When Will Obama Swing Back?
While Clinton and Obama flacks debate the word "monster" all weekend, we might take a moment to look at a much more offensive comment ex-Obama advisor Samantha Powers made to The Scotsman. Said Ms. Powers of Senator Clinton, "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
Yeah, nothing says smart politicking like Obama's Ivy League think-tank advisors berating the working poor for their man's inability, over and over again, to connect with lower income voters. How condescending a statement is that to the working poor of America? Or maybe it's simple frustration on the part of Obama's campaign when the "magic" and "hope" just don't play when the issues are paying the rent and health care, or having to choose one over the other.
And does the "deceit" in Ohio that Ms. Powers mentions include Obama's reported backchannel talks with Canadian pols that Obama won't change NAFTA, even while telling "poor" voters he will change it? Maybe the problem isn't so much Clinton's negativity, but Obama's inability to convince people he cares about their jobs. Until he answers all the questions he's being asked, it sure looks that way. He spiked himself in Ohio with his own arrogance. Hillary's phone call ad was minor in comparison, because the issue there was jobs.
Obama's elitist, above-the-fray stance makes him look like John Kerry II, as do condescending comments like Ms. Powers'. I keep hearing people say, "Oh, Obama won't get swift boated. He'll swing back." Yeah, when? He just took two big losses that could have closed the deal for him. Why? Because Hillary Clinton's tougher than he is. Does anyone think the GOP will hesitate to hit him twice as hard? Sorry if it's unseemly to pundits and professors alike, but the Presidency is worth a fight. To quote Tina Fey, bitch is the new black. Bitching about losing isn't.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Concise, clear, & correct. Thanks.
Obama please swing back. Nice guys never win.
The next democratic president will have to be nothing short of a fighting tiger. Clinton is slowly unveiling her saber teeth. Obama is so far projecting the image of the kind of nerdy wuss who gets caught up between two fighting parties and gets beaten up by both.
Sun Tzu "The Art of War", tells us when the tiger roars loudest, recede/draw back - when it takes a breath, strike. Those with real skills, dance around monsters with kitchen sinks at 3 am, letting them expend energy, til a slight nudge out of the way is all you need. Punch/counterpunch wastes valuable energy, use clumsy attempts at obfuscation as political savvy loses wind at the sail quickly.
You are absolutely wrong. Obama has won every state he is supposed to and Clinton everyone she was supposed to. Considering her major advantage three months ago in name recognition and the fact she gets a large number of female voters, he is doing quite well. He responded to the three a.m. ad in record time. Absent a misstep, he will eventually win. He won Wyoming but no one gives him credit. He will win Miss. tomorrow and no one will give him credit.
You are right he needs to strengthen his message to blue collar voters to win PA. At this juncture, Hispanic voters will have less a role than they have in CA, TX and some other states unless there is a new vote in FLA. As for toughness against McCain, if he can beat HIllary, he can beat him. He's not nearly the candidate she is.
As a Cilnton supporter I do think she went a little overboard with her attacks on Obama last week (I was pretty much with her until the whole praising McCain over Obama thing), that said, if that is the worst thing that she has said then she really hasn't been that bad, at least in comparison to what the Republicans are going to do. I completely understand that Obama doesn't want to strike back because that would seriously undermine his entire pitch for the presidency, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have to come up with a way to respond to attacks. If Obama's "new politics" style of campaign is going to work in the general election he is going to have to find a way in which he can successfully respond to attacks significantly worse than anything Clnton has thrown his way while still not "striking back" in the same dirty manner. Clinton's kitchen sink attacks followed by her wins on March 4th threw Obama completely off-balance (witness the press conference where he got pressured for explicit answers, not rhetorical generalizations and he stormed off after answering only 7) and he has only recently managed to get back on his feet. If he does get the nomination the campaign season is going to be extremely compressed because no nominee is going to be decided before the convention. He can't take an entire week to get back on solid ground after his campaign hits a snag.
For me, Obama's big problem in the aftermath of Clinton's wins was that it revealed the sense of entitlement he had come to develop throughout his string of victories in February. When Clinton did start engaging in negative campaigns he behaved as though she was somehow unfair and because he said he wasn't going to behave like a typical politician she shouldn't be allowed to either.
I don't agree with the mainstream opinion that Obama was shook up on March 4th and Hillary is making some great comeback from the dead. Bill & Hillary know that only a heart attack or a felony can give them the nomination.
The big "fight" from Obama that is supposedly desireable is a product of the newsrooms and Hillary's PR staff. It is bogus and kind of funny.
Look- three weeks prior to March 4th Obama was 20 points down in TX and OH. He closed the gap in TX almost to zero and ended up with more delegates, which is what matters. He cut the gap in half in OH and ended losing only a handful of delegates. At the end of the day on March 4th---Hillary's big firewall..
PA is another tempest in a teacup. Obama will whittle that State down to a point where Clinton will win (and proclaim a huge and decisive moment) and pick up an amount of delegates that won't make a dent in Obama's lead.
FL and MI ditto. If Clinton wins both by ten or even twenty points (impossibility) her delegate count will not be helped enough to make a difference.
Conniving the superdelegates? The thousands of people who depend on the party for their very life and living will never allow it to be ripped apart by denying the nomination to Obama--who will lead by 100 minimum and possibly 150-175.
Sure, this storyline makes good press and sells ads for the news people, but its a non-story in fact.
This article is right on. He just isn't tough enough! This is paddy cake what is going on now and today he looked like a bumbling idiot defending his he ain't no VP candidate. It was hardly comprehensible and hardly hitting it out of the box his response. He may need to get some more experience the way I look at.
Tough is nerve not flailing. And Clinton is flailing because she does not know what else to do. Nerve is looking at the bigger picture and gambling that you can absorb the flailing until the opponent starts getting booed. Also, it would be unseemly to kick your opponent when they are down, especially if its going to piss off about 30 million women.
On the "booed" issue, have you ever seen or heard of a democratic candidate being booed by a democratic audience at a debate? I can't think of a single contest where that has happened, but Hillary has now been booed more than once during two separate debates. I think that really shows an underlying disgust with dirty tactics that will hold Obama in good stead.
Sort of like when Liberals talk about how those poor, foolish, working stiffs voted for George Bush - how they were hoodwinked into voting for someone because they thought he was the better man to have a beer with.
Well now, weren't they, along with a good chunk of non-beer-drinking and well-paid folks hoodwinked? If not, then how in the hell did he ever get elected in the first place? By hoodwinking tactics like those Hillary has been employing, such as this canard about NAFTA-gate, which the Canadians say never happened, and yet is being repeated here.
Throw the Liberal tag around all you want. People who are working hard to make ends meet don't always have the time to track down the facts. They have to go on what they are told on the nightly news. And if the candidate throws around lies (yes, I said lies) about hot button issues that impact their wages, they are hoodwinked.
“And does the ‘deceit’ in Ohio that Ms. Powers mentions include Obama's reported backchannel talks with Canadian pols that Obama won't change NAFTA, even while telling "poor" voters he will change it?”
Why should she since it came to light in Canadian news that “these backchannel talks” came from the Hillary campaign, not the Obama one.
I feel everyone should have a right to express your opinions, but please bother to fact check. It is true that your candidate is waging a war, and we all know the first casualty of war… (FWIW, my candidate is whoever is going to be nominated by the democratic party in the fall)
You need to fact check. The Canadian Gov't confirmed HRC's campaign never contacted them.
But it's documented that Obama's camp did talk to the Canadian consul via the memo.
Huh. That's funny. Have you been reading the news or watching it at all lately?--because my impression is that he is defending himself just fine, thanks. He's not going negative, he's not allowing his people to go negative--the one who did is now out--but response to King? Double header response on "ready on day one" and the fact that he is winning?
They're fighting two different ways. She's trying to box, her punches are going wild, she misses more often than she connects and she's exhausting and hurting herself. He seems to be doing aikido. He uses his opponents' own force to bring them down.
I always find the "glass jaw" thing puzzling. Hardly anybody gets near enough even to *connect* with his jaw.
Yep. Her flailing away wildly is just hurting her. He dodges and then zings her by pointing out her failing logic. He really is a masterful politician. Probably one of the best in the last 25 years.
Wait a minute. I thought he was not 'more of the same?' Thought he was above the game of politics?
Finally, someone here admitting what a large portion of us know - he "is a masterful politician
He's just a little too new at the game.
I am one of those under $50,000 a year voters, all this talk of hope is great for filling one's heart but it doesn't do a damn thing about filling my stomach. Unity is nice, but how exactly will that pay my bills? Call me cynical but emotional appeals just don't work on me, I'm a logic person. Obama is as qualified as Clinton if not more to be President but he doesn't inspire the confidence in me that he is going to be able to withstand the republican attacks in the general. All this crap Clinton is throwing at him is mild compared to the barrage that will come his way this fall. I hope that I am wrong and he is able to beat McCain because at least there is a chance Obama might end this war while McCain surely won't. I want to see that Obama is willing to fight when necessary, there is to much at stake for him to be trying to play Mr. Nice Guy all the time.
"You can't better the world by simply talking to it. Philosophy to be effective must be mechanically applied." - Buckminster Fuller
Think about this. If HRC is this divisive in her own party, then how divided will the country be after a general election with Republicans?--even if she wins. Divided means nothing gets done--nothing changes. The country must be united. Reagan did this with a Dem congress. So don't dismiss the inspiration/hope talent Obama has so fast. We have seen how the powerful “Bully Pulpit” of the Oval Office can be used to “spin,” distort, and manipulate. Imagine how the White House could be used to inspire and unite. Remember it was only "words" that got us into Iraq. An inspirational president will be able to go directly to the American people (as Reagan did) and appeal for support to push his/her agenda. How will health care legislation happen if half the country hates HRC because she used the same Rove-like tactics on McCain as she did with Obama.
Reagan has a anti-union, pro-wealthy elite economic policy like Bush. Reagan's policies didn't do much to help the average working person.
"If HRC is this divisive in her own party, ..."
Think about this: I could say the same thing about Obama, A Clinton has run before, and the party has never been this divided.
Worse, she floated the "unified ticket" balloon. He unequivocally shot it down and replaced it with "Barack-or-nothing" deflation. He has offered no hope of unifying the party.
I'm sure there will be an immediate barrage of outraged response re he's leading how can he be VP, nothing more than political manuvering, yada,yada, yada.
Whatever. The fact remains that she is the only one of them who has talked in terms of having a unified Democratic Party in Nov.
We have a divided congress and senate now. How is it working out for you. What proof do you have that Hillary will be able to deliver? Look at what she is doing now and tell me those techniques are going to work for her if she becomes president and half the congress and senate don't like her. Inspiration gets people motivated to work. Hope gets people motivated to work for what they want. Look at what Obama is doing by trying to grow the party so that he can have a majority of Democrats to get his agenda through. Can Hillary work with the current make up of Congress? She isn't interested in the party just herself and you are enabling her to be just a power hungry president. Good luck on that thinking.
Were you around in the 90s? Because those were some good times, the best shape I've seen this country in during my lifetime. Low unemployment, low crime, most folks paychecks went up in those days and there was hope aplenty that anyone could achieve anything.
If you traveled to other nations during that time, we were referred to as 'the superpower,' and not in a bad way. We were respected by most other states, and until Bush, we were held in high regard. President Clinton left office with a 76% approval rating, a balanced budget and a large surplus.
What exactly has Obama done that makes you fawn all over him? And what exactly is Senator Clinton doing that makes you believe "she isn't interested in the party?"
Yeah every talking point she has is a even better talking point for McCain. If you want experience well McCain has been a politician for most his life. If you want the best War Monger Commander in Chief then vote for McCain. I don't see how or why Obama has to swing back at her, she is not even making a logical argument, and she is trying to sell snow to eskimos. She would be better as McCains VP.
Do you have any CLUE what the Republicans will do to Hillary Clinton? They have no problem at all talking about Impeachment and semen on dresses and grand juries and suicides and missing law firm records and land deals and kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation from felons and Dictators and a total lack of experience in military matters (Hillary is not even qualified to be a Private, let alone the big Chief). There is an endless stream of liabilities that Karl Rove will throw into the light and Hillary will be toast before the campaign even gets warmed up.
Remember: 45% of the people already reject Hillary because of all the dirt of the 90's (which she claims is a good thing). Add another 5-10% from Obama people who turn on her because of this campaign and she has already lost the general election. Add another 5-10% from new people who had idea how much baggage Clinton was carrying and you are looking at a landslide.
You will be remembering that $50,000 job with great fondness when that happens.
Not so with Obama. He will pick Webb or someone like that for VP, he'll surround himself with all of those Generals that Bush fired and he'll have Colin Powell quietly supporting him. McCain will look old and tired and part of the Bush/Clinton school of negative politics. Obama will also carry a bunch of Dems into the House and Senate and we will have a sane govt. for a change.
She's already been vetted and has had the proverbial kitchen sink thrown at her over the years. She still takes hits better than Obama and his supporters here, probably due to her experience.
My hunch is that the American people will see Whitewater or Monica in the news and will turn the page as they've read it before. Not so with Obama. Rezko is just starting, no one has hit him yet for pushing his mentor Alice Palmer off the ballot in Chicago, and he does have a history with Bill Ayers, a known, American-grown terrorist. How do you think these 'new stories' will play in the heartland?
Hillary, on the other hand, stands tall and strong with head held high - no matter what they throw at her. That's what I want in a leader.
The question of when or if Obama is going to bash Hillary misses a much larger question: why is it acceptable for one Democrat to attack another Democrat with a ballpeen hammer? A good Democrat saves this kind of crap for the general election. This way, he UNITES his/her base instead of dividing it. Hillary cannot win the delegate math this primary season, so's she's gonna make sure McCain wins the general. And then we'll all see that we should have all listened to the fabulous Hillary Clinton! But, fear not, for she will be slithering back in four very long years to save us from the very hell she helped to get us in by dividing a Democratic Party that should have won it all this year. Maybe we'll still win the White House, but if we do it will be no thanks to the Clintons.
To answer the question, I hope that he never opts to swing back. Why should he? The Clinton Machine has thrown every dirty trick in the book and still apologists call it being "tough". Sure, what Ms. Powers said was rude, and she paid the political price for it, but Hillary's surrogates malign Sen. Obama time and time again with straight faces, into a camera.
This is the part that Senator Obama called ... "a chorus of dissonant voices" growing louder. Her false outrage and tactics are the shining example of why we choose Senator Obama. But this time we are paying attention. Many Obama supporters are new to this game and grow nervous, impatient, but we have chosen a leader who shows that patience and truth will win out, that... "nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices crying for change".
Obama '08
Please, provide links to these "surrogates who malign Sen. Obama time and time again..." as well as links to what dirty tricks have been thrown.
I'm sorry, but... you DO realize there's a general election still ahead, yes? Against the Republican nominee? Who is being advised by Karl Rove. Who is NOT advising Clinton.
In case you haven't noticed anything in the last 15 years, Karl Rove is one of the most brilliant political strategiests to ever hit the scene. Evil. But brilliant.
Ben Schwartz, I disagreed with everything you wrote, EXCEPT when you wrote, '" Senator Clinton, "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. This is good comment. You're next post should repeat this comment over and over again.
But I disagreed with everything else, like when you write: "Obama's elitist, above-the-fray stance makes him look like John Kerry II, as do condescending comments like Ms. Powers'. "
Obama does not LOOK at all like John Kerry I or John Kerry II, By the way Hillary's disingenuousness is a lot worse that someonone percieved condescending attitude. People would rather be talked down to than IGNORED.
Or when you write: "Because Hillary Clinton's tougher than he is"
Is she really really really really tough? The more people associate Hillary with Toughness, the more weak she looks. EMASCULATE Obama, every chance you get, this makes Hillary look tough to only her supporters. Obama, will ingoring acting tough, because a man that tries to prove he is tough by acting it, LOOKS WEAK. Period.
Or lastly when you write: "The Presidency is worth a fight."
Thank you, Tina Brown, but again, this character flaw , is what has brought great men, and some women down. Fight? I DON'T THINK HILLARY HAS EVER ASKED HERSELF WHY SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. McCain and Obama know, but she appears to fight just for fights sake. Interesting.
But, let me repeat, my favorite part of your post, " '" Senator Clinton, "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'." Agree.
Right on with your assessment, which is why many core Democratic voters and former Edwards supporters (I am one) are not buying into the Obama myth. His rhetoric, votes, and actions of his campaign versus his rhetoric do not add up. There are people that want to believe without scrutiny and there are those of us that scrutinize and aren't liking what we're seeing, especially the hypocrisy versus the message. Also, Hillary Clinton is hands down the tougher candidate, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. With all the pile on and everything stacked against her, she held her own and I think earned the respect of many for her fortitude and ability to not give up.
The prohibitive, inevitable HRC, goes from a 20+ point lead to on life support. Then she goes totally negative with her self-described "kitchen sink" attack barrage the weekend before the vote and finally wins a couple of states with it and you call that tough??
This is the problem with politics right here. That the person who can craft the mjessage most demeaning to their opponent can get support out of it. People will actually applaud it. And when most of it gets debunked after the fact, oh well.
When a Democratic Party candidate gets in front of the cameras, not once, not twice, but at least three times that I know of, and says that the candidate from the other party is superior to the other candidate in their party, that should be the end of the race, right there. Automatic disqualification.
Although he may be right about Senator Clinton ultimately winning the presidency, the polite assesments and specious arguments offered to justify/explain the likely outcome insults all our intelligence.
Clearly, Senator Obama's campaign has proved beyond any truthful doubt that he knows how to choose a team, run an organization, and understand the rules of engagement better than Senator Clinton. From fundraising, to delegate raising, to consciousness raising, Senator Obama has out-classed and out-shined Senator Clinton by every above-board measure.
However, there are some fundamental equations that should not be left out of the mathematics being employed by Senator Obama, or his supporters. One of those equations deals with the fact that in many parts of modern-day America the "word" of a lying white lady still trumps that of an uppity negro. One who, if we are to honestly decode the latest assessments by the Clintons, their surrogates, and supporters, might seem less uppity in August. And perhaps, after eight years of benevolent Clintonian grooming, might not be seen to be reaching above his station should he then take over the presidency.
By now, every informed observer with a conscience admits that had it not been for some curiously timed, extra-divine intervention, and well placed rumors, March 4th would have turned out somewhat differently; even if they only admit it to themselves. This brings us to another equation, and that one deals with the fact that Senator Obama cannot out-slime the Clintons, even on his best day. Unfortunately for Senator Obama, he gambling of the goodness and common sense of the very same people that allowed the 2000 election to stand without protest, allowed the revenge invasion of a practically unarmed sovereign nation, and re-elected the current commander in chief (technically only of the military; we were supposed to be selecting the highest public servant in the land, not chief beyond-the-law commander general of the people...b
In any case, the November elections will be played on a muddy field, with disappearing goal posts, create-you
But hey, that's just my opinion. I just really wish the Clintons, their surrogates, and supporters would simply decrypt their insulting code and just make their case in a more forthright manner.
Perhaps, if Obama and his people could start speaking to the unspoken equations of this primary/election and start proving he not only understands them, but has a real way of overcoming them...he could perhaps "close the deal" with the less hopeful and high-minded among us.
The difference between Obama and Kerry is that Obama responds to accusations and makes sure everyone hears him. You don't have to swing back to refute something and make the accuser look like a fool. Take Obama's rebuttal to Hillary offering him the VP slot when she is in second place.
.....makes sure everyone hears him.
Oh yeah, everyone hears him. He switches on his preacher-man voice and hypnotizes the masses with empty oratory.
Smoke and mirrors honey, smoke and mirrors.
You are missing something. Dare I say it might be a chromosome. Haha.
You are saying that because of HRC ability and love of low ball politics, she is more inclined to play low blows. If they work, then they are seen as good shots. Not the low blows they are. Have her ads been 100% accurate? No. That isn't her being tough. It is her being sleezy. Very uncouth.
Obama isn't winning because he constantly hits his opponents, like she does. He is winning because he is spreading a message about himself and what he wants for America. If Hillary took the same stance of talking about herself, rather the low blows she has been doing, she wouldn't still be here. The country wants change in Washington. Hillary wants power and Obama wants to deliver change.
He has stuck to his message even when it isn't so easy. Anyone can cheap shot. It is the easy thing to do. So, how is he not tough? How is he not exemplifying leadership?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
