Obama's Final Televised Appeal To Iowans
Here it is: Obama's two minute closing appeal to Iowans, which ran during 6PM newscasts in the state tonight...
Comments (93)
DM wrote on January 2, 2008 7:25 PM:Great!
Go Obama!
GoBama
The Bush-Clinton era begins to end tomorrow
Hope the Goldwater Girl finishes third
Powerful.
Brought me to tears!
Meanwhile, the political stalkeer, line stealer strikes again.
Ben Smith just reported that Hillary, in Davenport, just 'borrowed' Obama's signature campaign line, by telling folks she 'was fired up and ready to go".
Not only that, a poster there said that Hillary on NPR this morning 'borrowed' Obama's stump speech phrase, to say that Iowans 'want to lift the hood and kick the tires'. Another poster reported that Wolfson on Hardball today just now also 'borrowed' this same line, but Matthews callled Wolfson on it, responding, "you stole that line from Obama!'
Is Hillary morphing herself again, or what?
john mccutchen wrote on January 2, 2008 8:08 PM:Compare THAT to Hillary's dismal recital of the ills of Bush followed by a rallying cry of hope for change....a Clinton!
Joe Scarborough and Chris Mathews agree - Obama is "like nitrogylcerin". He'd "change the face of American politics"
Derek wrote on January 2, 2008 8:11 PM:Meanwhile, the political stalkeer, line stealer strikes again.Ben Smith just reported that Hillary, in Davenport, just 'borrowed' Obama's signature campaign line, by telling folks she 'was fired up and ready to go".
Not only that, a poster there said that Hillary on NPR this morning 'borrowed' Obama's stump speech phrase, to say that Iowans 'want to lift the hood and kick the tires'. Another poster reported that Wolfson on Hardball today just now also 'borrowed' this same line, but Matthews callled Wolfson on it, responding, "you stole that line from Obama!'
Is Hillary morphing herself again, or what?
She also said FIRED UP! READY TO GO!
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 8:14 PM:Hillary wears more makeup
Than Tammy Faye Baker
From the New York Times
And today, the campaign has 625 people going door-to-door today to knock on the door of every voter who has signaled support for Mrs. Clinton, and every undecided voter leaning her way – likely many thousands of Iowans.DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 8:18 PM:
Nice to see Obama back on the air instead of on Drudge. Obama’s running to the right of everyone else notwithstanding, says Obama: “Even if it’s true, it wasn’t intentional”.
No doubt Obama was for Drudge before he wasn’t.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 8:25 PM:DemAC
You are a liar about Drudge
Go back to your Goldwater Girl
Nice to see Obama back on the air instead of on Drudge. Obama’s running to the right of everyone else notwithstanding, says Obama: “Even if it’s true, it wasn’t intentional”.
Other than on health care, the only ways in which Obama is allegedly "running to the right of everyone else" have absolutely nothing to do with policy or principle. It's just theater for the easily distracted. The fact that so many in the liberal blogosphere could get in a tizzy about trivial distractions like the placement of web ads, while being unable to recognize important substantive distinctions - e.g., his more progressive appraoach to foreign policy - is pretty disappointing.
Anonymous wrote: You are a liar about DrudgeYeah, you wish, don’t you? brm wrote on January 2, 2008 8:30 PM:
Must have been photoshopped by Hillary and her slime machine.
Go to Drudge right name and tell me what you see
You and the rest of the Clintonites are damned liars and sleazy campaigners
In comparing a few things tonight closing vids...
Clinton soft and light..
Obama a little darker but after all it is dark after 6...
as for the kick tires..geeze that line has been around forever and is not an Obama original...
Both are quality videos..
Ironically Edwards video during the evening hour..did not feature him..
http://www.johnedwards.com/ads/bishop/
Remember ANY of the three will defeat the bloody surviver of the Republican Primaries...Any of the three can take the heat from the attack..
We only disagree on what happens after the 08 victory...
Peace/Dance/Victory
Who cares?
If the democratic party is IGNORANT enough to nominate Barack Obama, the Democratic Party is guaranteed a loss in 2008.
We all are screwed, and since we are, I'm going to get my enjoyment from telling them "I TOLD YOU SO" (aka, "I told you you were stupid").
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 8:35 PM:RS wrote: Other than on health care, the only ways in which Obama is allegedly "running to the right of everyone else" have absolutely nothing to do with policy or principle.Oh, you wish so hard. Obama’s right wing policies cover far more ground then health care. Not that health care is small or unimportant thing anyway.
Even a progressive netroot icon admits:
“Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified. Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullshit about being a "uniter" and "compassionate". He can even pull a Bush, I suppose, and claim a "mandate" on policies he blurred or ignored on the campaign. But we've seen how a lack of true mandate has crushed Bush's presidency and made him the most unpopular and least effective president in history. I'd rather have our candidate elected promising progressive reform, especially in a year where the American people seem to crave such solutions.”
Excuse me while I vomit. What a bunch of bullsh*it. Vote Hillary!!!!!!!!!!
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 8:43 PM:Obama fans who still believe their anointed one to be a hero of the left should make well to consider why Democrats shun their hero while Republicans embrace him.
It’s not forbidden to run to the right in the Democratic Party – heck, it’s a big tent party. Feel free to vote for a right wing candidate like Obama if that’s your political inclination. But to deliberately fool yourselves into thinking Obama to be some sort of progressive, now that’s just stupid and hypocritical.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 8:46 PM:Oh, you wish so hard. Obama’s right wing policies cover far more ground then health care. Not that health care is small or unimportant thing anyway.DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 8:46 PM:And then you go on and fail to point to any of those so-called right wing policies.
And on health care, while I'm pro-mandates myself, even by conservative estimates, Obama's plan covers more people than Kerry's 04 plan and far more than Gore's 00 plan. It's more like Bradley '00 plan.
I know what Kos said. By his own admission, he's not a policy guy, and the birth of his political engagement was within the past decade. If you're not a policy guy and have no familiarity with our political history, you shouldn't pretend to be in the business of telling people whose policies are right-wing or left-wing. Anyone who pays just a little attention to policy and history would find any claim that Obama is embracing "right wing policies" to be the kind of absurd tripe that it is.
I respect Kos' committment to participatory democracy, but anyone who is more preoccupied with who appears on Fox News than with what the candidates say about Iran can't be taken too seriously.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Dennis Kucinich has asked his supporters to make Obama their second choice in precincts where he is not viable.
RS wrote on January 2, 2008 8:47 PM:Oh, you wish so hard. Obama’s right wing policies cover far more ground then health care. Not that health care is small or unimportant thing anyway.And then you go on and fail to point to any of those so-called right wing policies.
And on health care, while I'm pro-mandates myself, even by conservative estimates, Obama's plan covers more people than Kerry's 04 plan and far more than Gore's 00 plan. It's more like Bradley '00 plan.
I know what Kos said. By his own admission, he's not a policy guy, and the birth of his political engagement was within the past decade. If you're not a policy guy and have no familiarity with our political history, you shouldn't pretend to be in the business of telling people whose policies are right-wing or left-wing. Anyone who pays just a little attention to policy and history would find any claim that Obama is embracing "right wing policies" to be the kind of absurd tripe that it is.
I respect Kos' committment to participatory democracy, but anyone who is more preoccupied with who appears on Fox News than with what the candidates say about Iran can't be taken too seriously.
brm wrote on January 2, 2008 8:48 PM:I would never vote for the Goldwater Girl
Go with her sleazy racist slime campaign.
Do you guys actually know anything about how Internet advertising works? You don't go out and contract with individual websites. You pay an ad service to get your ad posted, the service contracts with the actual sites to run any ad they want that they've been paid to run, and the ad service's software tries to match up the ads the content of the site. You can tell the service not to run the ad on rightwingvitriol.com, but its not like the company actually has someone watching in real time to make sure the software doesn't do what you think you told it not to do.
I mean, for Christ's sake, do you think Ann Coulter's publishers contracted with Josh and Co. to run her ads on TPM?
Further, it seems to me that Clintonistas make bogus half-assed accusations about connections to Drudge at their own peril. It's Hillary's campaign has a long-established a pipeline into Drudge's cesspit, not Obama's.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/house_dem_leade.php
(And yes, attempting to decode Taylor Marsh's explanation today of how Hillary oppo team feeding Drudge's sludge factory with tidbits about her rivals was just hunky-dory A-OK, but having some third party's automated server feed an Obama ad run to Drudge's site was further proof of, hell, I don't know what; I have yet to figure out what the hell her problem with Obama is other than his lack of a uterus.)
nogo war wrote on January 2, 2008 8:55 PM:brm...I was reading that the folks over at LGF(Little Green Footballs) were wondering where you were...
I told them you were being a good private and carrying their bucket of slime over at MYDD
(oops you spilled some more)_
RS wrote: And then you go on and fail to point to any of those so-called right wing policies.And what more precisely would you prefer to call Obama’s recent attacks on John Kerry and Al Gore? Perhaps “pandering to the Republicans” is a more apt description?
If the term “right wing policies” offends you so much (admittedly there’s not much policy in anything Obama says, it’s mostly “me” and “I” and “hope” and “change”) I propose we shall just agree to call it “Obama’s right wing attacks on Democrats”.
robbymack wrote on January 2, 2008 9:00 PM:...... I'm sorry DEM AC did you mean Hillary and her Murdoch-led fundraisers and the paeans than such luminaries like Kristol and Krauthammer have waxed so eloquently on regarding Mrs. Clinton? Of course those three aren't Republicans, they are actually of a different knuckle dragging breed so you're fine with that I trust.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 9:03 PM:DemAC,
Indeed, it was clearly unfair of people to assume that when you said "right wing policies" you were referring to something like policy positions.
brm wrote on January 2, 2008 9:07 PM:DemAC
Obama attacked Kerry and Gore has been debunked by any rational person.
Do you know what triangulation IS?
Passing republican policies and co-opting it as your own.
Do you know who did it
Bill Clinton A
nd his wife is now known as our lady of perpetual triangulation
YOU ARE a LIAR
DonnaG,
"Fired up etc." I will grant you but saying that "kicking the tires etc." is somehow Obama's trademark phrase is a bit silly.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 9:09 PM:DTM,
Yes, my bad, I’m terribly sorry. I’m getting too used to the ways of Hillary Clinton as she’s a policy wonk; she’s actually interested in the craftsmanship of making policies that impact people. I still have some difficulties adjusting to the World of Obama where cult of person, style and buzz words replaces everything else, including policies.
I would never visit MyDD
Almost as bad as LGF
Jerome is an idiot
Should go back to stock swindling as he knows nothing about politics
By the way, I can understand why it would be frustrating for certain people to contemplate that someone can actually be getting support from both Dennis Kucinich and also independents and Republicans at the same time. It basically undermines their entire political worldview, one where the only way to have broad appeal is to compromise and triangulate. So they must insist that Obama is "running to the right", because they cannot accept there is any other explanation.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 9:13 PM:"framecop wrote on January 2, 2008 8:35 PM:
Who cares?
If the democratic party is IGNORANT enough to nominate Barack Obama, the Democratic Party is guaranteed a loss in 2008.
We all are screwed, and since we are, I'm going to get my enjoyment from telling them "I TOLD YOU SO" (aka, "I told you you were stupid")."
I'll never rub it in, I'll always admire their idealism, but will get no enjoyment from watching state after state turn red. I would not revel, it would want nothing more than to be wrong, especially if the Dems nominate Obama, but I suspect he'll leaving us praying to win at least as many states as Dukakis, I don't think he can.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 9:13 PM:DemAC,
What policy issues are you interested in? I'd be happy to point you to where you can get information on Obama's positions.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 9:13 PM:One could argue however, that Obama attacking progressives and Democrats, shoring up the support of Republicans and generally promising to let Republicans have a final say in pretty much everything of importance, could be construed so as to be a buildup of right wing policies. But of course – that’s probably way way too substantive to be any part of the World of Obama.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 9:15 PM:"Goldwater Girl"
Go on with your America-hating, sexist line of Kumbya BS. You smelly hippies will be forced out of the party and into the arms of Nader. Good riddance, scum.
RS wrote on January 2, 2008 9:17 PM:DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 8:59 PM:RS wrote: And then you go on and fail to point to any of those so-called right wing policies.And what more precisely would you prefer to call Obama’s recent attacks on John Kerry and Al Gore? Perhaps “pandering to the Republicans” is a more apt description? If the term “right wing policies” offends you so much (admittedly there’s not much policy in anything Obama says, it’s mostly “me” and “I” and “hope” and “change”) I propose we shall just agree to call it “Obama’s right wing attacks on Democrats”.
Huh? What is "right-wing" or "Republican" about pointing out that we had an uphill battle in 2000 and 2004? And it's not an "attack" on Gore or Kerry to say that almost half the country prejudged them.
People need to get some perspective on what's important.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 9:11 PM: By the way, I can understand why it would be frustrating for certain people to contemplate that someone can actually be getting support from both Dennis Kucinich and also independents and Republicans at the same time. It basically undermines their entire political worldview, one where the only way to have broad appeal is to compromise and triangulate. So they must insist that Obama is "running to the right", because they cannot accept there is any other explanation.
It's sad that so many of our progressive friends think that their policy views and values are not popular enough to appeal to independent and Republican voters. The possibility of a broad-based coalition for progressive change generates some kind of cognitive dissonance. They seem unable to reconcile the possibility that people might actually agree with them if you cut through the stale and hostile rhetoric.
roo_P wrote on January 2, 2008 9:32 PM:RS,
Right on.
There are a lot of R and I(R) people out there seriously doubting the course of the country and this is an opportunity for us to start changing their attitudes to be really receptive to "progressive" ideas.
We will not get everything we want right away and if we tried to, it would probably backfire. But we can get some of it, we can compromise (NOT capitulate) on some of it, and avoid getting worse for the rest of it.
It will be slow going, the culture wars have made that certain. But this is a place to start.
Katie wrote on January 2, 2008 9:32 PM:Barak Obama is truly a fine man and I am so excited about him and the true changes he will bring.Great video and keep it up!!!
roo_P wrote on January 2, 2008 9:34 PM:Anonymous,
Let it be known that most of us respect each of the candidates enough to not call them names. It is juvenile and completely unnecessary -- and it probably harms YOUR candidate more than it does the callee.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 9:34 PM:RS,
Indeed. And it actually isn't just Obama--the polls on specific issues support the same conclusion, namely that there is currently broad support for much of the progressive agenda. Obama in that sense is not so much creating the phenomenon, but rather tapping into it.
Of course, to be a bit cynical, any sort of broad political realignment creates at least a few losers even on the winning side, because there are always going to be people whose personal ambitions depended on the old order. So that may explain some of what we are seeing as well.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 9:38 PM:RS,
So now you’re basically attesting to what Kos said (see above):
“Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullshit about being a ‘uniter’ and ‘compassionate’. He can even pull a Bush, I suppose, and claim a ‘mandate’ on policies he blurred or ignored on the campaign. But we've seen how a lack of true mandate has crushed Bush's presidency and made him the most unpopular and least effective president in history. I'd rather have our candidate elected promising progressive reform, especially in a year where the American people seem to crave such solutions.”
So Obama’s attacks on Democrats, running to the right on health care and his echoing of Republican talking points on Social Security is basically a dishonest ploy to lure Republicans into his ever clever progressive fold.
From a strictly democratic (with a lower case “d”) perspective, isn’t that a tad bit disgusting?
pacc wrote on January 2, 2008 9:39 PM:Wow! The O-Bomb-A fluffers are as obnoxious as ever!
Crackpot brm is its old irrational, paranoid self in denying the O-Bomb-A Druge shenanigans. And surprise, surprise, brm again tries to pull the race card calling everyone else a racist (hint, look in the mirror crackpot brm).
And then there's bullshit DTM - so articulate, but still all O-Bomb-A bullshit fluff and spin.
And let's not forget DonnaG. She's been fluffing so hard, for so long, it's amazing she can actually croak any more of her drivel out.
Well, soon enough their flim-flam, con man candidate and his big-mouth, loose cannon, trash talking wife, will be history. Can't wait. We don't need their sort in the race.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 9:45 PM:DemAC,
What policies do you think Obama has "blurred or ignored"?
Again, tell me what policy issues interest you, and I will be happy to point you in the right direction.
RS wrote on January 2, 2008 9:49 PM:DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 9:38 PM: RS, So now you’re basically attesting to what Kos said (see above): “Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullshit about being a ‘uniter’ and ‘compassionate’. He can even pull a Bush, I suppose, and claim a ‘mandate’ on policies he blurred or ignored on the campaign. But we've seen how a lack of true mandate has crushed Bush's presidency and made him the most unpopular and least effective president in history. I'd rather have our candidate elected promising progressive reform, especially in a year where the American people seem to crave such solutions.”So Obama’s attacks on Democrats, running to the right on health care and his echoing of Republican talking points on Social Security is basically a dishonest ploy to lure Republicans into his ever clever progressive fold.
From a strictly democratic (with a lower case “d”) perspective, isn’t that a tad bit disgusting?
No, I don't agree with Kos' comments because the premises are that: (1) Obama is now running to the right on policy; and (2) that if elected, Obama would have to move to the "left" to be a true champion of progressive reform. But again, neither you nor Kos has explained how Obama has been anything other than a champion of progressive reform. In fact, you just told us that your argument isn't about policy. You seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between style and substance.
On Social Security, Obama (like Edwards, I believe) proposes making the payroll tax less regressive. But because he said "crisis" once, he is accused of echoing right wing talking points. Again, theater for the easily distracted.
And on health care, while I am pro-mandates, to say that Obama's plan does not constitute progressive reform is really silly. Compare it, for example, to the 2000 plan of sudden Netroots darling Al Gore (side note: I like Gore, but he was pretty cautious on policy as a politician). Obama's is far more aggressive.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 2, 2008 9:49 PM:I would vote either Her Royale Crownship or Mr chime in five to seven days later if one or both in on the ticket in November.
Until then the phrase "In Hell" comes to mind.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 10:01 PM:I see. So it’s two truths for the price of one Obama.
Well, you bloody well can’t have it both ways, can you? Either his right wing approach on health care and social security and his attacking basically anyone that was a prominent Democrat in the last twenty years are his true ways. In which case he’s a right winger but basically honest about it. This btw makes you the fools for not acknowledging this.
Or he’s really a progressive, using his right wing approach on health care and social security and his attacking basically anyone that was a prominent Democrat in the last twenty years as bait to lure Republicans in to the trap. In which case he’s a progressive but is dishonest to say the least. This btw makes the voters the fools for not recognizing this.
As for style and substance: would it be fair to assume that sooner or later Obama aim to let what he actually says when he talks about issues reflect on his policies? Or do you suggest that his rhetoric is completely disconnected from his policies?
NCSteve wrote on January 2, 2008 10:11 PM:Jesus pacc, leave the irony meter at home when you ventured out from under that bridge tonight?
brm wrote on January 2, 2008 10:19 PM:Really just go to the Drudge report and make a copy ,if you know how, of the page and show us the the page. So simple to do and what could be easier to prove or disprove.
I will not even attempt to explain to you how internet advertising works.
Everybody can clearly see the Hillary and her campaign have been running a campaign that certainly is borderline racist.
You probably think that Billy Shaheen and Bob Kerrey just said those things without approval. How many other staffers etc. have been removed/disiplined for racist attacks.
All just an accident
Crackpot brm is its old irrational, paranoid self in denying the O-Bomb-A Druge shenanigans. And surprise, surprise, brm again tries to pull the race card calling everyone else a racist
DemAC
Obama has also been accused of comparing Hillary with George Bush.
I haven't heard many right-wing Republicans
agreeing with him on this.
Is this too another example of a right-wing approach
Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 2, 2008 10:37 PM:People, people....chill! C'mon people now, smile on your brother....why can't we all just get along?!?! Seriously - I think all of us, regardless of which Dem candidate we support, want pretty much the same thing for our country, even if we think different candidates can best deliver it.
I'm a Hillary fan, and I think that Obama ad was a very fine ad. It does the job of what a "last ad before everyone votes" ad should do. If Obama is our nominee, I will *happily* vote for him (while doing whatever I can to make sure that despite the talk he talks, the walk he walks is a liberal progressive one).
But of course, he won't be the nominee! Go Hillary!!!!
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 10:40 PM:Hillary wears more makeup than Tammy Faye
Just as corrupt too
Imelda - I'm with you. I'm an Obama supporter-through-and-through, but I thought HRC's final ad was terrific. If she ends up winning, I'll support (and work for) her as well.
But, well, it is the night before the caucus, so - Go Obama!
Col wrote on January 2, 2008 10:53 PM:Wow, DemAC, you are about as disingenuous as they come. Not once have you actually backed up any of your assertions with a shred of fact. Thankfully it's pretty transparent so I can't imagine anyone actually believing them.
Got no brain, going Hussein wrote on January 2, 2008 10:57 PM:from dailykos:
Looks like BO is more polarizing than Hillary.
Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53 27
Edwards 49 42
Clinton 48 50
Obama 43 51
Thompson 42 42
Giuliani 40 55
Huckabee 40 47
Romney 38 51
DemAC,
Again, Obama has not in fact been proposing right wing policies, nor has he been deceiving the independents and Republicans who support him.
I know you think that is impossible, and yet there it is.
BluePuppy wrote on January 2, 2008 10:59 PM:Actually, DemAC is one of the more thoughtful posters on the site. I recall many posting loaded with links and facts. Don't be sad because you're man is going down.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 2, 2008 11:03 PM:I have yet to figure out what the hell [Taylor Marsh's] problem with Obama is other than his lack of a uterus.
Now be fair. Ms Marsh is doing the yeoman's work of defending our precious bodily fluids from those sneaky, sneaky communists/Obama supporters.
;-)
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 11:06 PM:As we discussed before, those Rasmussen numbers out of line with all the other polling done on Obama's favorability/unfavorability. See here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama
bridoc wrote on January 2, 2008 11:07 PM:Actually DemAC and BluePuppy have both been talking out their asses this whole time, as have pretty much all of Hillary's supporters, taking bullshit from her campaign website as fact, without taking the time and using the brain power to actually look at her history, her purported "experience", her voting record, her conservative foreign policy, her relationship with corporations, or her campaign lies about herself and her opponents. We've actually presented tons of facts BluePuppy, you have just chosen to ignore logic and fact time and time again. Talking to you is like talking to a goddamn rock, and I'll be glad when all this is settled so we don't have to hear your mindless echoing of Hillary's talking points that you try to pass off as arguments.
As far as the video goes, it was amazing, and I hope it has an impact on voters tomorrow.
cms wrote on January 2, 2008 11:32 PM:To be fair, from what I can tell BluePuppy seems to have stopped referring to Obama by his middle name, so s/he is obviously not completely oblivious to the arguments made here. I haven't seen the offensive ones used for Hillary in a while either. So, great -- despite how pissed off we get at one another, at least we don't have to resort to name-calling good Dem candidates. Before we know it, we'll all be behind a single one.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 11:39 PM:[b] Attacking our own with such vitrol is really so pointless [/b]
AWESOME! He is truly inspiring.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 11:46 PM:If you have any doubt who is running the nastiest, most desperate campaign, just read down these posts and count. Good riddance, Hillaryland! It's no wonder you are dropping across the board.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 11:49 PM:DTM wrote: Again, Obama has not in fact been proposing right wing policies,Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that when Obama used typical Republican talking points to announce that he’d consider raising the retirement age and that he’d consider benefit cuts to “fix” Social Security he wasn’t proposing policy.
DTM wrote: nor has he been deceiving the independents and Republicans who support him.Really? If he wasn’t suggesting policy with his classical right wing talking points, to be implemented by him as POTUS, then what was he doing?
Talk is cheap and no one’s is cheaper than Obama’s. But I bet your sorry ass that Obama counted on voters actually listening – and believing.
DemAC wrote on January 2, 2008 11:52 PM:bridoc,
And who would have known that ass talk would still be more intelligent than yours? Amazing, isn’t it?
DemAC,
Republicans: "Social Security is in crisis! We must privatise right away!"
DemAC: "No it is not!"
Republicans: "Is too!"
DemAC: "Is not too!"
Average American: "Hmm, I doubt there really is a *crisis* but maybe there is something to what the Republicans say?"
DemAC: "N-uh!"
...
Republicans: "Social Security is in crisis! We must privatise right away!"
Obama: "OK, you say SS is in trouble based on these calculations and I agree, it could be shored up. We are going to make a change so that everyone fairly pays in the same share as everyone else. This guarantees SS solvency so that it is no longer even troubled, let alone in crisis.
"Also, we will make it a law that the SS funds cannot be freely borrowed or dipped into to ensure that government spending is fiscally responsible"
Republicans: "..."
DemAC:
So when Clinton and Edwards supported lifting the cap (albeit with a donut hole) they were espousing right-wing policies?
And Obama said he would listen to all proposals on fixing SS, including benefit cuts, but that his preference (and the proposals he would put forward) would not include benefit cuts, privatization or any of the other Republican-supported policies. If listening is evidence of right-wing policies, well I suspect alot of people espouse right-wing policies.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 12:14 AM:DemAC,
Right, Obama is willing to listen to arguments about the retirement age and benefit cuts, so is not "taking them off the table". Note, by the way, that he did rule out privitization, because that would change the nature of Social Security.
Of course, he has also said that his preferred option, the only one he is actually proposing, is adjusting the payroll cap, because currently he does not in fact believe raising the retirement age or cutting benefits are the right answers. Again, adjusting the payroll cap is not exactly a Republican or otherwise "right wing" proposal.
Incidentally, all this was covered in Obama's Meet the Press appearance on November 11. The relevant exchange was:
"Q: You said earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, "I'm taking them off the table."
A: That's not what I said. I said I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we've got people who are still in manufacturing.
Q: But in May you said they would be on the table.
A: Well, I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward.
Q: But the other options would be on the table?
A: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options."
Generally, I think this is the sort of thing that you are having trouble processing. Obama is willing to listen to a lot of ideas when it comes to fixing the anticipated Social Security shortfall. However, he believes the best approach is to adjust the payroll cap.
None of that should be particularly disturbing to progressives as a policy matter. But the fact he is willing to talk about it in a reasonable way also appeals to independents and Republicans.
So there you go: mystery solved.
DemAC wrote on January 3, 2008 12:28 AM:Obama – the man for all seasons and all voters. If you liked what you just heard him say – it was policy. If you disliked it – it was just an invitation to listen.
Obama – the perfect candidate for Dems, Indies and Reps. He has neither views nor issues of his own. But rest assured – he’ll listen to yours.
Vote Obama – the empty shell: fill it with what you want to hear and he’ll talk and listen, and talk and listen, and talk and listen, and talk and listen…
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 12:33 AM:DemAC,
Again, he has clearly stated his own view on Social Security. He thinks we should adjust the payroll cap.
But trust me, I get your frustration. For people like you, the idea that a politician could be both progressive and have broad appeal simply cannot be tolerated.
DemAC wrote on January 3, 2008 12:46 AM:For people like you, the idea that a politician could be both progressive and have broad appeal simply cannot be tolerated.And yet, here I am supporting exactly that politician. Amazing, isn’t it? timnlisa1 wrote on January 3, 2008 1:02 AM:
DemAC,
You really seem to be blinded by your love of Hillary. Just for one second, try taking a look at what Obama has said, and what those in the GOP primary have said:
On healthcare, Obama wants Universal healthcare for kids, significant subsidies for low income families, a path towards a universal health care system while GOP want tax writeoff's for healthcare. This is not remotely similar.
On Iraq, Obama wants all combat missions ended and work to bring all troops home, GOPer's want to stay the course. This is not remotely similar.
On GWOT, Obama wants to end the Black eye of Guantanamo, restore Habeas Corpus, approach diplomacy in the broadest possible terms, avoid war at all costs. The GOP wants to "double Guantanamo" (Romney), Go to war immediately with Iran (Giuliani/ Podhoertz). This is not remotely similar.
On Social Security, Obama wants to raise the cutoff for Social Security payment to make it less regressive. The GOP want to privatize it to guarantee the the wealthy keep their money and the poor have no money available. And by the way, Clinton hasn't said "there is no social security crisis", instead she said that something needs to be done but she refuses to say what she would push. Instead she says she would leave it to a "bipartisan commission she would convene" on the issue. Maybe it is just me but her statements on social security also states that there is a problem, and on top of that she follows Bush's pre-2000 approach to just about everything by stating that she has no stance but we'll figure it out later with a "bi-partisan commission". Wouldn't that Bi-partisan commission involve working with republicans? Isn't that what your (and Krugman's) major beef with Obama is?
I really have to agree with other posters here that say that you continue to talk about Hillary being a Policy wonk and that her platform is all clear while Obama is all rhetoric,and I am sorry to inform you but if you do the research, you have it completely backwards. Clinton, while riding her "inevitable" wave, wouldn't commit to anything, and that hasn't changed since the race tightened up. Obama and Edwards have actually put their policies out in public, Clinton hides her ideas and hoped that her name recognition will carry her.
Penpal wrote on January 3, 2008 1:46 AM:It's amazing how all these kids are drawn to Barry. I don't get it, he's so dull. Edwards and Clinton are all fire in their bellies but Barry is boooring.
timnlisa1 wrote on January 3, 2008 2:36 AM:Penpal,
Us Kids (I am 35 and have been a hardcore democrat for over a decade, I honestly considered not moving back from Germany when Bush won the 2000 election) are supporting Obama because we actually want to see a move from politics as usual to where things actually get accomplished by our government. To me, Obama represents an opportunity to move things in a progressive direction and maintain a progressive majority. Bush and Republicans in Congress were able to do a lot in congress because there control of both legislative and executive branches of government. But they did the exact opposite of maintaining a republican majority. When you go it alone and don't get people of all parties to buy into your decision making, then the populace turns against you. If Obama gets in the white house, and he gets people on both sides to buy into his solutions, it will be a home run for the preogressive agenda. When I see my father, a hardcore republican that has in my lifetime never voted for a democrat tells me that he is considering voting for Obama despite his progressive agenda, I think anything is possible. This is Obama's MO. He tells people of all beliefs that he understands their approach to solving a particluar problem. But he explains in a way that all people can get behind why his way will work. And his way is strongly progressive. From the beginning, I have thought he is a democratic version of Reagan. He can get people of the opposite side to support him without turning from his progressive roots.
HarpoMarxist wrote on January 3, 2008 2:37 AM:Obama was progressive enough to run against the war when everyone in Washington voted their ambition rather then their conscience.
That's called leadership and it's why Obama is going to be the next President of the United States.
James wrote on January 3, 2008 2:39 AM:Hillary = corporations. Hillary comes from the same conventional bullshit that this country is stuck in. The only change Hillary can bring is a different president. If Democrats elect her, than they will have an uphill battle to beat republicans because she disappoints people on both sides. Obama and Edwards are the only two smart votes Iowans can make tomorrow.
justme wrote on January 3, 2008 2:45 AM:A take on the commercials...
Read the whole thing
http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-predicts-john-edwards-will-r368898.htm
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 3:15 AM:Oh, he just has to do everything Hillary does. It's so cute.
Tom wrote on January 3, 2008 3:23 AM:Why is TPM shilling for Obama? The bias against Edwards is becoming more apparent. Why nothing about his historic 36-hour prelude to victory in Iowa? You guys are going to be feeling bad tomorrow when you see Edwards win.
Penpal wrote on January 3, 2008 3:37 AM:timnlisa1: That’s all nice and cute. It ends tonite for Barry though; he’s in for the defeat of his life. I think he has yet to understand that his turnout op can’t deliver miracles. Perhaps he’ll be back for 2016.
M wrote on January 3, 2008 3:58 AM:You know, I have been reading this back and forth, and checking various links, and the like.
All's I have to say is, DemAC: Can you back any of your attacks (like Obama using WH talking points) up with real facts? Your link just sent me to the WH home page, not to actual facts.
In the end, you do Hillary a disservice, unless you can argue consistently and with evidence.
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 6:58 AM:M, that's what's funny about the clinton II people. They are soooo shrill and aggressive, but there is never any substance. Republican talking points this, sexist that, etc. They just blow hot air and expect people to back down because they say so. Sounds soooo republican and I am not interested in 4 more years of this bs.
Penpal, your alternate reality is comical. Obama is boring? Even clinton II would admit he is the most articulate and exciting speaker. Her whole schtick is her bs experience and that "she worked for change her whole life." Can you tell everyone penpal one gd thing that she did for america that changed a prior injustice or something? Just one, please. I'll even give you credit for something progressive that the clinton I administration did? Anything? Nope.
If clinton II wins, we all lose.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:05 AM:DemAC,
On domestic policy, I think it is correct that Hillary Clinton is a progressive. Foreign policy is a different matter, but we can leave that aside for the moment.
The problem is that she does not have broad appeal. Of course, she is in fact pretty popular among Democrats. But polls have shown that much of her support among Democrats is actually derivative of her relationship with Bill Clinton. And her support is almost entirely limited to Democrats, and the opposition to her is very hard.
Which means that Hillary Clinton is a progressive, but not a progressive with broad appeal.
Frankly, in general Hillary Clinton simply is not a very good politician. Ordinarily it would be a puzzle how a person who is a poor politician could find herself the frontrunner for the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties, but the answer in this case is obvious: again, she gets a lot of support from people who view her as a proxy for Bill Clinton.
Unfortunately, that may well be enough for her to pull out a win in the Democratic primaries, but it won't be enough to win the general election. And if by some chance she gets lucky in her opponent and she does win the general election, it won't be enough to govern effectively. And again, all that is because on a fundamental level, she just is not a very good politician.
As an aside, like many others, I think Hillary Clinton is operating in the wrong branches of government. Because she is smart, hard-working, and generally caring about other people, I think she could have made an excellent federal judge. Federal judges, of course, are appointed and not elected, so her poor political skills would not be an issue. And because federal judges have lifetime tenure, she would not need to compromise her principles in order to position herself for future elections.
But that is the road not taken: Hillary Clinton did not take the opportunities available to her as a graduate of Yale Law School to build her own legal career and eventually seek an appointment as a federal judge. Instead she hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton, who was indeed an extremely gifted politician. And she basically put her ambitions on hold until the Constitution forbade Bill from running for office again.
So now she finds herself trying to follow Bill Clinton's path in electoral politics, rather than having followed a path of her own making. And unfortunately that puts her party in the awkward position of either nominating a poor politician for the office of President, or rejecting a proxy for a well-liked former President.
But hopefully her party will make the right choice and select a different nominee, one who will actually be an effective candidate and an effective President. And of course tonight will be the first indication of whether or not that is going to happen.
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 8:05 AM:Check this out. Latest Iowa polls and clinton II is in a distant THIRD!!!!! There is a santa claus. Let's hope it stands up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080103/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc;_ylt=AoEhs17ZxNbv5RiCLwquqf.s0NUE
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 8:13 AM:She is already spinning a third place finish. Holy cow!!!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=4076176&page=1
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:40 AM:You know, at some point someone is going to notice that when the campaigns in Iowa started, Clinton was behind Edwards in the polling, but not behind Obama.
So as with so many other tactics of the Clinton campaign, this strategic vagueness is likely to end up backfiring.
diogu wrote on January 3, 2008 8:55 AM:Edwards is 2 tier candidate that scrambed his way to the top. I predict that his luck runs out tonight.
The DMR Poll's order will be correct. It will be Obama, Hillary and barely John Edwards. Depending on the deal between Obama and Biden in the rural area, Edwards may even come fourth, where he really belongs.
John Edwards will say and do anything to be viable.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 10:07 AM:John Edwards could not even handle Dick Cheney in the 2004 debate, and now we are supposed to believe that he is strong enough to change Washington for ever.
Do you believe in fairy tales?
Question:
If Hillary becomes president, will those drug criminals who paid hundreds of thousands to her brothers, to obtain presidential pardons for them, get a second shot at Clinton pardons?
Mary wrote on January 3, 2008 10:19 AM:I am a pretty cynical person by nature. I know many Obama supporters are offended by the accusation that we are all idol worshippers blindly following some guy who can give a good talk and brings in star power (oprah).
Look I am as disgusted with the repug politicians as anyone. The scandals are endless. But really when you think about it, how many of you have republican friends, family, co-workers. How can half the country be corrupt? They really can't. I know many republicans who do charity work, love their kids, want the best for this country. We absolutely hate it when the repugs refer to us as godless, wanting only socialism. It seems for many years, each side looks at what they see is the worst of each to catagorize the whole group.
"Obama going to the right"?
Look, most if not all, of the candidates will follow their own party's agenda. The apparent hatred between the two will continue. Obama wants to be the "president of the united states" NOTE the word UNITED. How can we be united? The one thing that we all agree on. THE CONSTITUTION. Obama taught constitutional law. Unlike the other morons we have elected into office, he has actually read and taught the "piece of paper" that has kept this country going for the last 200+ years.
But in the end, what did it for me was not all of the different subjects of debate - healthcare, policy, education.
It was this one speech. All the other speeches, while inspirational to the masses, did not touch me the way this one speech did. All the divisiveness and ugliness between the two seemed to finally be bridge-able, without anyone losing.
But you'll have to see for yourself. DemAC - you will benefit the most from this one
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on find reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers.
i'm not american so i can't vote. i live in europe and the u.s. and i do hope that this time the country really elects the guy it deserves. Go Obama!
