Obama's Closing Argument: Stand With Me, And We Will Change Course Of History
Obama is currently delivering his Iowa "closing argument" speech in Des Moines. According to advance excerpts, here's the case against Hillary (and Edwards) on their votes for the Iraq War:
You can’t fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America.The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.
Here's his case against Hillary's "polarizing" nature and his case for his own electability:
There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.
And perhaps most notably, here's Obama's response to Hillary's argument that hope alone won't effect change, and his response to the suggestion that Obama doesn't have the stomach for facing down the GOP:
Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election...
But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made...That’s the power of hope – to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before
Perhaps the best line is this one: "In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable."
Full text of the speech after the jump.
Late Update: The Hillary campaign responds.
Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and began an unlikely journey to change America.I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election – at this moment – because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Because we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our health care system is broken, our economy is out of balance, our education system fails too many of our children, and our retirement system is in tatters.
At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.
I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.
Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country – because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn’t solve – no destiny we couldn’t fulfill.
Ten months later, Iowa, you have vindicated that faith. You’ve come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge – to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires; to serve as one place in America where someone who hasn’t spent their life in the Washington spotlight can get a fair hearing.
You’ve earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. And I believe that’s true this year more than ever because, like me, you feel that same sense of urgency.
All across this state, you’ve shared with me your stories. And all too often they’ve been stories of struggle and hardship.
I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.
I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.
I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.
Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy. She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn’t doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams.
I’ve spoken to veterans who talk with pride about what they’ve accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, but who nevertheless think of those they’ve left behind and question the wisdom of our mission in Iraq; the mothers weeping in my arms over the memories of their sons; the disabled or homeless vets who wonder why their service has been forgotten.
And I’ve spoken to Americans in every corner of the state, patriots all, who wonder why we have allowed our standing in the world to decline so badly, so quickly. They know this has not made us safer. They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Graib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.
It is precisely because you’ve experience these frustrations, and seen the cost of inaction in your own lives, that you understand why we can’t afford to settle for the same old politics. You know that we can’t afford to allow the insurance lobbyists to kill health care reform one more time, and the oil lobbyists to keep us addicted to fossil fuels because no one stood up and took their power away when they had the chance.
You know that we can’t afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that’s about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that’s about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up.
We can’t afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies.
We can’t afford to be so worried about losing the next election that we lose the battles we owe to the next generation.
The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.
In this election, it is time to turn the page. In seven days, it is time to stand for change.
This has been our message since the beginning of this campaign. It was our message when we were down, and our message when we were up. And it must be catching on, because in these last few weeks, everyone is talking about change.
But you can’t at once argue that you’re the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. You can’t fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America.
The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.
My experience is rooted in the lives of the men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I fought for as an organizer when the local steel plant closed. It’s rooted in the lives of the people I stood up for as a civil rights lawyer when they were denied opportunity on the job or justice at the voting booth because of what they looked like or where they came from. It’s rooted in an understanding of how the world sees America that I gained from living, traveling, and having family beyond our shores – an understanding that led me to oppose this war in Iraq from the start. It’s experience rooted in the real lives of real people, and it’s the kind of experience Washington needs right now.
There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I’m not angry or confrontational enough to get it done.
Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don’t need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven’t just talked about it on the campaign trail. I’ve fought for change all my life.
I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago.
I turned down the big money law firms to win justice for the powerless as a civil rights lawyer.
I took on the lobbyists in Illinois and brought Democrats and Republicans together to expand health care to 150,000 people and pass the first major campaign finance reform in twenty-five years; and I did the same thing in Washington when we passed the toughest lobbying reform since Watergate. I’m the only candidate in this race who hasn’t just talked about taking power away from lobbyists, I’ve actually done it. So if you want to know what kind of choices we’ll make as President, you should take a look at the choices we made when we had the chance to bring about change that wasn’t easy or convenient.
That’s the kind of change that’s more than just rhetoric – that’s change you can believe in.
It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.
For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.
We can change the electoral math that’s been all about division and make it about addition – about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. That’s how I won some of the reddest, most Republican counties in Illinois. That’s why the polls show that I do best against the Republicans running for President – because we’re attracting more support from Independents and Republicans than any other candidate. That’s how we’ll win in November and that’s how we’ll change this country over the next four years.
In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It’s about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.
But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know – I’ve been on the streets, I’ve been in the courts. I’ve watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren’t fortified by political will, and I’ve watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.
But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it’s what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it’s what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it’s what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it’s what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause. That’s the power of hope – to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before.
That’s the change we seek. And that’s the change you can stand for in seven days.
We’ve already beaten odds that the cynics said couldn’t be beaten. When we started ten months ago, they said we couldn’t run a different kind of campaign.
They said we couldn’t compete without taking money from Washington lobbyists. But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history.
They said we couldn’t be successful if we didn’t have the full support of the establishment in Washington. But you proved them wrong when we built a grassroots movement that could forever change the face of American politics.
They said we wouldn’t have a chance in this campaign unless we resorted to the same old negative attacks. But we resisted, even when we were written off, and ran a positive campaign that pointed out real differences and rejected the politics of slash and burn.And now, in seven days, you have a chance once again to prove the cynics wrong. In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. And that’s why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has -- with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path.
We’ve seen this script many times before. But I know that this time can be different.
Because I know that when the American people believe in something, it happens.
If you believe, then we can tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.
If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America’s workers and start delivering – jobs that pay, health care that’s affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas .
If you believe, we can offer a world-class education to every child, and pay our teachers more, and make college dreams a reality for every American.
If you believe, we can save this planet and end our dependence on foreign oil.
If you believe, we can end this war, close Guantanamo, restore our standing, renew our diplomacy, and once again respect the Constitution of the United States of America .
That’s the future within our reach. That’s what hope is – that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner. But only if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism. To glory in the task before us of remaking this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.
There is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, this spirit must break through
This is the moment.
This is our time.
And if you will stand with me in seven days – if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you’re ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win this caucus, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and the real journey – to heal a nation and repair the world – will have truly begun.
Thank you.
Comments (99)
Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 12:15 PM:another free ride for BHO.........
http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html
this is not helping the DEM cause.
He lays out a solid case for his candidacy. I don't see it swaying any Hillary voters, but he's giving people a choice if they're sick of Clintondom.
Greg wrote on December 27, 2007 12:20 PM:fyi, we posted on that cmpa study yesterday over at Horse's Mouth
Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 12:23 PM:out of fairness....no other person had his/her script posted out like BHO's but TPM decided to post BHO's text.....it does show bias. I guess you folks felt BHO needs a helping hand getting the message out.
Paul wrote on December 27, 2007 12:28 PM:cmpa finds that Fox News was most balanced? Sounds like an objective study to me.
pacc wrote on December 27, 2007 12:30 PM:Blah... blah... blah...
After O-Bomb-A's recent boomlet (much like what happened after the media inflated his candidacy when he first announced), O-Bomb-A is once again drifting back down into his 20% range. He'll be gone in another month and Democrats will be better off for it.
Ward Lamon wrote on December 27, 2007 12:30 PM:Kefa: Perhaps the message is a little too likely to be effective for your taste, then?
I don't have a problem if TPM posts all of the candidates' speeches outlining their core message. In fact, I hope they do.
The thing is, though, that what you read above (you did read it, didn't you?), is pretty damned good. In fact, I think it's good enough to break through the crap that Hillary and Bill and Edwards are throwing at Obama.
Obama '08. Stand for Change. Don't settle for less.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 12:31 PM:Excellent speech. Thanks for posting it and giving people the opportunity to read it, who may never get to hear it because of our stupid primary election process.
Kefa, stop whining.
Kefa -- I'm grateful that you said we're biased in favor of Obama, since so many Obama people say we're biased against him.
we actually did post Hillary's full closing statement memo, and her ad, yesterday. And we also posted Edwards' full closing statement memo yesterday, too. I think that counts as equivalent, since neither Edwards nor Hillary gave a closing argument speech. No?
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 12:31 PM:Obama: "blah, blah, blah."
I agree with Kevin Drum:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012769.php
Kefa - the minute Hillary or Edwards comes out with a speech that good, I'm sure TPM will post it too.
Something else to chew on (From the WAshington Times, but it makes one of the best cases I've seen to-date for Obama. Wake up Dems!
What part of "anyone but Hillary" Clinton do Democrats not understand? The surest and best path for Democrats to defeat conservatives in 2008 is to elect Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee. Mr. Obama is leading in Iowa, and the race is now a dead heat in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In response, the Clinton camp has insisted that Mr. Obama is not electable by the general population. They maintain that his opinions are too liberal, that Republicans will use the issue of his past drug use against him and that he has insufficient experience. Yet this negative approach has thus far failed to resonate with Democratic voters.
Moreover, it is Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Obama, who cannot be elected. In last week's Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll, 40 percent of Americans state they will vote to prevent Mrs. Clinton from becoming president. She gets the largest "anti-vote" of any candidate in both parties: 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats insist they will vote against her. Hence, the Clinton camp's recent attempt to malign Mr. Obama as unelectable is pure farce. It is like telling Democrats to be afraid of a toy pistol while ignoring a bazooka which is being aimed at them. In a general campaign, Republicans will go nuclear against Mrs. Clinton.
Barring the nomination of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party is poised to capture the White House in 2008. This is mostly because there is no Republican candidate on the horizon who can unite the right. Thus, any Democrat but Mrs. Clinton, can peel away enough conservative, Republican and independent voters to win the next election.
Once Mr. Obama secures the Democratic nomination, he will enter the general election with the liberal base highly mobilized. With a running mate who has good foreign-policy credentials, he can convince moderates that he will be effective in international affairs. Also, Democrats generally attract 88 percent of the black vote: Mr. Obama may make even greater inroads as these voters embrace the prospect of electing America's first black president. Finally, he will capture the two vital swing-voter groups: women and Hispanics.
Mr. Obama need only rely on Oprah Winfrey to capture the majority of the female vote. He will secure an even larger segment of female voters by suggesting policies — as Mrs. Clinton does — which directly affect female interests. By contrast, leading Republicans have ignored women's issues. Moreover, many Hispanics, who were essential to the election of George Bush in both 2000 and 2004, have turned away from the Republican Party: Hispanics are repulsed by the anti-immigrant rhetoric which resulted from the failed immigration bill. The majority of women and Hispanics will therefore gravitate to Sen. Obama's corner.
Furthermore, Mr. Obama can tap into the division within the Republican Party. As the Wall Street Journal has reported, some businesses are recoiling at the enforcement of anti-illegal immigration laws. Hence, the GOP's anti-immigrant platform will secure the allegiance of one part of their usual constituency while alienating some members of the business sector who would otherwise vote for the GOP.
Also, if Democrats nominate Mr. Obama rather than Mrs. Clinton, conservative dissatisfaction re-emerges as a major campaign factor. There will be many conservatives and Republicans who will vote for a Democrat as a means of giving their own leaders a black eye: This will be payback to the Republicans for the previous abandonment of conservative principles on key issues. And woe to the Republicans if the nominee is chosen at the expense of the evangelical conservative base: If Rudy Giuliani wins the GOP nomination, evangelicals have stated they will vote for Mr. Obama rather than pull the lever for a thrice-married man.
Mr. Obama also has personality traits which have widespread appeal. The gentle, mild-mannered leader is a devoted family man, a sincere and consistent politician, an eloquent idealist — and a pal of the much-loved, much-admired, Oprah. He is perceived by many on the right as a breath of fresh air, as one who will spare us an ugly campaign season and potentially an even uglier four years after that.
The secret among conservatives is that many are rooting for Mr. Obama — and many will even vote for him in a general election no matter how liberal he is. Why? He will be heroic for defeating Hillary; he is authentic, and he is likeable even in disagreement.
In essence, all the stars are aligned in favor of a remarkable American story: Barack Obama's historic march from Iowa straight into the White House in Washington, D.C. If only Democrats had enough sense to get Hillary Clinton out of his way.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/EDITORIAL/295816016
lampwick wrote on December 27, 2007 12:33 PM:Yes, Kefa, TPM does show its bias posting the full text of B(scarydarkmuslim)O's speech.
Maybe that's because it's actually an important, eloquent, and meaningful document, which he wrote himself.
Rather than a tissue of washed up Blue Dog bromides put together by the pollsters HRC relies on before she says or does anything.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 12:35 PM:Shorter Obama:
America must forsake both baby and bath water to follow the one true path of Obama. All bad things may be overcome if we only wish hard enough and believe in Obama.
(Yes, I know all politicians have a narcissistic streak, but yikes.)
BluePuppy wrote on December 27, 2007 12:35 PM:"they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking."
He just about nailed it right there. Where's the substance? My partner was an Obama supporter--she told me he reminded her of JFK and that she couldn't connect with Hillary emotionally--but she's now leaning towards Hillary. I wanted to know why: perhaps I could persuade others with her rational. She said that Obama seems mean when he's attacking while Hillary seems self-deprecating, she doesn't like his health care plan, and he seems too inexperienced regarding international affairs. Hillary, she said, is ready for the job. She literally said "I'm warming to her." I couldn't have said it better myself. I suspect many voters in Iowa and elsewhere, as polls are starting pick up on, have gone through a similar decision-making process. Obama is very appealing, but not ready for the presidency, IMO.
Greg, If I missed it I am sorry. I never whine. I only ask for fairness. IMHO I think Hrc will if fairness is given or not. I expect it from here. I misspoke so I mannedupped. Thanks Greg.
dajafi wrote on December 27, 2007 12:37 PM:What I hope isn't lost on everyone here, and (perhaps less likely) everyone out there in the states that matter and beyond, is that this is all a shot in the dark.
We can't know for sure, because the future isn't pre-ordained, who can do the best job for the things I assume we all want. Clinton certainly knows the players, and the country certainly knows her--to the extent that anyone so deliberately vague can be knowable. At any rate, minds are made up about her. Edwards is extremely forthcoming about the problems of the country as he sees them, and aggressive in his rhetoric about how to address them. I guess the thinking, for partisans of those two candidates, is that Clinton can achieve change by making deals and Edwards can do so by blasting away opposition. I disagree, because I don't see any motivation on the part of those who hate Hillary to make deals with her, and the forces aligned against Edwards are, in my opinion, too strong to be destroyed by frontal assault. But as I said, we don't know.
Nor do we know about Obama. I support him, but I don't "worship" him, nor am I blind to his actual and potential shortcomings--the self-regard, the absence of specifics on some policy areas.
But I hope this excellent speech, and the campaign he's run over the last two months, puts to rest one line of attack against this guy: that he's not tough enough to lead.
As he promised, he didn't take the attacks of the Clinton machine and the Beltway establishment that supports it lying down. He hasn't backed off his health care plan (and, while I initially thought Krugman was correct in his critique, now I'm not so sure Obama doesn't have it right after all). The Republicans won't "define" him, as they did with John Kerry and as they've substantially done, over the better part of two decades, with Hillary Clinton. And he won't waver or blink when face-to-face with the world's less salutary leaders--nor will he "look into someone's soul" to see what he wants to see.
Obama might not be up to the enormous challenges of our time. But I think he's got a far better shot than anyone else running for a presidential nomination today.
dcshungu wrote on December 27, 2007 12:41 PM:The two faces of Obama: A divided "uniter"?
On November 4, 2004, the Chicago Sun-Times reported:
Ridiculing it as "a silly question," Democrat Barack Obama pledged Wednesday he would resist any overtures to run for president or vice president before the end of his six-year term as a U.S. senator.
"I was elected yesterday," Obama said. "I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense.
"So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."
On December 27, 2007, Barack Hussein Obama said:
Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and began an unlikely journey to change America.
I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election – at this moment – because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Because we are at a defining moment in our history.
Which one is the real you, Senator? Why should we believe anything that you say now? It seems to us that just 2+ years after you had made a solemn promise to the people of Illinois, you have just sacrificed that promise and your credibility at the altar of your colossal political ambition!
paDem wrote on December 27, 2007 12:42 PM:Outstanding, elegant and eloquent. The Billary campaign, and now the hypocrite Edwards ("My Hands are Tied" while taking massive special interest money), have shot their wad.
I like Obama's style. He plays it cool and lays back, waiting for the opponents to show their hand. Then he shapes a counter-attack that has legs and power.
Barack "scaryblackmuslimnewbie" Obama, indeed. By the way, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the stupid racial and ethnic slurs, poorly disguised as "I don't think this country is ready to elect a black man." Get a new talking point from the campaigns you're working for, will ya? This one is flat dumb. All-white Iowa seems to like Obama just fine, in case you hoped we hadn't noticed.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 12:43 PM:Holy Cow, does that man ever stop talking? Anyone knows how his campaign keeps people awake during all that; do they spray the poor audience with water?
waka waka wrote on December 27, 2007 12:45 PM:"Obama might not be up to the enormous challenges of our time. But I think he's got a far better shot than anyone else running for a presidential nomination today."
AMEN! Edwards would be eaten alive in the general no matter how "tough" he talks. Plus, he's got no $$! Hot rhetoric won't get you very far in a national campaign.
Hillary would be the rallying cry for every depressed GOPers and would not bring over the independents necessary to win. Plus many Democrats, like myself, just can't bring themselves to vote for her.
That leaves Obama, the man who has weathered every attack the Hillary machine has waged only to emerge stronger. He is something different and new. A disarming political talent like his is the ultimate weapon against the tired, ossified tactics of Rove. He would crush the opposition and sweep a lot of Dems into office in his wake.
We've got the potential to make history guys! Open your eyes!
sadhana khan wrote on December 27, 2007 12:46 PM:I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.
So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations committee. Right?
When Oprah went down to SC, there was all this Obama is the messiah hype. Oprah said –He is the one - But you know what, Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning
So let me get this straight, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan if dictators and militants run free, but he opposes the war in 2002, then says he supports Bush's conduct of the war on terror in 2004 while campaigning, then says if he had been in congress he might have voted different. While campaigning he says he despises the Patriot Act, yet upon arrival, he votes to renew it. While he has been in Washington, his votes on Iraq and Iran are identical to Hillary Clinton. He has criticized Hillary for her vote on Kyl/Lieberman, yet he missed the vote because Campaigning is more important than national security.
WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE TO CHANGE WASHINGTON? he sounds like all other democrats. Say something in the campaign, but become a centrist once in office.
dajafi wrote on December 27, 2007 12:47 PM:The projection of the Hillbots is really astonishing.
Nobody is more ambitious, self-obsessed and willing to put personal aggrandizement ahead of the national good than Hillary Clinton. Half the country detests her, she'd cost the Democrats control of the House (ask the likes of Heath Shuler, Brad Ellsworth and a dozen other Democratic freshmen in Bush-supporting districts if they relish running for re-election on the ticket with the most hated woman in Red America), and even if she gets her 50.00001 percent, she won't be able to accomplish anything because there's no reason for any Republican to work with her.
But, darnit, Bill screwed around with that tubby intern and she's owed this, the national welfare be damned.
Two things I'd love to see, but surely never will: a compelling explanation for why Hillary Clinton is running for president, and an example of political bravery or leadership from Hillary Clinton.
obamaoverrated wrote on December 27, 2007 12:48 PM:NOTE TO OBAMA supporters, linking to Washingtontimes articles as source of conservatives supporting is ludicrous. The author of that OBAMA SURGE article runs a non profit that is advocates spreading conservatism to minorities.
Conservatives want OBAMA to win, not because they want to see HIllary lose... they could care less about that... but because they want to KEEP POWER!
dcshungu wrote on December 27, 2007 12:48 PM:Recycled...
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 12:35 PM:Shorter Obama:
America must forsake both baby and bath water to follow the one true path of Obama. All bad things may be overcome if we only wish hard enough and believe in Obama.
The spectacle of so many believing that Obama has the "vision and gut instinct" to be the "uniter" who would save the free world reminds me of the "Yangs" in
Star Trek Epsiode 54, Season 2: The Omega Glory
When Kirk and Spock mention the word "freedom" while plotting a jailbreak, the Yang perks up and tells Kirk that he has spoken a [holy] worship word.
How is this fiction just like the fiction that is Obama Glory? Simple:
Obama can surely talk the big talk -- to a chorus of amens -- but with no evidence that he has what it would take to walk the walk, it seems to me that this is the same sort of blind and primitive belief in empty rhetoric that had turned a tattered piece of the US Constitution into the "Holy Words" for the Yangs!
The two faces of Obama: A divided "uniter"?
-----------
oh man you really nailed him there dcshungu. someone says they aren't going to run for office and then ends up running? such an unprecedented act is sure to galvanize the political establishment and outrage the American people.
....
eric wrote on December 27, 2007 12:50 PM:He gives good speeches. That's about it, though. Hope, optimism, proving the critics wrong, once in a generation opportunity... blah blah.
With his great rhetoric, I'm conviced - I'll buy the car! But I don't think he has one to sell.
What happens if he closes this deal?
blackstar wrote on December 27, 2007 12:51 PM:The spectacle of so many believing that Obama has the "vision and gut instinct" to be the "uniter" who would save the free world reminds me of the "Yangs"...
-----------
your characterizations only succeed in telling the rest of us you have no actual grasp of the point being made by the person you're characterizing.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 12:52 PM:Oh, come on demac, you can do better than that. That was a weak smear. Try again.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 12:52 PM:kefa wrote: out of fairness....no other person had his/her script posted out like BHO's but TPM decided to post BHO's text.....it does show bias. I guess you folks felt BHO needs a helping hand getting the message out.Out of fairness, no other campaign did publish such a huge piece of… text. I guess it’s part of the “change” to ramble endlessly about himself instead of producing a catchy ad like a normal candidate would. Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 12:54 PM:
Demac, try again. That one was really shallow. A catchy ad? What are you selling soap?
blackstar wrote on December 27, 2007 12:54 PM:I guess it’s part of the “change” to ramble endlessly about himself instead of producing a catchy ad like a normal candidate would.
-----------
if you prefer a "catchy ad" to an earnest staking out of where the candidate stands and where their goals are, its no wonder you suppose Hillary Clinton.
paDem wrote on December 27, 2007 12:54 PM:Star Trek references now? Wow.
I think the speech has hit a nerve (not that I believe for a moment that any of the Usual Suspects spewing above have actually, you know, READ the speech. That would shock beyond words if they had.)
All we're getting are the usual creepy generalized slime comments that the campaign has authorized, specifically those things that they think will have the effect of wearing some of the charisma off that Hillary doensn't have in the first place.
And she's less electable, a less courageous leader, and -- oh yes, there's this: She voted to authorized Bush to invade Iraq and then aggressively defended that unmitigated disaster for FIVE FRICKIN' YEARS, only becoming the "change candidate" when she realized she had to to get through the primaries.
The Hillary surrogates here can't think of anything positive to say about their candidate, so they have to drag everyone else down to their level.
what a surprise.
Wake up, America! We're better than this.
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 12:57 PM:Outstanding! Heaven forbid that the Democrats would field a candidate who can inspire America and clean out Clinton-Bushville
And now, in seven days, you have a chance once again to prove the cynics wrong. In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. And that’s why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has -- with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path.We’ve seen this script many times before...
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/25/PH2007122501200.jpg
I just don't understand all of the support for Hillary on this blog (of course, it's the same six people who apparently have nothing better to do than tout their candidate's alleged "strength" and "experience" all day long).
When has your lady ever led on anything? Point to anything that she has been the unequivocal leader on; name one policy where we would not be seeing results without her contribution. I don't see any real contribution she's made, and she's had a much higher profile and a longer tenure in the Senate than Obama.
And, in anticipation of your response that Obama's resume is thin, even thinner than hers, you know what: I agree. But, unlike you, I am not fooling myself.
Both Hillary and Obama supporters are making leaps of faith that their respective candidates will fulfill the hope they place in them. Hillary's record, unfortunately for you (and the country if she's elected), doesn't lend much support that your faith will be rewarded.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 12:59 PM:John....the same Conserv. Wash Times?
The same Times will kill BHO when the time is right. Don't you smell something funny?
All the Conserv. Papers, Novak's, Etc all just love BHO. All the Rush's, Beck's, Hannity's say he's a likeable guy. He's just great. HRC's got a cackle. She can't be trusted. We need change. You guys fall for it. So you find a fresh face. They lay off the fresh face. In fact they help you attack HRC, they even give you ammo to attack HRC, they give BHO ammo and ideas to attack HRC with, hoping BHO wins. IF BHO does get the nod, they then turns neg. with all the guns blazing with all the things you guys can't stand and again we're caught with our pants down like every year with our 2 1/2 year fresh year Senator who has never ran a serious race another 8 years out of the WH looking in. Well I'm gonna fight that story never happening. Go HRC.
blackstar,
It’s not so much a comment on what I prefer as a comment on the tactical wisdom of it. But, hey, I could be wrong. Maybe endless speeches are the efficient way to go these days. Allow me to doubt it though.
Great speech, and it reminds me again of Obama's advantages over Hillary. On the basis of his message, his ability to communicate, his ability to inspire, and his track record of being on the right side of the important issues of the day, he deserves to be our party's nominee.
Not to mention the fact that not only would Hillary lose, the coat tails of her pantsuit would drive the Republicans into the majority in both houses.
Obama '08.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:05 PM:Excellent speech--it will probably be perfected by Dec 31st. And don't take my word, look at the wild spinning and knee-jerk reactions from his dedicated detractors that patrol this site. Just pure spin....
oh man you really nailed him there dcshungu. someone says they aren't going to run for office and then ends up running? such an unprecedented act is sure to galvanize the political establishment and outrage the American people.
You missed the point, anonymous one... If it was not intentionally, here's the translation:
The whole hype about Obama is that he is a different "kind of politician"; so, therefore, he cannot be excused by saying that "hey, what's the big deal, every politician does it!" He is the messiah, remember? He is not your garden variety politician, remember?
Got it now? Obama is all talk, no spine or core beliefs. He is his own anti-thesis.
Anon wrote on December 27, 2007 1:06 PM:We don’t need more heat. We need more light.
Apparently, what we need are more cliches.
Carol wrote on December 27, 2007 1:07 PM:I believe if people vote for Hillary Clinton, they will be voting for the status quo. If they vote Edwards or Obama, they want change. Does anyone disagree?
brad wrote on December 27, 2007 1:07 PM:Great speech, and it reminds me again of Obama's advantages over Hillary. On the basis of his message, his ability to communicate, his ability to inspire, and his track record of being on the right side of the important issues of the day, he deserves to be our party's nominee.
Not to mention the fact that not only would Hillary lose, the coat tails of her pantsuit would drive the Republicans into the majority in both houses.
Obama '08.
paDem wrote on December 27, 2007 1:07 PM:Anonymous: first of all...."anonymous?"
Sheesh.
Second, pull your head out of your nether regions and realize that having crossover appeal to republicans and independents is actually a strength in the general election, and a definite plus once elected with broad support.
Oh, wait. I forgot: Hillary can't claim that, and won't have a mandate of any kind... assuming she would win, which is very unlikely given her high negatives. (Taking a cue from her campaign, and supporters like those here, can anyone imagine that her negatives will not be higher than the moon, despite her laughable "likeability tour?". the only candidate that needs a likeablity tour is one who's very unlikeable.)
Duh.
I think it is very smart of Obama to distinguish between Republican and independent voters versus their recent leadership, at least if the Democrats want to build a working coalition.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 1:10 PM:"Excellent speech--it will probably be perfected by Dec 31st. And don't take my word, look at the wild spinning and knee-jerk reactions from his dedicated detractors that patrol this site. Just pure spin...."
Heh. My theory is that it's one 'dedicated detractor'. It's easy enough to change "names" or, even, to just post as "anonymous". We shouldn't assume it's a gaggle of supporters.
One guy. Hoping for a job in an administration that will never be.
JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:12 PM:That's the speech I've been waiting for. It's all been building up to that, really.
I spent the summer warming up to Hillary, because it seemed like resistance was futile at that point. But I've turned the corner, I've come around to the realization that The Person really does matter, and that I don't want That Person to bear the last name of Bush or Clinton. My entire adult life has been under the rule of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Since 1980!! It's staggering when you really start to think about it, when you really allow yourself to go there.
It's a joke to me that the Clintons say they can be the agents of change at this point. I don't want the next President to represent nothing more than a power shift between long-standing insiders. It's just not good enough for me. 28 years is too long to wait for CHANGE.
Obama '08. Close that sale, Mr. Obama!
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 1:12 PM:BluePuppy,
Thanks for that anecdote about your partner. I've been kind of figuring that some of what we're seeing in the polls the last couple of weeks was likely due to Obama continuing his attacks on Clinton past the point of diminishing returns. That kind of negative campaigning can definitely come with and expiration date stamped on it. My sense is that he started too early and kept it up too long, particularly in Iowa where they have a pronounced tendency to punish that sort of behavior. But I guess we're about a week away now from finding out for sure.
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 1:19 PM:CalD,
Obama had to go negative to continue his usage of the “change” cliché. Although nobody knows what his “change” actually means (see the long long looong text above) it must, at the very least, mean differentiation from Bush. And as that is not enough to set him apart from any other Democratic candidate, Obama has to go negative on the Clinton Presidency.
With all that “change” and with so little substance Obama sort of painted himself into that negative corner.
NCSteve wrote on December 27, 2007 1:20 PM:I was hoping I could hit "send" before the food fight started. Then IE hit me.
Hillary's coverage was more negative than the others? BFD. There's no Constitutional right to getting the same percentage of positive coverage as the other candidates. And thank God for that, because if there were, Rudy would still be on top on the other side.
I had a (seasonally appropriate) epiphany over the holiday. It has long been obvious to me that a lot of the vitriol that's been flung between the Obama and Clinton supporters around here--and I admit to having flung some myself--has been based upon our mutual inability to understand what those misguided people on the other side can possible see in their candidate. My epiphany came after reading the exchange between Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012762.php
And the link in the above to Mark Schmitt here:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary
Here's the epiphany: without breaking the analogy by trying to cram Edwards into it, it seems to me that this election is the Democrats' version of Bush I vs. Reagan in 1980. Hillary and Obama are both much smarter than either of those guys could ever hope to be, but the dynamic is the same: Ultimate Technocrat vs. Inspiring Big Vision Guy.
Hillary's supporters are people who either believe that we always need need a skilled technocrat because they are highly suspicious, or even afraid, of inspiring big vision guys, or else people who can go either way most of the time but think that, at this particular junction in history, the thing we absolutely have to have is a highly skilled technocrat and that an inspiring big vision guy right now could be a disaster.
Flip that around, and you get Obama's base. And, for what its worth, I think I'm in the second category on Obama--I can usually go either way on the technocrat vs. vision thing, but, right now, at this moment in history, I think the vision thing is imperative.
So, what's my point? Well, I have two, actually.
First, once you recognize that this difference between us exists, you see that there's no point in getting nasty about it. Its just the way we are--and yeah, we naturally get on each other's nerves--but lighten up and deal
Second, the good news for all of us is that, in the case of Bush I and Reagan, the difference really was that simple and that stark, but for us, it isn't. Hillary can be inspiring (*gritting teeth to make grudging admission*). If I were a single mother trying to support two kids on ten bucks an hour, she'd be my hero. But Obama has shown he can be a skilled technocrat. Fun, though it may be, to diss him for not being in D.C., he's gotten a pretty impressive set of laws passed in Illinois and in D.C., especially, for a junior senator, and he did it by working the levers, not by being a celebrity.
The Page's Mark Halperin called this speech a "tour de force" and the "best written speech of the campaign."
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 1:21 PM:whats interesting is the hostility Senator Obama is facing.
Who would have thought that "hope" could be so frightening and so dangerous as to garner this type of response.
I don't understand it, really. Obama means it. He really does. I would have thought, that by now, people would have figured that out by now.
He's right though. He really is. When is the next time our country is going to be in a position to elect a man named Barack Obama?
What those who are against him fail to understand (or maybe they understand it too well and thats why they oppose him) is that once you elect Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States, there is no going back.
Thats a line you can't uncross.
He really is a transformational candidate at a time when we desperately need to be transfomed from what we are becoming.
Can anyone HONESTLY say that about anyone else running?
Oh, yeah. And he has been right on everything. All his policies and positions are right.
So for those of you asking, "Where's the beef?" He's got a whole butcher shop of solid, substantial, well thought out, ideas.
If you don't support him, fine. Make your case for the candidate you support. But don't drag him down and make him into a shallow, naive poltician who thinks that all you have to do is "hope" for something better.
That is not who he is. And that is not the kind of president he will be.
the real cookie wrote on December 27, 2007 1:22 PM:paDem - what a nasty post. Are you really a Democrat wrtitng something like that to another Democrat? Do you think your post helps Obama in any way? Do you think smearing the person who will probably win the nomination is a good tactic? I thought people who read TPM were a cut above the regular. Boy was I wrong.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 1:23 PM:Excellent post NCSteve.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 1:27 PM:Ok demac or any other clinton II supporter claiming that this speech is negative, what is negative about the speech? I don't see it.
jeanba wrote on December 27, 2007 1:29 PM:Seriously guys/gals this guy (Obama) writes good speeches! You may not like him but tell me if you don't think the speech was good, just put away all your bias and tell me.
Onother thing, we need a working coalition to change, look at our current Congress how many important bills have they passed? Obama is right when he advocates for a crossover, independents and moderate republicans working together with a majority democrat Congress. I think Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Dodd would also be able to attract some independents and moderate republicans.
Really, really good stuff, NCSteve. Thank you for that!
There's also this part inside me (I try to suppress it but sometimes it comes out, all snarl-toothed) that wonders if fervent Clinton supporters are interested in re-fighting every culture war battle we've endured since 1992. Prolong this division, if you will. Almost as if they might actually want that.
I just want to move on. And there's something about Obama that represents my heart's desire, that glimmer of hope and that recognition of real leadership. He represents something powerful to me, and it's difficult to put into words. But I don't see that in Clinton... that's ok, but this time around it just isn't good enough for me.
I grit my teeth with Kerry and I'm not looking forward to Round 2.
jerry wrote on December 27, 2007 1:31 PM:If he really ended his speech with "Thank You" rather than with "God Bless You and God Bless America", we should all vote for him!
Mt. St. Helens wrote on December 27, 2007 1:31 PM:If Obama wins, the Republicans are gonna snap a collar around his neck, and parade him around DC like a show dog. He has sucked up so far to the GOP that he won't be able to make a progressive move anywhere. He won't get us out of Iraq - he's too stupid and he's too compromised. He's gonna do what the GOP lets him. And he's going to tell you that that's bi-partisanship.
A vote for Obama is a vote for four more years of Bush policy. I wonder how long before Rove consults with him directly. I wonder if Rove already is?
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 1:34 PM:John,
The Page's Mark Halperin also thinks Hugh Hewitt is a fine American.
LJ wrote on December 27, 2007 1:35 PM:I guess I stand in stark contrast to those here who are upset that Barack Obama changed his mind and decided to run for president in 2008. When he announced he was running, I was thrilled.
I had planned to support Russ Feingold in 2008. During the 2006 elections Feingold was giving all of the signs of a politician who was going to run. The only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, he also voted against authorizing military action against Iraq, and even voted against No Child Left Behind. When I check the roll call for any given vote, Feingold almost always votes in a way that truly represents me.
When Feingold announced he would not run, I looked at the presidential field and here's what I saw. Four current or former senators who voted opposite of Feingold on several pieces of important legislation, plus Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel.
To move from supporting a champion of civil liberties and a true anti-war candidate to supporting Clinton, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd and their votes in favor of both the war and the patriot was a real stretch and not something I looked forward to. I like Kucinich, but I knew he would be blocked by the media, blogs, and the Democratic Party itself from getting a fair hearing. I had never heard of Gravel. I had hopes for Richardson, but needed to learn more.
I remembered how John Kerry's criticisms of the Iraq War were disarmed by the Republicans because of his vote in favor authorization. The last thing I wanted was to relive 2004 and watch us put up an allegedly anti-war candidate who had no credibility because of having voted for the war.
Enter Barack Obama and his 2002 anti-war speech. Here was a candidate that opposed the war from the beginning and could attack the Republicans on Iraq and be taken seriously because he wasn't tainted by having supported the invasion at its inception. I jumped on the band wagon and have never jumped off.
JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:39 PM:Mt. St. Helens,
Your argument may have been more persuasive had you left out the blatant slavery imagery. Good grief. :-(
jeanba wrote on December 27, 2007 1:40 PM:"he's too stupid and he's too compromised. He's gonna do what the GOP lets him."
Mt St. Helens,
I hope you did not mean what you wrote in your post. Please don't smear other people, let guess you are a Clinton supporter angry because the guy is trying to build a working coalition? How do you expect to govern when 50% of the country is against you? Again look at our current democratic majority, have they even stop the war? No because they can't attract enough moderate republicans, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson can. Hillary can't it's true but sad!
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 1:42 PM:Mt. St. Helens erupts:
"If Obama wins, the Republicans are gonna snap a collar around his neck, and parade him around DC like a show dog. He has sucked up so far to the GOP that he won't be able to make a progressive move anywhere. He won't get us out of Iraq - he's too stupid and he's too compromised....yadda yadda yadda
You could replace with "Obama" with "Hillary" and credibly make the same exact argument.
anon wrote on December 27, 2007 1:47 PM:There's just no getting around the fact that the whole "I brought Republicans and Democrats together" stuff is a load of naive crap. Not only will he be unable to do that if elected, it is not desirable!
The last thing Democrats need to do or that Americans need is to elect yet another corporate/centrist Democrat. So what if he's black? He's still owned lock, stock, and barrel by the same interests Hillary is beholden to and the same interests all the centrists are beholden to. Those interests are the enemies, not the allies of the common people of this country which includes the vast middle classes of people for white and blue collar.
Obama's theme song should be the Who's "Won't get Fooled Again"
MEET THE NEW BOSS!
SAME AS THE OLD BOSS!
A vote for Obama is a vote for more of the same. If you think otherwise you're simply fooling yourself. You may feel good about voting for the black guy, but you'll still be fooling yourself. There's no way around this truth.
Unless we have someone who will fight for us--the people's interests, then whoever is elected will be fighting only for themselves and their corporate masters.
Mom wrote on December 27, 2007 1:48 PM:Good speech. No substance. Means nothing. If he gets nominated good luck with Rove and Co. Hope all of you Obama people are ready to fight the right wing machine that defeated Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and George McGovern. No reason to believe that they are going to change tactics because now it's Barak Obama but hey if he's up to the task let him have it. Name one Democratic presidential candidate that wasn't smacked down by the Repubicans since 1980 and wasn't named Clinton.
I'd feel safer with John McCain at the helm than Obama - at least he knows who the enemy is and I've never voted for a Repubican in 36 years.
Obama has overcome so much improbability. Why? - because he inspires so many different types of people. Imagine - we democrats can have the likable, charismatic candidate that attracts independents. Let's not do what we usually do, pick someone only democrats like and let the republicans win independents and moderates again. Let's not be timid like our current congressional democrats. Let's be BRAVE and go with this amazing opportunity!
JenJen wrote on December 27, 2007 1:55 PM:OK, Mom, I'll name one Democratic presidential candidate, not named Clinton, since 1980 who wasn't smacked down by the Republicans:
Al Gore. Received a half-million more votes than Smirky McChimp.
Look, I see what you're saying but like many Hillary supporters you're missing the obvious... Hillary DOES NOT EQUAL Bill. And it is not 1992 anymore. Bill had warmth, charm, wit and a speaking style that continues to mesmerize audiences. He could sell it. But I just don't think even he is going to be able to sell her to an electorate of which half already say they'll never, ever vote for her.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 2:00 PM:DemAC,
I think you're missing the point. Before Obama invented it, there was no Change®. For thounsands of years before Obama came, the world lay in darkness, everything was the same. (yikes.)
DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:10 PM:CalD,
I stand corrected.
JenJen wrote: Hillary DOES NOT EQUAL Bill.Congratulations! You’ve got it. We will not relive the 90’s, Newt Gingrich will not rise from the junk yard and she is not “Mrs Bill”.
Hillary Clinton will be an excellent 21st century President in her own right.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 2:21 PM:Really - to those of you saying don't vote for Obama because you are afraid of the republicans - well with that spine you should be in congress. But, if you do insist in voting out of fear - he does not rally their base, in fact he takes their moderates. So - be brave or be timid - he's still the smart choice.
JenJen - I love the name Smirky McChimp - it's so perfect!
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 2:23 PM:The Fierce Urgency of Now v. Mrs. Bill's Marriage Settlement
Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and began an unlikely journey to change America.
I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election – at this moment – because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.”
bebimbob wrote on December 27, 2007 2:24 PM:Absolutely brilliant speech. Not canned at all. Reminds me of JFK.
Remember, Obama wrote this speech. When Bush reads "Nooner's" platitudes, they ring hollow, but this is the stuff of a great, generous and inspiring mind.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 2:31 PM:she is not “Mrs Bill”
If you say so DemAC
But who will break the news to Bill?
eric wrote on December 27, 2007 2:34 PM:Reading through these comments, I notice some patterns: Obama people think that Hillary is the "status quo", an "insider" and doesn't represent adequate "change".
Hillary people are frightened by Obama's strong ability to talk about "change" and "optimism" in a broad, vague, almost naive way.
An interesting difference that I also see is that I don't hear Hillary people say they wouldn't support Obama if he were the nominee. I DO hear Obama people threaten this quite a lot. For all the optimisim on the Obama side, it sure seems like the support is really a movement AGAINST anything else. It rings of a movement, and that scares me.
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 2:37 PM:She is not "Mrs. Bill"
We interrupt this broadcast from the Mrs. Bill's Borg with
BREAKING NEWS!
LAWTON, Iowa - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took on the appearance of a family business as she headed into the final week of the race for Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses, driving home to activists the stakes in those caucuses and her view that she's ready for the job
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_po/clinton_iowa;_ylt=AkChVDymvg_yZ.iOzNXCa.AGw_IE
Same old poop
Outside special interest groups are pouring 3.2 million into Iowa to stop Obama
Eric... that's a very astute observation. I've honestly seen Clinton supporters say they would not support Obama or Edwards, though. I've just always taken it for granted they were speaking of their own state's primary.
As an Obama supporter, I would like to make it clear that I will not support her in the primary (I'm in Ohio, so it's a way off and I doubt it will matter by the time it's our turn), but I would certainly pull the lever for Clinton in the general election... because, sometimes, the lesser of two evils really is less evil.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement... but that's where I am, especially after the two-pronged Shaheen/Penn "cocaine drug dealer" attacks.
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 2:50 PM:eric,
you shouldn't be afraid of us Obama supporters. We Do believe in him and his cause.
And asking us to support someone who represents the exact opposite of that would contradict the movement you describe.
Why would we want to choose between the "lesser of two evils"...again, we;ve been down that road soooo many times.
I, cannot support Hillary. Not because of any personal malice but because I really honestly, sincerely, believe she is NOT what this country needs right now.
I have to put my country in front of my party.
If that means a republican wins, so be it.
I'll at least know i didn't settle for less than what this country deserves.
pjsauter wrote on December 27, 2007 3:12 PM:Reading through these comments, I notice some patterns....
Me too. The Hillary whiners cry that TPM is mean to Hillary. The Obama whiners whine that TPM is mean to Obama.
Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 3:15 PM:Eric...like I said....I will support whomever the Dems choose. I have asked BO/JE folks what will they do and I get no takers.
Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 3:18 PM:freaktown ....a Repub. is what you will take....seems that is just a spoiler talk. I didn't win so you don't either. SO little
so small.
Kefa, re CMPA: So even the right-wing folks at George Mason University find that the press correctly identifies Obama as a better candidate than Hillary. And your point is?
Count me among those who saw a pro-Hillary bias at TPM for the first year of the campaign (not to mention the pro-Lieberman bias c.2002-03), only moderated in the past two months as Obama's poll ratings have climbed. We're all human, including the great folks at TPM, and wanting to be aboard the winning train is part of being human.
Fortunately, voters seem to be putting principles over polls, values over "electibility," hope over fear. Hillary will win Iowa, but Obama will place second there and he'll win NH and take the election from there.
How much would you pay to witness the conversation between Bill and Hillary, when it becomes clear she has lost? Ouch.
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 3:31 PM:Eric wrote:An interesting difference that I also see is that I don't hear Hillary people say they wouldn't support Obama if he were the nominee. I DO hear Obama people threaten this quite a lot. For all the optimisim on the Obama side, it sure seems like the support is really a movement AGAINST anything else. It rings of a movement, and that scares me.
It's annoying I know. In 2003-04, everyone who wasn't a Deaniac had to endure a lot of these same tantrums. I've often said I think the too little attention has been given to the possible contribution some of Dean's loudest, most ill-mannered and sanctimonious entusiasts may have made to the speed and severity of his collapse. By the time the Iowa caucuses rolled around there were a lot of people rooting for that guy to lose and I am quite sure that was one of the reasons.
Last time around though, all those identical threats of staying home to sulk on election day if Dean were not the nominee were taken pretty seriously and much discussed and dissected by the punditry. Dean himself was even quoted on a couple of occasions saying, "these kids aren't transferable," (or words to that effect). But when all was said and done, 2004 actually ended up being a record year for turn-out among those core Dean demographics. So I guess all those folks threatening to hold their breath till they turned purple if Democrats dared to nominate anyone else must have either represented a very small, if very irritating minority, or else most of them subsequently did find it in themselves to show up on election day just the same.
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 3:33 PM:Kefa,
Well don't get me wrong. I'm voting for Obama, he will be on the ballot in november.
I was just playing out your little scenario...if i'm a bad person or a bad democrat because of that, so be it.
The truth is, if i thought Hillary was the best candidate, if i thought she was right for the country, i would vote for her.
But I don't. And what did it for me was her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Before that, i probably would have still supported her in a general.
But what that vote proved, was that she was willing to antaganize iran as long as it made her look tough in a general election.
And that she didn't at all learn ANYTHING from her Iraq vote.
How many "non-binding" resolutions against Iraq had ther been before the war. Bush used those as a way to build supprt for war. The same way he could use kyl-lieberman to warmonger against Iran (before the NIE which only damned hillary further in my mind).
What that vote proved to me was that Hillary felt that "looking tough" on national security was more important than doing what was right.
And i cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks personal political interests are more important than the well being of the country.
But like i said, this whole debate is moot because Obama will be the nominee. And i will be the first in line on voting to day to cast my vote for him.
Seems most of you are young and remember, as possibly an adult, only the 1990's and forward. A few of us--like me--go further back than that.
NCSteve, I agree with you. Obama has always reminded me of Reagan. Now, I never understood the responses to Reagan but there was absolutely no denying them--he drew in Independents, Democrats and inspired Republicans (even to this day). And I never "got" it. Obama does the same thing on the liberal side; and I certainly "get" it now. :)
Eric, I think you are right. I do view Hillary as the status quo; I rank her with the WDC-leadership of the Democratic Party. And I don't agree with most of these folks. Their votes on the Iraq War certainly separated them out--those voting for the war included Clinton, Reid, Edwards, Hoyer, Murtha. Do these names ring a bell? And I do think these folks are disconnected from the American voting public. I view a vote for Obama (or even Edwards) as a vote to wrench back power to the non-WDC crowd that has proven to be WRONG on so many fronts. The Iraq War Resolution was certainly one area where these Democrats (thankfully in the majority) were absolutely and totally WRONG.
As someone else said, I wanted Obama to run. I was delighted when he announced and I am one of those minor supporters who helped him exceed all fund-raising expectations and all small donor expectations. The reason in a nutshell? My next door neighbor and I (over 10 years now) are polar opposites on about every issue--but we aren't fighting and being disagreeable over every damned thing. And that's what rational Independents and Republicans also want from the Democratic Party.
Unfortuantely, I don't believe Hillary can deliver that. I do believe Obama can. (Plus I happen to like judgment and Obama was right on the Iraq War--and I was wrong BTW.) Obama won my support and Clinton has not. It really is that simple.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:41 PM:I think the conceptual problem some people are having is that they don't realize there is more than one way to build a working coalition.
One way to do it is just to compromise until enough people are willing to sign on to your agenda. The obvious problem with that approach is you can end up getting very little of what you originally wanted.
But another way is to create a political environment in which joining your working coalition is more attractive than seeking to block change. To the extent you can do that, you will have to compromise less in order to achieve your agenda.
To make that latter approach work, you have to be good at basic politics, including inspiring people to support you, which gives you the ability to reward the people who cooperate with you, and punish those who obstruct you, in future elections. And contrary to some of the suggestions above, this is not a new idea at all, although it has not been done effectively in the last few Administrations.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 4:02 PM:I guess it’s part of the “change” to ramble endlessly about himself instead of producing a catchy ad like a normal candidate would.
Two brief responses:
1) Most of those 'I know's and 'I have seen's are not really about him, even if they include the word "I." Anyone who reads the speech can see that much.
2) Back in the days of Lincoln or W.J. Bryant, folks used to turn out in huge crowds to listen to speechs of 2 or 3 hours. Sen Obama's speech was brief by comparison (for whatever that is worth).
CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 4:07 PM:Republicans have been ruthlessly successful in purging of moderates at this point and the rest aren't really all that easily inspired by anything sane people would find acceptable. Not to say that inspiration isn't a fine thing and all but realistically, I'm afraid that we're going to need to go with plan B.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 4:08 PM:I will support whomever the Dems choose. I have asked BO/JE folks what will they do and I get no takers.
Cod's whollop. Any number of my fellow Obama supporters and I have made quite clear that we will support the democratics nominee, whoever s/he might be. I have said it before and I will say it again - if Sen Clinton gets the nod, I will vote for her in the GE.
Now can we quit with the absurd argument-by-insult strategy by which those Edwards and Obama supporters who refuse to roll over and die before Sen Clinton are vituperated as "divisive" or "disloyal" or other similar nonsense?
tworivers wrote on December 27, 2007 4:10 PM:"But we resisted, even when we were written off, and ran a positive campaign that pointed out real differences and rejected the politics of slash and burn."
Obama has run a mostly positive campaign and should be commended for it. His views about the need to move beyond bitter partisanship also makes a great deal of sense to me, especially given in the current climate in Washington
(and in light of how little Congress is able to accomplish these days).
That said, I have to say I have concerns about Obama being overly concerned with "taking the high road" during the general election. Were he to become the Democratic nominee, he would surely face a barrage of right wing negativity/smears/distortions the likes of which he has never before faced. Would he be willing to fight back, to give as good as he got?
I guess I'm just concerned that Obama might be prone to making the same mistake Kerry made in 2004 when he took the high road and didn't respond immediately to the Swift Boats attacks (this along with an overly cautious campaign is what did Kerry in, IMO)
In a general election, the Democratic nominee (whoever it ends up being) is going to have to face up to a Republican sh#tstorm of amazing magnitude. We know this from the last several elections. The person we choose to be the general election nominee needs to realize beforehand the severity of what they're up against, and be willing to give as good as they get.
I don't know if Obama would be any worse at dealing with this than Hillary or Edwards (he may very well be better).
Any Obama supporters out there care to address this question about their candidate's general election toughness?
For the record, I'm undecided (mostly wavering between Edwards and Obama).
CalD,
Are you referring to Republican officials and other party leaders, or actual Republican voters?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 4:56 PM:Hillary's coverage was more negative than the others? BFD. There's no Constitutional right to getting the same percentage of positive coverage as the other candidates. And thank God for that, because if there were, Rudy would still be on top on the other side.
Indeed not. More to the point, the thrust of the "the media are giving Obama a pass" or "the media are picking on Clinton" memes depends on the premise that the media only cover this or that story in order to advance an agenda. Is it not possible that Sen Clinton gets negative coverage because she has done things that, when reported, reflect ill on her? Is it not possible that Sen Obama gets positive coverage because he has done things which, when reported, reflect well on him?
In other words, is a preponderance of positive or negative coverage necessarily and ipso facto an indication of bias? Is it not possible that such an inbalance is an indication that the situation of one candidate is objectively more admirable than the situation of another?
Larry Geater wrote on December 27, 2007 5:06 PM:TwoRivers
He has not failed to respond when attacked. He will not fail to do so in the general election. His response is so skilled that it does not take the form of an attack. It takes the form of making his oponent look like a fool for bringing it up in the first place. Hillary will stand toe to toe with her oponent and we would see the bloodiest campeign ever. Barak will make them look bad without looking like he was ever in the fight. They will, like Hillary, never be able to lay a glove on him.
LJ wrote on December 27, 2007 6:29 PM:Here's video of the speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE
Jim Martin wrote on December 27, 2007 8:52 PM:dcshungu wrote on December 27, 2007 12:41 PM:
On December 27, 2007, Barack Hussein Obama said:
Typical dcshungu class there. And, as usual, straight out of the DLC/GOP playbook.
dcshungu is, however, suspiciously silent in the discussions on this post.
Jim Martin wrote on December 27, 2007 9:21 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 12:31 PM:
Obama: "blah, blah, blah."I agree with Kevin Drum:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012769.php
Um, why?
More to the point, did you read the comments? Or the Krugman piece Drum linked to, and the comments there? I don't have a clear idea about the effect of a mandate in the context of some kind of universal health care policy, but there's substantive discussion in the comments of the two posts, and it seems pretty clear that it's not a slam dunk issue. There's more discussion of the issue here -- and again, the points raised in that post seem, at least, plausible -- and they don't favor Krugman (or Drum). (NB. According to his bio, this blogger has spent a good chunk of his career working for large insurance companies, so I take his comments, too, with a grain of salt.)
Krugman, to his credit, at least discusses the issue. Drum, otoh, takes it as a given and uses it as a club to beat Obama with. And, as a commenter on Drum's page notes, nobody has yet been able to explain to me why forcing people to pay their money insanely wealthy "health insurance" corporations can be described, as Drum and Krugman do, as "progressive" -- but I'm willing to listen. (Yes, everyone should pay in. No, they shouldn't have to pay Cigna, Aetna, Blue Cross, or any of the other megacorps who have made billions out of denying coverage to Americans.)
But I know. Discussing that, or even recognizing it as an issue to be discussed, would require, you know, thought and attention.
On a slightly different, though Krugman-related topic, Krugman wrote in this Slate post:
Nor am I suggesting that we should forgive and forget; I very much hope that the next president will open the records and let the full story of the Bush era's outrages be told.
Does Krugman -- or anyone here -- think HRC is the most likely candidate to do what Krugman suggests? Seriously, can Krugman or anyone else claim that with a straight face?
Beyond that, I do grow really tired of of the Obama-Clinton food fights that seem to take up the bulk of the comments on the TPMEC posts. There are other people running, you know. Some of them even talk about, you know, issues, rather than someone's middle name or grade school education or haircut.
Jim Martin wrote on December 27, 2007 9:27 PM:pjsauter wrote on December 27, 2007 3:12 PM:
Reading through these comments, I notice some patterns....Me too. The Hillary whiners cry that TPM is mean to Hillary. The Obama whiners whine that TPM is mean to Obama.
Me three. And the rest of us wonder when TPM, and the Hillary-Obama food-warriors, will realize that there are candidates other than the MSM-anointed ones running, and that there are, you know, issues to discuss.
Sharon, FL wrote on December 28, 2007 4:10 PM:Hillary is poison for the Democrats. I've been a voting Democrat I turned 18. If she gets the nod I will stay home.
