Obama: I Find The Manner In Which They've Been Running Their Campaign Sort Of Depressing Lately

Time Magazine:

Tells Diane Sawyer in interview for Monday's Good Morning America that he has not liked his rival's recent conduct.

Diane Sawyer: Do you get angry at her?

Sen. Obama: Not really. I find the manner in which they've been running their campaign sort of depressing lately.

Read the whole story: Time Magazine

Comments

[LITU]

11:51 AM on 01/08/2008

From an earlier post:

Not much to add to the Obama twists being posted here. But it's very telling that this country is even considering another war-mongering Republican to lead our nation.

Republican supporters' chant:

War
What is it good for?
Absolutely everything.

That kind of mentality is the precursor to our national doom, and the genetically-defective sonofabitches don't even get it.

[whizkid]

12:30 AM on 01/08/2008

Once the Obama's have suffered the same slings and arrows the Clinton's have suffered for our middle class, I'll throw body blocks for them too.
In the meantime I have to laugh at those who argue this Clinton-same-as-Bush BS.
Are there really those who make up a faction of Democrats with this mindset?

[whizkid]

12:02 AM on 01/08/2008

I'm really not digging the hubris exhibited by Obama in recent days. Or the Ralphie posture of his fans.
Uncool.
Another set up for four more years of GOP?

[tropicartisan]

03:51 PM on 01/07/2008

OBAMA: THE NEXT DEPRESSING CAVE-IN AND THE END OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

As much as I would love to see a person of color in the White House, check out the new format of LIBERTY NEWS (on the dish) where this quarters news has a VERY BELIEVABLE film of Obama caving in to the current fascists running this "democracy". ITS JUST A PIECE OF ART, but its VERY believable considering the COMPLETE VAGUENESS OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN.

Get ready to get suckered again.

Can you smell Pelosi?

Can you smell weakness?

Thats the end end end end end end end end of the Dems unless we VOTE EDWARDS.

The country will then go Independent and I will vote Ron Paul or stay HOME (and maybe think about buying a gun, to defend myself against terrorists, anticipating the Obama assault on Pakistan).

[May2002]

03:00 PM on 01/07/2008

used to be here to defend Obama when Clinton supporters trying to distort Obama's record.

Now I am here to tell Clinton supporters please don't be so hard on Clinton. You are reaching a hysteria of hatred.

No matter how Clinton is only a human being.

I can imagine how much pressure Clinton is under now.

You are guy is on top now. There is no point for you to attack Hillary. In this moment, your attack is almost like seeing someone is hitting by a car, you want to add final blow.

It is time to show decency and compassion to someone even you don't support.

No matter how Clinton is only a human being. Please don't go overboard.

[May2002]

02:58 PM on 01/07/2008

It is ironic. After all this support for Obama (you can check all my past record), I suddenly don't like Obama any more when he is in the edge of winning.

I feel he is shrewd knowing how to win but I feel he is just another politician knowing how to put a good appearance.

He also loves power just like every other politician.

He also loves glory just like every other politician.

He is lucky that he doesn't have any baggage because he is young and he is not around long enough to have any baggage.

That's why he doesn't need to go negative, but that doesn't mean he is really that nice and decent because the bottom line he still wants to beat everybody and to grab that power.

He has used all his advantage to against Clinton such as he is fresher (but that's nothing of course he is fresh considering that he hasn't been around longer). To me this is clever, but this is another way to show that he is actually cunny.

I switch my support to Clinton because I can sense under all this "Hope," Obama is also ruthless wanting to win. And he is lucky without much record he doesn't need to go negative which makes him look better.

[Giordano Bruno]

01:21 PM on 01/07/2008

Most of you know that I brake for John Edwards, and nothing has changed. I find the Obama hysteria very interesting. I do acknowledge that he has a fresh face, that he is dynamic and charismatic, that his promise of change is a good message. But what I don't understand is why he has been given a pass by the MSM. I guess the McClurkin incident has died down. The fact that he hooked up with a homophobic evangelical to campaign in South Carolina, is really not a good message about change, unless he is headed in the same direction as Mr. Bush. He had ample opportunity to right that wrong, but didn't. Yesterday, when the candidates were asked what they might have made a mistake along the way, both Clinton and Obama declined to mention anything. Bill Richardson was by far the most forthcoming. However, for many in the gay community, the McClurkin association, and worse, how it was handled after it came to light, is not at all reassuring.

I think he is a dynamic guy, who has stolen the Edwards mantra of change, who has shown very little original innovative thinking, and just stood up in front of folks and grinned. And we are falling for it. I have mixed feelings about replacing the corporate Princess with Prince (Not sure what I think) Charming.

Of course the Republicans are unlikely to try to capture the disaffected gay vote, so I guess his sin will be venial. Giordy

[Livetotell525]

01:05 PM on 01/07/2008

“Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Bash her in.”

Remember this line from Lord of the Flies? Sound familiar?

The frenzied Hillary bashing by the mainstream media, left-wing blogosphere and many Obama and Edwards followers ala Huffington Post has reached a chilling level – reminiscent of the blood curdling brutality portrayed in Lord of the Flies.

The misogyny leveled at Hillary is of a primal nature – far too massive to be explained by anything rational (or civilized).

If this is the type of “change” and “hope” that lies in store for us, I want no part of it. We pride ourselves on being a civilized nation, but there is nothing civilized about the brutal behavior in this election; nothing which justifies the level of abusive, violent hatred – yes, hatred – being directed at Hillary in this campaign.

The end (“change”/”hope”) does not justify the means (“hatred”/”brutality”). It is a Faustian bargain of the worst kind.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

No human being - Democrat or Republican - deserves this type of brutality.

[plutorage]

12:55 PM on 01/07/2008

This article once again brings up the remark Obama made about "You are likable enough, Hilary" and says Diane Sawyer will ask Obama if he regrets the remark.

Color me stupid but can someone tell me what was wrong with his comment?

I thought he genuinely meant to preserve comity with his remark. I thought he meant that Hilary's likability was not an issue because she was likable enough and it was issues which were he problem.

Oh, well. I guess when the media gets prissy you don't argue with them. Obama will just have to figure out what the media wants and give it to them. That is how the game works.

[curmudgeon3]

12:35 PM on 01/07/2008

According to the article, Huckabee stated, about Obama, "We have to recognize that what Senator Obama has done is touch on a core of what America has done...America is looking for vertical leadership that looks up not down.... He has excited a lot of voters in this country and lets pay respect for that."

Now ask yourself...If Huckabee did not want to run against Obama, why would he sing his praises?

"Flatterers look like friends, as wolves like dogs." ~George Chapman

[curmudgeon3]

12:34 PM on 01/07/2008

Can anyone identify a situation where he has demonstrated real political courage in taking a stand for the common people and against large corporate power? Not just words, but actions.

Both Obama and Hillary have been bought with corporate money, and as such, have been and remain beholden to them. The fawning coverage by the MSM (which is the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration and Big Money), stands a proof positive. If either of them were suspected of ever siding with the common people rather than the corporate agenda, the MSM would completely ignore them. Don’t believe this? Just consider the lack of coverage for John Edwards, even though he came in second in Iowa.

Big Money is counting on most of the voting populace to be dazzled by style and remain oblivious to substance (or the lack thereof). And if that doesn’t work, a strong dose of fear can be injected to aid the cause.

Some of you may remember that Obama supported pro-war Joe Lieberman in his race against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.

This writer would strongly recommend that you check the facts, and remember that actions speak far more loudly than words.

For further details, check out http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

[curmudgeon3]

12:12 PM on 01/07/2008

What might an Obama vs. Huckabee contest look like?

Huckabee would enjoy a significant advantage before such a race even started.

Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed, the only Democratic candidates to make a dent in the Deep South were Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992/1996. Of the eleven original Confederate states and the two border states (KY & MO), the number of states won in each election (out of thirteen possible) were as follows:
1968 -- Humphrey -- 1 (Texas)
1972 -- McGovern -- 0
1976 -- Carter -- 12
1980 -- Carter -- 1 (homestate of Georgia)
1984 -- Mondale -- 0
1988 -- Dukakis -- 0
1992 -- Clinton -- 6
1996 -- Clinton -- 6
2000 -- Gore -- 0
2004 -- Kerry -- 0

The Dems have prevailed in only three of the past ten presidential elections, and in each case, ran a southern governor who carried at least six states of the thirteen-state block.

Under what scenario would Obama carry at least six of those states?

Huckabee would not need to spend a single cent in those thirteen states, and without a doubt, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming would remain red as well. To the extent that any campaigning is needed, the evangelical churches in those states will take care of that matter (perhaps supplemented by funds provided by Bush's taxpayer-funded Faith-Based Initiatives).

This would provide Huckabee with 196 of the 270 electoral votes he would need to win without even needing to get out of bed.

Even if campaign contributions were meager, Huckabee would only need to concentrate on a small handful of states in order to win the White House.

Perhaps the Dems are confident that they can easily overcome such odds, even with Obama or Hillary as the candidate, given voter dissatisfaction with the status quo. I would submit that this could be an exceedingly dangerous gamble.

[MRb1000]

12:08 PM on 01/07/2008

Oh the Hillary sore losers. Barack Obama has run a clean campaign on the issues and not on personal attacks. Now, everyone is a Barack hater. Well, when you are the front runner you have to take your shots. He will stay positive and he will win. The truth and who do you trust will win the election. Truth stupid.

[StephenDedalus82]

11:56 AM on 01/07/2008

Poor Obama. He's so accustomed to being hailed as the next Jesus by the media he can't take a little substantive criticism from his chief rival? His arrogant, entitled personality will not serve him well once the Republican attack dogs go after him. He doesn't seem to be aware just how soft the media's been on him thus far.

[Marrob]

11:55 AM on 01/07/2008

Am sure Obama will say the say thing once the republican machine starts in on his ass. My advise to Obama, start giving the american electorate something more than "I want to bring change to Washington". What proof do you offer to us that you can actually do what you say you can?