Posted by: K | September 20, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company