http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html
How Obama Fell to Earth
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.
But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn't on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates' words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.
Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.
He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.
Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.
If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.
Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the "bitter" comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards's haircut as clues about shared values.
When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.
Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.
It was inevitable that the period of "Yes We Can!" deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He'll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.
General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I've asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that's going to be hard.
A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.
Welcome to 2008. Everybody's miserable.
Obama talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama? Should we expect to see some quotes from Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh in the near future?
David Brooks-the
only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy. Of course he thinks the "symbols" are more important than actual substance, because he knows that is the only way republicans will win this year.
quote:
I would love it - love it! - if by November, the most pressing issues facing the Republic were some preacher in Chicago I'd never heard of until this year, a trip some politician's wife took a decade ago, and the way we accessorize our lapels. That would be, like the Pope's speech yesterday, awesome. Because that would mean we'd no longer be at war in Iraq, no longer be facing a terrorist threat out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, no longer be in the midst of about ten separate economic crises, New Orleans would be fully rebuilt, and the New York Times wouldn't be falling into an ad revenue abyss. But somehow I think this is not going to be the case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/david-brooks-praises-abc_n_97216.html
If you think that the politics of distraction is going to get Clinton
anywhere, I would think twice. It's one thing to say they are bitter, quite another to say sc*** 'em (//%22http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html%22).
RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.
POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4658063&page=1
It is not about whether or not Obama is a "saint"; it is about Clinton taking responsibility for her campaign and her proclaimed key issues.
No one is under any illusion that a President Obama will not disappoint us at times; but Hillary Clinton has betrayed the most fundamental core values that she espouses by allowing her staff and her husband to first "play the race card" and now to feebly play "the radical card."
I guess we will know about Obama and the effect of his bad week next Tuesday when Pennsylvania votes.
He has outspent her on ads and staff by a three or four to one ratio.
If he wins Pennsylvania, I promise to shut up about Hillary, but only if all you Obama folks agree that if he loses by double digits that he has real problems in his campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.
POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)
Really! I don't think the "rest of our country" was polled. It looks like they polled democrats. It would help you actually read the headlines of these stories.
You shutting up, RM?
And pigs will fly ...
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.
POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)
Really! I don't think the "rest of our country" was polled. It looks like they polled democrats. It would help you actually read the headlines of these stories.
I'll stand by my comment. McShame has turned his back on our troops, failed to recommend any changes from our current Bushevik Empire, and mischaracterized the players in the war in Iraq. Just the beginning of exposing the man for what he is: a pawn in their game.
Sounds like he fell to earth and landed his house right on Hillary.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You shutting up, RM?
And pigs will fly ...
[}:)]
Don't look up!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'll stand by my comment.
Of course you do. What does accuracy, reading comprehension and fairness have to do with anything in FOTD's world?
No one reads the crap you link to anyways so I suppose that it doesn't hurt that you don't either?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama? David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.
Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html
Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html
He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.
quote:
but only if all you Obama folks agree that if he loses by double digits that he has real problems in his campaign.
No deal. Simply because I don't think it is a problem if Obama loses by 10 or 15 points. The cold hard fact is Clinton
NEEDS to win by 15 points in every state to eliminate the advantage has and take it to the convention with a straight face. If she wins PA, SC, IN, OR, KY, WV, MT, and SD... actually if she can rack up double digit wins in even half of the remaining states I'd say she could at least try to make a case.
However, a single win in PA, even by a 15 point margin, doesn't even get her back in the race statistically. Don't forget they went into PA with Clinton up by as much as 30. CLINTON +30. She's expected to win by +10 and has been for months now...
But with her lead in PA down to ~5% and Obama with +15 in Indiana, the prospect of a Clinton sweep to bring it to the convention floor seems remote.
mathI have trouble trying to figure out how much of your Clinton post is hyperbole and optimism, and how much is what you really think. This case in point:
158 Delegates. Clinton wins by 10 points = about 53% of the delegates. Round up, Clinton takes 84 delegates to Obama's 74. At the end of the day we still have Obama up by 132 Total delegates, 154 pledged, ahead in the popular vote, and with good prospects going forward.
Giving Clinton the bennefit of the doubt in many instances:
PA (Clinton + 15%) = -12 delegates for Obama
NC splits the other way = +7 Obama
Indiana (Clinton +5) = -2 Obama
West Virginia (Clinton +10) = -2 Obama
Oregon (Obama +10) = +3
Kentucky (Clinton +15) = - 5
Puerto Rico (Clinton +15) = -5
Montana (+5 Obama) = +1
South Dakota (evenish) = 0
Guam = 0 (hard to get a 3/4 split)
Given those likely scenarios, Clinton gains 15 delegates by the convention. Walking in down by about 115 total delegates. Even if she won all the primaries by 10%, and we rounded everything up... she gains 34 delegates (a 10% win general equals a 6% victory in delegates under the democratic rules).
Man, I just don't see it. I admire your optimism, but I just don't see it.
Nothing like cf's cold, hard facts to temper RM's optimism.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama? David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.
Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html
Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html
He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.
Landslide coming. Mark my words. Obama tamed his rhetoric for the democrats. For the repugnicans, he'll have plenty of fodder for his cannon.
quote:
Obama tamed his rhetoric for the democrats.
Why would he need to do that? Sounds very duplicitous to me. Why can he not be honest, even with his own party?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why would he need to do that? Sounds very duplicitous to me. Why can he not be honest, even with his own party?
George: Can we get some honesty on stage please?
Clinton: I hate black people. Really. Well, not that I hate them I guess. They just make me comfortable, especially when they run against me. No, I have to be honest, I hate them.
Obama: I eat white babies. Man it feels good to get that off my chest.
McCain: Well now that it looks like I win by default, I only hate Vietnamese - but I plan on removing whatever civil rights everyone has left and sinking another Trillion into the desert. It's a two party system, SUCKERS!
/too far? Sometimes I go crazy on Fridays.
[edit]McCain had to hate Vietnamese... forgot to include that[/edit]
Well clearly he hates the Vietnamese since he clearly loves Mexicans....umm errr...oops. I though all white republicans hated Mexicans.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama? David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.
Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html
Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html
He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.
Of course Brooks praised Obama over Hillary. Like most right wing pundits, Brooks despises the Clintons and everything they stand for. If a dead dog had run against Hillary, he would have praised the dead dog. The truth is that Brooks is an elitist who somehow thinks that he
knows what Americans think, and therefore can critique Obama's suppose lack of connection to the common man. Do you really think David Brooks has a single clue what a typical American thinks?
quote:
As always, David Brooks knows how "they" think and what's important to "them" -- so much so that no proof is ever needed for his claims. As always, it's not David Brooks and his childish colleagues in journalism who are interested in insipid, Drudge-like storylines. No, not at all. They so wish they could be covering weightier matters. But they can't, because those stunted, unsophisticated Americans out there -- the ones Brooks is able simultaneously to look down upon and understand and speak for -- don't want to hear about any weighty matters. They are capable only of thinking about whether Obama can bowl and whether Edwards likes his hair too much (and, of course, it's the very same media stars who spout this condescension about the Regular Folk who have decreed that Barack Obama -- and Al Gore, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, etc. etc. -- are elitists because they look down on Regular Americans).
Leave aside the question of whether those who hold themselves out as political journalists ought to report on substantive matters and be guided by objectives other than maximizing profits. Even with regard to what "Americans" want, David Brooks has no idea whether what he's saying here is true and he also doesn't care. He asserts these matters as fact because his only goal is to defend his "profession" and his colleagues. Thus, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos and all the rest of them have no choice but to be as petty and vapid as they are because that's what "Americans" want.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/brooks/
It's how the "journalist" get to set the storyline for the election--talk about issues of no substance that paint the candidate in a certain light. It all goes under the guise of "electibility" so that the story doesn't even have to be true--it just has to affect the candidate. You can ask Hillary, "why does everyone think you are a liar, and hate you?" because that goes to "electibility." You can ask Obama "can you prove that you are not a Muslim" because if everyone thinks you are, you can't get elected. By even bringing up the question, the media suggests there might be some validity to the false beliefs. Then they can simply continue the same stories, without ever having to prove them true.
I know you support Hillary, and I appreciate that. But these are the same people who called Hillary's husband unelectable because of marital infidelity, because of protesting the Vietnam war, because of smoking pot, wrapping it all up in the "character" issue. Do you not remember the responses then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPPCP9S9EA
It's scary to me how familiar those words of Mary Matalin sound today....
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Obama talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Really? Because that's not my memory of Obama and his wife Michelle, who both could've easily scored any number of high powered/highly lucretive jobs post-college
(see Chelsea Clinton)... but instead Barack became a low-paid community organizer on the southside of Chicago. The kind of job that will give anyone who tries it a better perspective on human nature, broken families, the role of the "black church," the opportunity for government to help... the stark limitations of what government alone is able to do....
I have a friend who taught English/creative writing/speech for a few years at one of the worst public schools on the southside of Chicago: Englewood HS... the broken homes, the discipline problems, the amazing stories of some amazing kids who can easily fall through the cracks... the story of a kid who got an athletic scholarship only to lose his life, gunned down before graduation for no reason...
http://www.schoolsafety.us/pubfiles/savd.pdf
from pg. 32...
"Maurice Davis, captain and star player of the school's basketball team, was fatally shot outside the school while apparently trying to protect his sister from two other male students. The shooting occured across the street from the high school after classes let out at about 3 pm. His sister was also treated for a gunshot wound. Early reports indicate that the shooting stemmed from a fight between the victim's 17-year old sister and the alleged shooter earlier that day inside the school." But since government bureacracy sets unfair accountability standards while the republican party's busy bashing teacher's unions, that school is being closed down this year... yeah,
"no child left behind" my aZZZZ...
Ironically, the reason why I will not support Hillary Clinton is because she "talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk."
A year or two after moving to Chicago in 1990, I asked a Bill Clinton volunteer what kind of prez Bill would be: he said Bill Clinton would be
"the best Republican president we've ever had."Clinton gave us a higher minimum wage and a budget surplus... the Brady Bill... his "largest tax increase in American history" affected the wealthiest who made the biggest gains in the 80s under Reaganomics... http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0308/Is_it_really_the_largest_tax_increase_in_American_history.html
...I can give credit where credit is due, but Clinton also... handed over the House and Senate to the Republicans; signed into law "don't ask, don't tell" which resulted in dramatic increases in gay related discharges over the Reagan and Bush days...
Hillary Clinton is running on her experience and making a big issue of her years as first lady... yet the only real experience I remember for Hillary was her high-profile role in her husband's "Managed Care" initiative.
Hillary Clinton failed miserably on health care in the 90s. Nothing changed. For most of the 90s, I did without insurance... health insurance is employer-based, so if you're self employed, you pay a huge premium--even if you're young, healthy... and broke. You're also stuck negotiating all sorts of "fiery trials"-- if you have dependants, they (and you) can be denied health insurance simply because one of your kids was hospitalized with asthma... pre-existing condition for one child, and your entire family loses... have a nice day! [xx(]
I find it ironic hearing all this pro-Hillary, anti-Obama stuff from HT... if anybody "talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk" on gay issues, that person is Hillary Clinton... but she certainly knows how to pander to gays like nobody's business...
Hillary Makes Sure 'The Advocate' Understands How Much She Does Not Support Marriage Equalityhttp://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/09/hillary_makes_sure_the_advocat_1.html
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/07/09/20_hillaryandfriends_lg.jpg)
It's unclear which is more funny — Hillary's face in this picture, or whatever is going on with that dude in the upper right-hand corner.
Photo: WireImageI guess its too much to ask that the gay community allow a black man to break through the male gay-icon glass ceiling... just add another statuette of Hillary Clinton to the mantle, since she'll go so well with: Judy Garland, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Liza Minelli, Barbara Streisand, Ethel Merman, Patsy Cline, Bette Midler, Cher, Madonna, Tallulah Bankhead... etc. etc... ad infinitum... [:o)]
Turnout boost could favor Obama
Tribune analysis finds battleground red states could turn blue as Democrats push registration drive
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-turnout-web-jun25,0,327711.story
" A projection by the Tribune based on the results of the 2004 election shows that a turnout increase of 10 percent among blacks and youths—two groups that have demonstrated considerable excitement over the Obama candidacy—would offer a powerful potential lift to his campaign."
FOTD tried to convey this theory many months ago only to be brought down by the angels here at TNF. Of course, that was back when the MSM had them looking the other way.
The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians. So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.
That along with the fact there are so many voters afraid to even admit they are republicans.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians. So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.
Both parties are capable of crooked gerrymandering. Jim Jones was protected for several elections by putting S.E. Tulsa and the northern parts of Bixby in Mike Synar's district. Pretty obvious monkeyshines.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians. So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.
Both parties are capable of crooked gerrymandering. Jim Jones was protected for several elections by putting S.E. Tulsa and the northern parts of Bixby in Mike Synar's district. Pretty obvious monkeyshines.
The intent was not to neuter the black voting block in Muskogee County. Otherwise, you are correct. It was done to neutralize the mid town Tulsa republican block.
BTW, both these fine people were terrific public servants in contrast to the light weights we have today.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
QuoteOriginally posted by Red Arrow
QuoteOriginally posted by FOTD
The intent was not to neuter the black voting block in Muskogee County. Otherwise, you are correct. It was done to neutralize the mid town Tulsa republican block.
BTW, both these fine people were terrific public servants in contrast to the light weights we have today.
Agreed it was done to neutralize the republican vote. It had nothing to do with blacks.
Obviously not everyone liked Jones or it wouldn't have been "necessary" to gerrymander the district. Synar wasn't any better. We obviously have a different view of the quality of their service.