Obama Promises To Get More Aggressive
Obama goes on CNN, personally addresses for the first time the complaints that he lacks the fire in the belly to do what it takes to defeat Hillary:
"Now is the time when we're going to be laying out a very clear contrast between myself and Senator Clinton," Obama says. We've already seen some signs of this in his attacks on Hillary over Iran and torture. Obama, perhaps looking to reassure nervous supporters, is at least trying to let us know that the battle is now underway in earnest. We'll see what happens.
Comments (62)
della Rovere wrote on October 11, 2007 5:51 PM:when he discovers what the differences are I hope someone will wake me up and let me know.
goethean wrote on October 11, 2007 5:54 PM:[cue anti-Obama trolling by "Daniel" and JoeChi]
loki wrote on October 11, 2007 6:00 PM:"...when he discovers what the differences are I hope someone will wake me up and let me know."
Exactly!
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 6:01 PM:If only he could TRIANGULATE! He'd be the perfect candidate.
dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 6:03 PM:Like I said, those poll numbers must be looking awfully grim for the CampObama, since it seems that it is now time to get down from the high perch of "new kind of politics" and adopt the tried and true approach of "politics of personal destruction." I knew that the so-called "clean campaign" would not last, I just did not know how short-lived it would be. Welcome to 200+ years of American presidential politics, Senator. "Shrewd" is not a 4-letter word. And, BTW, when the Dem voters say they want "change", that is "change" from the Bush years, and not change from Dem policies and ideals. You misinterpreted "change" and were trying to draw a sharper contrast between you and the other Dem candidates. In terms of policies, you guys are practically one person. So, that leaves personality differences: Go for it! Let's play dirty! Let's do some political anthropology and dig some dirt on each other!
phil james wrote on October 11, 2007 6:07 PM:Clearly Obama has to learn that national politics in the US of A as produced and directed by the blathering cable channels is 50 percent Miss America pageant, 45 percent Professional Wrestling, and only 5 percent important issues. He is finally getting a clue.
gqmartinez wrote on October 11, 2007 6:08 PM:I'm not going to vote for Obama but I like the guy. I hope his contrast doesn't cross the boundaries into anti-Hillary hysteria that the right does.
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 6:09 PM:DCS:
Thanks again for informing us what change means--don't really know what we would do without you explaining these little tid bits to us.
Now here's a nice TRIANGLE for you, just be careful of those pointy little edges.
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 6:11 PM:And here's a TRIANGLE for you too GQ Martinez for immediately implying that drawing distinctions between Obama and Clinton is somehow slinging mud.
Be careful of the edges. I wouldn't want you to poke your eye out or anything.
Geek, Esq. wrote on October 11, 2007 6:13 PM:Hopefully this will include telling Wolfson et al to take their "it's unfortunate that Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope" and cram it.
loki wrote on October 11, 2007 6:13 PM:Keith,
Hmmm...Triangulate...you mean like saying you thought the war resolution vote was wrong, but you continually vote for funding the war?
Daniel wrote on October 11, 2007 6:15 PM:goethan,
How am I trolling? I'm trolling as much as you are trolling anti-hillary. Read my comments in the other thread, I was not at all defending Hillary, but reproaching Obama for being hypocritical. My comments were based on his quotes, and your blind allegiance to one candidate is making you insult people who don't have your opinion.
And since you're awaiting my criticism of Obama here. Here it goes... Since you want triangulating, try being against saying that Iran is engaged in terrorist activities in Iraq, but being okay with saying Iran is engaged in terrorist activities period.
colonpowwow wrote on October 11, 2007 6:20 PM:Why does the image of "a marshmallow in armor" keep popping into my head?
Seriously, Obama is such an inspirational and upbeat guy. Maybe in 2016 we will be ready and worthy for one such as he.
In the meantime, I'm looking forward to sticking the edges of the Clintons' triangles right in the eyes of our right wing tormentors over the last 14 years or so. She'll be a great president.
Anybody-but-Hallaryites - I predict you'll be won over if not before the general election and after your preferred candidate endorses her, then within the first six months of her presidency.
PEACE
LeftistDragon wrote on October 11, 2007 6:21 PM:'it seems that it is now time to get down from the high perch of "new kind of politics" and adopt the tried and true approach of "politics of personal destruction."'
LOL what a joke!
That's a typical Clinton talking point.. That any contrast Obama draws makes renders him a hypocrite.
You can attack an opponent on policy without getting personal.
Obama says Clinton is complicit with an Iran War drumbeat, that's not name-calling, and that's not the politics of personal destruction.
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 6:22 PM:Loki:
Not quite.
How about this one:
1. Support bill that could be construed to give Admistration 'x' a basis for attacking country 'A'.
2. After receiving flak for supporting said bill, quietly co-sponsor a bill that has been sitting in commmitte for over seven months that specifically counters that flak.
3. Loudly proclaim that you were the first to co-sponsor the bill (but forgot to notify the Senator that sponsored the bill).
See the pretty TRIANGLE.
loki wrote on October 11, 2007 6:28 PM:Keith,
I'm beginning to think you might not know what triangulate means.
And your infantile "presentations" of "triangles" is making you look a tad foolish...though it's clear you don't know it.
loki wrote on October 11, 2007 6:33 PM:So I guess in the end Obama is the perfect candidate for you...as he triangulates quite well! ;^}
gqmartinez wrote on October 11, 2007 6:38 PM:Just to be clear, I reference two distinct sides to my "TRIANGLE": "contrast" and "anti-Hillary hysteria". I'll let others connect the third side however they want.
gqmartinez wrote on October 11, 2007 6:47 PM:The Politics of Hope and anti-cynicism!
cd wrote on October 11, 2007 6:50 PM:
The Obama tough talk I've see trial ballooned is always either too Republican to persuade or too illiberal/hard Left (some call it "fringe") to work.
There's also a whiney and underhanded quality to it that appeals to the resentful and inferior, but isn't Presidential.
cd wrote on October 11, 2007 6:51 PM:The Obama tough talk I've see trial ballooned is always either too Republican to persuade or too illiberal/hard Left (some call it "fringe") to work.
There's also a whiney and underhanded quality to it that appeals to the resentful and inferior, but isn't Presidential.
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 7:18 PM:Sorry guys, I just realized what an enormous d-bag I am. I'm going to get some help with my obsession over the words "triangle" and "triangulate," then if you're lucky I'm going to never ever ever post here again since nothing I say makes any damn sense at all.
Edgar08 wrote on October 11, 2007 7:25 PM:Shorter Obama: I can't win making a case for Obama. The only way I can win is by making a case against someone else.
Just got back from my evening stroll through the neighborhood. Found two more Obama supporters and, yet again, no one for Hillary.
I'm beginning to think that all of Hillary's supporters post here. heheh
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 7:31 PM:Loki:
I know it's silly to keep referring to TRIANGLES--I actually laugh every time I type it. And I'm well aware of what triangulation is and which one of the candidates holds a black belt in it.
For the most part, I respect and like Senator Clinton. What I don't respect is her lack of respect for me any of the other millions of voters she would like to vote for her. Instead of just owning her actions, she tries to pretend that she was duped or she didn't know what she was doing. As smart and as experience as she's supposed to be, I'm supposed to believe that she got duped by GEORGE W. BUSH? Really? It couldn't be that she didn't do her homework. No, Bush misread and misused the authority she and other
After 6+ years of being talked to like I'm an idiot, by an idiot, you expect me to sit here and let another politician do the same thing? Not a chance. And yet, that's exactly what we are being asked to sign up for by peddaling in this bogus excuses. I know that she has a tremendous capacity to be a great president if she would just stop pretending that she is infallable. But every chance she gets, she pisses on us and insists it's rain.
So yeah, I like tweaking the noses of her supporters who try to defend her intellectual dishonesty by regurgitating these childish retorts. So since DCS won't step up to the plate. Will you?
Your candidate has had over 7 months to co-sponsor the Webb Amendment; it came out one month after she took to the floor to tell Pres. Bush that he needed congressional authority for war with Iran. She didn't see fit to endorse it until she took flak for her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment--exactly five days after the vote.
Is it fair to say that she's trusting a man and administration to do the right thing when they've demonstrated over and over again that they cannot or will not? If she didn't believe the KL Amendment gave Bush authority to attack Iran, why did she believe it was necessary to co-sponsor the Webb Amendment (and to wait 7 months to do so)?
Cute. Someone who lacks reading comprehension skills at least knows how to spell my name. Whoever you are, you're a moron.
Jane wrote on October 11, 2007 8:00 PM:Obama's purported message: I am able to do more of the things that Democrats want done because the Republicans like me better.
No wonder it is a tough sell.
I think Obama has the very best judgment of any of the candidates. And I believe his own judgment has always been and will continue to be in charge of where and when and how to draw critical contrasts in the sprint phase of the race.
In his own gracious way, he will do what needs to be done within the context of his core values. In particular, unlike some already compromised folks who believe the end [winning] justifies the means [lobbyist money, pandering, triangulation, fence-sitting, non-disclosures, non-answers], Obama understands that the politics of hope must be rooted in openness and truthfulness.
I notice the pre-emptive desperation of the supporters of the compromised one hurrying here to dis this guy. Oh, so sorry. You don't get to decide. The voters do.
I'll post in a little while some information comparing what poll respondents have already discerned as to who they see as principled compared to who they see as saying 'what's popular'. That polled information might shake some thought into the heads of the chicken counters.
MarkL wrote on October 11, 2007 8:06 PM:I predict this new strategy is going to backfire horribly.
Do people really believe Hillary is gung-ho about torture? I seriously doubt it.
By throwing very implausible accusations about the kind of President Hillary will be, Obama is making himself look foolish.
I'm sure he can do better than this.
Keith, if Kyl-Lieberman gives slip to the slope of attacking Iran, how does Obama cosponsoring (along with 68 other Senators) S. 970 not do the exact same thing (i.e. by declaring the IRG a "terrorist organization" that will "greenlight" attacking Iran)...?
Also, given that under the 2001 AUMF, Bush can decide for himself without any control need or stamp of apporval form Congress to declare anyone and anything a terrorist threat and thereby attack it, the kabuki of the 2002 AUMF and the posturing over Kyl-Lieberman wold be rather comical. Comical except for the fact that it is killing hundreds of thousands of human beings (including our own troops) and have turned the Constitution into nothing but historically interesting toilet paper.
lestatdelc wrote on October 11, 2007 8:27 PM:Crap, the post of Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 8:25 PM is by me. Assumed the "Remember personal info" option would actually work across sessions.
loki wrote on October 11, 2007 8:43 PM:Keith,
Thanks for the response.
Hillary is not "my candidate." I would happily pull the lever for either her or Obama. I think the country will be a far better place once one of them takes the White House.
Regarding her "triangulation"...
"Politicians working within a system like ours can never be much more than what the system will allow." That's from Gore Vidal.
Basically I agree with what I believe he was trying to say. And I don't think Obama is all that different from any other politician working within our political system. Well, at least a Democratic politician! ;^}
I honestly believe that someday soon people like you will be smacked in the face with reality when he fails to live up to the ultra pure standards you seem to think he sets. Though, it seems it may take more time than I expected given the fact that you are completely unperturbed by the true political contradiction I referenced above.
Political contradictions are fact of life. You want absolute purity? Vote for Nader.
Michael wrote on October 11, 2007 8:49 PM:A couple of months ago, I went to the Obama campaign web site and sent an angry note regarding one of his public statements, in which i explicitly included a statement to the effect that I did not want him as the Democratic nominee. Those nimrods put me on their mailing lists and now I get spammed daily with "campaign updates" and "help barack win" emails.
I do think the quality of "the help" tells me something about the quality of the boss. He is not a bad man, but he is not the best "man" for the job, either.
Thanks.
mp
DonnaG wrote on October 11, 2007 8:50 PM:lestatdelc,
S970 has been held in committee with no action since last March, and of course, no vote or discussions have taken place. Furthermore, S970 is primarily about Iranian nuclear development within which the naming of the Guards is almost a footnote within dozens of considerations of actions regarding that larger push to deal with the Iran enrichment program.
Kyl-Lieberman, already voted upon and passed, is totally based upon September testimony and recent reports that effectively connect that vote [of naming of the Guards] into the middle of the already hot present-day urgencies and strategies regarding Iraq.
Do you see the difference? Technically, I suppose Bush could stretch to use the fact of that language being within S970 to attack Iran, but he is much more likely to attack Iran within the original AUMF blank check he got in 2002, and justify doing so as part of the troublesome Iraq War.
Creating some composites from poll data from three swing states:
Who makes decisions based upon what's popular?
51.5% say Clinton does
31.9% say Obama does
separating some data,
what do independents think:
47% say Clinton does
31.3% say Obama does
what do men think:
58% say Clinton does
37.6% say Obama does
what do women think:
42% say Clinton does
32% say Obama does
what do republicans think:
74.7% say Clinton does
41% say Obama does
what do democrats think:
26.3% say Clinton does
23.7% say Obama does
So given Clinton's lead over Obama in voter preference polls, could we infer that perhaps people kind of like the idea of having a president who cares what they think for a change? ;)
DonnaG wrote on October 11, 2007 10:33 PM:CalD, my bad....I should have written ''who makes decisions based upon 'what's popular' as compared to makes decisions based upon principles."
I put up the list simply because I can see that this data dovetails with his home stretch intent to build upon and stress certain distinctions.
It's really all about anger isn't it? The posts lately have been just nuts. Just this raging and name calling back and forth. Neither Hillary or Obama is as bad as the screaching posts say they are. Is anyone just for someone - or does it all have to be about hating someone else? I like Hillary. But I think that Obama is absolutely the best candidate, with the best judgment, the best ability to lead a diplomatic effort, to restore people's faith. To appeal to not just the left or just the right. I loved Bill Clinton as president, how smart he was, how he engaged other smart people - and I think Obama is the candidate most like him. I wish everyone would just calm down. I wish people would just read and think and talk about it with out screeching . And mostly - I just want the campaign to play out without the media and the blogs declaring that it is all over.
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 10:47 PM:Anonymous:
Obama's bill (which is committee limbo) only designates the IRG as terrorist group, which (as you note) the Administration has already done. The differences between S. 970 and KLA is that the KLA justifies, in part, our presence in Iraq (reason #475) and has unsubstantiated allegations that the IRG has been, directly or indirectly, attacking our troops.
After stepping back and thinking about this, I think the larger issue here isn't what HRC thinks the plain meaning of the KLA, but given what we all know about this Administration and its commitment to the Unitary Executive, why would HRC (or any Democrat for that matter) trust GWB to abide by the spirit or letter of the law? He doesn't believe that he needs congressional authority (HRC went to the floor to spell that out and after she took flak for KLA she went to to co-sponsor the Webb Amendment) to confront terrorist and if news accounts to be believed he and his administration are looking for any excuse to attack Iran. In light of all of that, why would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
onceler wrote on October 11, 2007 11:36 PM:when on earth will people learn that polls this far out don't mean jack crap? campaign for pres is a marathon.
Anon 701 wrote on October 12, 2007 12:24 AM:Obama gains points on my card, by not being easily rattled by his opponents criticism.
An 'honest' display of character and intent, is what this country seems to be in need of after years of common 'fakery' offered by past political aspirants.
It appears to me that a pre-requisite for a party line vote, mandates that a candidate be obviously, vain, egocentric, delusional, confrontational, autocratic, a liar, and generally...a real stomache turner. (excuse me while I barf...)
I like how Obama pointing out facts is now construed by hillaryites as an attack campaign.
Dear Hillaryites, what is your position on Hillary saying today that she would engage in diplomacy 'without reservation' with IRAN after she called Barack 'naeive' for saying he would do it months ago?
We will see as we head into the final stretch of the campaign that the more Hillary opens her mouth, the more the corroded sewer that she is will come out.
I really can't find the people to support the Clinton lead in the polls.
Around here, a substantial majority of Democrats are supportingf Obama. We have seen various straw polls taken by clubs and they all are for Obama.
Most of the active Democratic officials that are prevented from endorsing candidates say that the feedback they are getting from the precincts is a huge Obama base. In fact, most say Edwards is second and Hillary third.
So just who are the pollsters talking to?
Lookingforhome wrote on October 12, 2007 1:06 AM:Onceler,
I beg to differ, though I'd like to think some matter less than others. The National Campaign for President is a marathon, but the nomination campaigns are now (likely) on a very short slope to being over. A major screw-up now by anyone could end it for them, a major drop-off in fundraising (often driven by drifting poll numbers) could lose a key state.
Less than 90 days before people vote is home stretch territory, people feel that, see it in the ramped up volume of media coverage, the increase in ad buys, etc.
Sorry if you were speaking about D vs R advance polling, but if we're talking about the choices being made between now and early Feb these things mean more than "jack crap" at this point. Any candidate or supporter that doesn't realize that is kidding themselves.
EnoughAlready wrote on October 12, 2007 1:11 AM:So now the Iranian military is a terrorist organization? Don't wanna look WEAK for all the voters who think Iraq was responsible for 9/11, do we?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070917_giving_and_taking/
lucky9 wrote on October 12, 2007 3:15 AM:diffs between queen hillary and obama/edwards:
queen hillary:
cafta, nafta, wto, globalization - all good
dlc, rahm emmanuel, neo-liberals, chicago school - all good
industrial/military complex - not a problem
corporations first, people 2nd
obama/edwards - don't really know everything yet, esp obama, but so far, not hillary.
Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 5:51 AM:dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 6:03 PM: "Like I said, those poll numbers must be looking awfully grim for the CampObama." So true, and awfully grim for the USA, if Hillary is actually nominated. Beyond the fact that she is not qualified and has demonstrated horrible judgment on foreigh policy and health care issues, she and Bill have so much personal baggae, the general election will never be able to focus on issues. It will be a very bitter, intense, peronal battle, because that's what the Clinton's like. Her only hope is to divide the nation into warring camps and hope she can squeek out 50.1% or an electoral college fluke, or a Supreme decisions.
As president, Hillary would continue Bush-Cheney foreigh policy in the Middle East, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton statu quo on corporate favoratism for banks, oil companies, defense contractors, healthcare and drug companies, and Walmart's cheap/inferior/ uninspected/dangerous Chinese imports.
Celebrate Hillary's poll numbers, dcshungu. They reflect the same mindlessness that gave us George Bush. It is scary for thinking Democrats and independents who see her dishonesty and want better for America.
bp wrote on October 12, 2007 6:11 AM:Have read this post with interest. Sen Obama is being pushed to do something which goes against his instincts. I felt that Wolf was more interested in getting Obama to agree that he needed to get into a slanging match with Sen Clinton. Then, in another session of the Shit Room he can criticise politicians for resorting to attack politics. Obama will tighten his campaign and be more focused but I doubt he will get into meanspiritedness. It is just not in him. Sure surrogates in both his and the Clinton camp will engage in that way. I hope he wins: it will be a wonderful first. But above all I want a Democrat to win so I will support Clinton if she is the nominee.
Sad to say I cannot work up any enthusiasm for Edwards.
LongTom wrote on October 12, 2007 6:29 AM:It's a shame to see Obama falling into one of the most aggravating of Democratic campaign behaviors: discussing campaign strategy with reporters. Dems always do this, and it's nothing short of stupid. Instead of telling reporters that "soon you're going to see me attack Hillary", HOW ABOUT JUST ATTACKING HER?
Now Obama's attacks will just look like a campaign tactic. Did Romney announce before the last debate that he was going to step up his attacks on Giuliani. (Or Rudy his on Romney?)
Dems always do this and it just makes them look calculating and phony. God, are they stupid at this! I thought Obama wasn't this lame. Too bad.
loki wrote on October 12, 2007 8:00 AM:Keith,
You say that, "the KLA justifies, in part, our presence in Iraq (reason #475) and has unsubstantiated allegations that the IRG has been, directly or indirectly, attacking our troops."
You are aware Obama says there is "no doubt" that Iran is providing support and funding for the militias and guerrillas in Iraq? He doesn't think it is unsubsatantiated at all.
Keith, S970 is Gordon Smith's bill, and 68 senators eventually signed on to co-sponsor that bill. So, it is a stretch to call it "Obama's bill" anymore than to call it "Clinton's bill", she being another cosigner.
S970 was sponsored and introduced by Smith on 3-22-07, and usually a co-sponsor would only get name-added credit whenever that cosponsorship is from day one of its introduction [demonstrating perhaps some co-writing of the bill]. Obama signed on weeks later [4-24-07] and Clinton two days after Obama [4-26-07].
The ten who did cosponsor on day one when Gordon Smith introduced S970 were: Bayh, Brownback, Coleman, Durbin, Kyl, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Mikulski, and Thune.
loki wrote on October 12, 2007 8:08 AM:Um, er...sorry, typing a little too fast again! The proper spelling would be "unsubstantiated." ;^}
hadenough wrote on October 12, 2007 9:07 AM:senator 'no-show':
Garance Franke-Ruta:
It seems to me that if Obama thought the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution vote was as important a line in the sand on a march to war with Iran as he is now making it out to be, he could have taken the time to come back to Washington, give a speech on the issue, and urge all his Democratic Senate colleagues to vote no, too. And then he could have cast a vote himself.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=senator_noshow
Voting no was very important to obama, just not important enough to him get on a plane and go vote. But avoiding important votes is a pattern with obama:
"The New York Times Obama said:
"there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation."
...
And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama's statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois -- voting present rather than yes or no -- muddying the actual record about his beliefs."
Voting present when it comes to abotion rights was a matter of judgement I guess.
More at Talyor Marsh:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26379
Gore has moved ahead of Obama in Intrade futures prediction of dem nominee.. Hillary is at close to 70% now.
Obama is down to 11%.
its over folks.
now the only question left is will Obama get the VP nod? its wide open. if he finishes a strong 2nd in the primaries hillary will have to put him on much like Edwards.
Korha wrote on October 12, 2007 9:41 AM:"Gore has moved ahead of Obama in Intrade futures prediction of dem nominee.. Hillary is at close to 70% now."
That just makes me think the conventional political wisdom is completely wrong. Gore isn't even running.
Mike Bakunin wrote on October 12, 2007 9:46 AM:Excuse me... but who thinks that the Iran vote was a green light for Bush to attack Iran? Does anyone really think that without it, Bush wouldn't attack Iran? Just look at the DOJ, et al. This guy will do what he wants, when he wants, and then walk away from it in a year and half.
Most of the talk about Clinton and Obama in this regard is just missing the target and really self-defeating and deflects from the real issue.
I find it also sad that Obama has shifted tactics and now looks like lagging, desperate candidate who has gone on the attack, and, yes, including hyperbole. It reminds me of last minute attacks in a general election of a candidate with no place to go but negative.
Hey Bakunin: I think the vote was a green light for Bush to attack Itan. Agreed that he will do what he wants, which includes attacking Iran, but the vote was definitely calculated to be interpreted as a green light for his attack. It is a big part of their bullshit propaganda campaign to rationalize the coming attack.
Just as the Bushies erroneously said a vote for the 2002 resolution was "a vote for the invasion of Iraq", this vote will be interpreted by them as supporting a bombing campaign against Iran.
Hillary's an ass for voting for it. Her vote was a betrayal of Democratic party principles and played into the hands of Bush party propagandists. She doesn't deserve this nomination for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them.
Mike Bakunin wrote on October 12, 2007 10:22 AM:Long Tom:
I understand your position and do appreciate it. Just think Bush never needs a "green light" or any kind of light, especially the light of illumination. Still think it doesn't really matter much: Bush will do what he will do.
Were Obama's 2002 statements against invading Iraq negative? If enough people in the public eye had emulated his good judgment back in 2002 and been bold enough to stand against Bush's dumb war, instead of making political calculations or being wimps afraid to take a stand for fear of looking 'weak on terror', we might not be in that dumb war right now. Would that have been a 'negative' outcome?
Now, Obama is going to offer his statements about what kind of leadership the country needs for the future. Is that negative? If Obama can factually contrast his record of judgment with that record for others, that is in no way negative, but rather what informed voters need in order to make good factual judgments themselves.
It seems to be only the Hillary campers who would worry about such contrasts, and try to frame such comparisons as 'negative attacking'. Hillary has used poor judgment and continues to do so. That is fact, and saying so is not 'negative attacking'.
What represents negative attacking are the responses of the Hillary campaign that chooses to notice Obama's message, and then smear the messenger rather than deal with the substance of the comparisons.
loki wrote on October 12, 2007 1:22 PM:DonnaG,
To whom are you directing these questions?
Ultimately it remains to be seen whether or not Obama will "go negative."
The only person in this thread, other than you, who's even used the word negative is Bakunin. And he only said that Obama's new tactic reminds him "of last minute attacks in a general election of a candidate with no place to go but negative."
Reminds him. I don't think he actually said Obama has gone negative. Maybe a slight distinction there, but an important one, I believe.
But, again, stay tuned. Obama's attempts to show contrast between him and Clinton may only end up being just that. They may end up being worse than that...we'll see.
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
