Maybe for the first few months, but he can't keep up the facade long enough. In the end, it will be yet another example of some Democrats getting hosed because they listened to the Gang of 500 instead of the blogs.
you see, that's where I don't agree at all. Obama has a really high, positive profile in the media and with the general public. There may be bloggers that are mad at him, but I really don't see the scenario where blogger anger overrides the public's affection for the man. I don't think bloggers hate him that much for one thing, and though the netroots is clearly powerful, I don't think they are that powerful even if they had it in them to do something about it.
That is how it always begins. It isn't about strength, it is about fantasy vs. reality and the fact that no matter how much you spend on the curtain, it can still be pulled back.
Is that how it began with Kerry? No. Is that how it began with Gore? No. The reality, as much as we might like to believe differently, is that the presidency ultimately comes down to abstract notions of trust and likability. People vote from their guts.
Kerry never had that appeal. Gore only has that appeal when he knows that nothing is on the line (though I'd give him a chance in 2008 if he can bring the real Al Gore to the stage). Obama has that appeal just as Clinton did. They are rock stars. They are the kind of people others want to be near just to say they were near them. THAT is what gets you elected.
Because it worked for Bush, doesn't mean we should try it.
It didn't work for Bush. First of all, if we want to get real technical he didn't win at all. But beyond that, the bar for him was pretty low. He only had to be more appealing than a chronically stiff Gore. How hard was that really?
You can't compare the Bush family name to a Barack Obama.
Bush's run in 2000 was the exception to the rule.
Any other candidate, Dem or Rep with the Thin Resume, short public experience, & reputation for grammatically ineptness would have never made it past the primary.
Bush's family name carried him all the way. You & I, and millions of Democrats may not have found anything positive about the Bush family name- but we do not get to decide general elections.
Its the millions of non-partisan moderate Independent voters who always make the difference in a general election.
For many of these people, the Bush name was still an honorable political family. ( Until Dubya really damaged it in the last 6 years ) Of course rank & file repubs respect & admire the Bush legacy ( back then)
Watch in 2012 or 2016, if indeed Jeb Bush runs- he will still be a favored candidate due in part to being a Bush.
Just like Hillary is getting lots of mileage for being a Mrs. Clinton.
Barack Obama cannot be compared to the Bush run.
I hope you know that we are way to early to conclude that Obama's positive view & favorable MSM will continue.
History always shows that once the MSM puts you up on a pedestal because you are a fresh face, they will also come down very hard on you once the honeymoon is over.
Believe me, there are plenty of Democrats even beyond the netroots community who have a lot of reservation about Obama.
The rank & file & even the State Democratic party chairs in Red states in the South, Mountain States & midwest have expressed their concern with a Obama or Hillary as the nominee.
The State chairs of AL, MS & SC recently expressed those view publicly. They are sick & tired of not being able to use our National Ticket to campaign in their states.
There concern is this is counter productive to a real 50 state strategy in 2008. This would be John Kerry all over again. Where Democratic candidates for House, Senate & Governor in places like SC, NC, TN, AL,MS,AR,LA,MT,WY,ID would hide & run away from Kerry.
Obama or Hillary do not bring any positive & any reason to even campaign in Red states. They would actually hurt candidates there
Yes, they could still win with just Blue states but it will be very difficult.
This could also be devastating to our 1st term House members in Red States who will be very vulnerable as 1st term members. Not to mention is would greatly affect our plans to expand our majority since the National ticket will be very weak in these Red & Purple states & drag down our candidates.
Come on, that's ridiculous. Barack Obama as a person, a speaker and as a campaigner is far and away better than John Kerry ever could have been. I don't know how you compare the two to be honest. Obama really hit Southern Illinois hard when was running for Senator, and that tells me he's savvy enough to know that he needs to win over the people who might not vote Democratic.
But what I really believe about the MSM is that Obama is the one person who will come above all of blog-talk nonsense that people are trying to apply here.
So, Chris Bowers doesn't like him much. You know, for as big a part as the blogs can sometimes play, we are surrounded in real life by people who don't read blogs everyday...who remember vaguely Obama's 2004 convention speech, who read about the guy in the newspaper and see him on TV and say, "I like that guy". Somehow he's becoming bigger than all of this. Obama is one of the few candidates that'll come along who can utterly ignore the blogs, barely mention his opponent, campaign wherever he wants to and will inspire people to vote who usually don't because he's NOT attacking his opponents but offering vision.
Again, I don't like some of the things he's had to say about the 'left', but you know what? An awful lot of people think that stuff is true. And yes, there are even Democrats who think so, regardless of what is said at MyDD.
An awful lot of people think Saddam had WMDs, too. So why not say that?
My question is this: what wouldn't Obama say? What lie wouldn't he tell, provided an awful lot of people think it's true?
Is it good enough to support a candidate who only tells popular lies, not unpopular ones?
Is that our standard in the Democratic Party now?
can you explain what you mean when you talk about obama's alleged lies? or are you pulling this out of your ass?
Chris provided the straw-man quotes in his diary - the straw-man implies that the described position and person or people are real when they are not. Perpetuating false, essentially right-wing caricatures of liberals/progressives is hugely counterproductive to achieving the goals we all, I hope, have.
I think you're absolutely right that Obama has the potential to be one of the few candidates who can so entirely transcend the netroots--and even the grassroots--that he has a chance of being elected via national media alone. That's one reason his candidacy frightens me. (Though, of course, I'd fight hard for him in the general.)
I much prefer a candidate who is beholden to the grassroots.
And the very problem is that a lot of people think that leftie strawmen are true. That's why he shouldn't be perpetuating them. If his strawmen were things like, 'Some on the left say we must balance every budget even if that means slashing all social programs to the bone,' then they wouldn't be as objectionable.
So, Chris Bowers doesn't like him much.
How the hell did you reach that conclusion? Have we now reached the point that any criticism of Obama on his merits equates to extreme dislike?
Have we now reached the point that any criticism of Obama on his merits equates to extreme dislike?
How the hell does "Bowers doesn't like him much", translate into "extreme dislike"? Seems like there is a difference between the two. Bowers said he liked him a lot before, now, not so much.
Have we reached a point where anyone in favor of Obama is automatically considered to be a blind supporter, who isn't interested in pursuing legitimate criticism? This is really sad that it has come to this. You'd think that Obama has just pissed in the cereal of every wannabe netroots activist on MyDD. If anything Obama may take these hints from the netroots, but you might want to rethink this fight...its not productive, not is it one that can be one.
Once the MSM determines that the honeymoon is over, he will get a lot of tough questions. People will really know what he's all about.
At the end, I predict Obama & Hillary will knock out each other. Another candidate or two will emerge. Hillary will be weakened by her lost of African-American support while Obama will need more than the Black vote.
Let's face it, his base will be the African-American community. But we all know that it won't be enough. He will no doubt be in the top tier of 3 or 4 candidates.
But his only hope in the primary will be to get enough support from progressive Democrats to take him over the hill.
Even if he tries to play the center, there is no room for him among moderate/conservative democrats. Moderate/Conservative Democrats in the south, Mountain states & midwest would no doubt be more attracted to an Edwards, Bayh or Clark.
Obama's only shot is winning enough blocks of progressives. That's going to be the Million Dillar question for him in 2008.
Can Obama attract enough progressives to put him over the top?
