MyDD :: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Unannounced Candidates

Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Unannounced Candidates

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:12:38 PM EST

From a purely strategic point of view, I think the way Obama has announced, and the parameters he announced under, is a shrewd move:

And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

February 10th is a Saturday. This puts Obama in a position to be the main topic of Sunday morning shows on February 11th, assuming he decides to continue running at that point. Overall, this potentially allows him to dominate the Democratic presidential news cycle for up to five weeks. Already a free media darling, this four week exploratory phase will allow him to soak up news coverage leading up to February 10th, and then to continue to soak it up during at least the week after his "official" announcement. By announcing both an exploratory committee, and a firm date when he will announce his "official" plans, he will receive a lot more media coverage than had he simply announced an exploratory committee.

. This is also a shrewd move in that it puts the unannounced candidates in a difficult position for their announcements. Richardson, who in some respects would be the anti-Obama resume candidate, has said he will announce his decision by the end of the month, but now with Obama and Obama speculation everywhere, he will have a difficult time generating a lot of free press should he announce his candidacy. Clark, who would also have a long resume and drain a decent amount of Obama's potential online support, has said he will announce his decision in early 2007. However, now he is either forced to wait to announce last--again--or to announce during Obama's exploratory window. Clinton, who would immediately be a first tier candidate in the race, has also said she will announce in the next several weeks, is also now boxed in by the Obama search party.

The first major 2008 candidate forum will be held by AFSCME on February 21. I can't imagine any candidates would want to miss that forum, so they will want to announce by then. However, the specifics of Obama's announcement, forming an exploratory committee now with a final decision on February 10th, has the potential to suck a lot of the air out of any other candidate announcements between now and the AFSCMNE forum. Smart stuff. Obama has certainly timed and structured his announcement well.

Tags: Barack Obama, President 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 62 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

This is a bit worrying if Obama turns out to be a DLC type because that will mean he not only hurts our movement but is good at it which most DLC types... aren't.

by MNPundit on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:23:29 PM EST

Obama Not Likely To to Center His Aim on the DLC (none / 0)

While I am, at least for now, an Edwards supporter, it seems unlikely that Obama will pitch his tent in the DLC campgrounds. Hillary has that covered and is trying to squirm out. Obama in his announcement today speaks about his past as a community organizer and his efforts to acheive "progress" in a people-first style. All that seems to be dog-whistle communications to progressives, attmepting to say that he is at heart a progressive but that his campaign will be broad-based enough to prevent him from being labeled the leftist. He does not want to take the sense of who the extreme liberal is away from Edwards. Obama is showing himself to be capable of running a very astute campaign in which he balances the twin goals of winning the nomination without simultaneously losing the general election.

by Arthurkc on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama & Dem interest groups (none / 0)

Obama appeals in part b/c he's acceptable to all Dem interest groups.

Obama will try to marry personal charisma and not offending any Dem groups.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More than a dog whistle (3.00 / 1)

He is a progressive. He is not a populist.

A populist uses rhetoric to creat us/them, the people vs. the enemy of the people. The enemy can be corporations ("progressive" populists) or government (right wing populists) to give a couple of examples.

Obama is anti-populist. He wants to be an authentic "uniter, not a divider" (unlike Lieberman or W.)

Policy wise, he is not DLC, even though his rhetorical approach is similar.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than a dog whistle (3.00 / 1)

"Obama is anti-populist. He wants to be an authentic "uniter, not a divider"... "

I don't care to be united with the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Citigroup at this time in history.

Sometimes there really are enemies of the common good. Actually, most times there are enemies of the common good. And most of the time they are the ones with the most power and money.

by adamterando on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than a dog whistle (none / 0)

The problem is that Exxon and whatever other huge corporation we're supposed to hate isn't really doing anything that different than lots of other people in the country: they're just doing it better and with more influence.

But the idea of free markets, pursuing personal economic advantage over the broader welfare of the country, etc. is deeply ingrained in our culture, and while at the extremes it's a serious problem, anyone who places themselves in strong opposition to those forces is likely to run headfirst into a wall of economic reality.

So sure, "uniting" us with corporations isn't good if it simply means doing what the corporations want, but finding a middle road that infuses concern about the general welfare of real human beings without turning into protectionism is a good goal. It remains to be seen if Obama (or any candidate) can do it, but the effort to try is a good one, I think.

by Baldrick on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than a dog whistle (none / 0)

??????

by adamterando on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than a dog whistle (none / 0)

populism does not equal protectionism

by adamterando on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than a dog whistle (none / 0)

It does for Edwards, and I worry that it does for a lot of other populists.

It doesn't have to, of course, but it's a major concern for me with the populist candidates. Especially since protectionism often sells so well. Even if the populists aren't really protectionists deep down, it's very easy to fall into the trap.

Which is one reason I like Obama - he clearly cares about the problems of welfare, health care, loss of manufacturing jobs, poverty, etc. but I see less chance that he'll latch onto popular but disastrous protectionism.

by Baldrick on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama language is a lot like Lieberman (1.00 / 0)

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama language is a lot like Lieberman (3.00 / 2)

No it really isn't.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

different kind of politics (none / 0)

was another Lieberman phrase...

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Good Start...Interesting Things Ahead (3.00 / 2)

Strategically, I like the way Obama is doing this. It is almost as if he is explicitly scheduling a full month of pre-announcement publicity. Good idea. Let's see if the press cooperates.

As far as the notion that Obama is a populist, I suspect he will try to cultivate this perception, but I don't think he has it in him to outflank Edwards on "standing up" to corporations. Obama is comparatively more conciliatory in this area. In particular, it has been widely reported that Obama is enamored with Rubinomics, and the idea of unfettered free trade. That may play out in the campaign as a distinction between him and Edwards.

The issue of unions may also become a distinction between Obama and Edwards. I could be wrong...but it appears to me that Edwards is going to make his campaign explicitly pro-union. And I think Edwards is going to take it even one step further: I think he will campaign with the promise to promote unionism in the third world and China, in all trade agreements he negotiates.

In other words, much to the chagrin of virtually every multinational corporation in the world (all of whom benefit from non-union, third world labor), Edwards is going to go full force for the workers. He is going to ask the American people for that sort of mandate. I do not see any indication, yet, that Obama is prepared to ask for this mandate.

By way of contrast to Obama, also keep in mind that Edwards has fought corporations his entire adult life. (Read his book "Four Trials.") In fact, Edwards has been rewarded financially in his lifetime BECAUSE he stood up against corporations on behalf of average people. He actually owes his financial status to fighting corporations! (Similarly, Ralph Nader has also been rewarded financially, in some measure, for standing up to corporations.)

In the way of similarities between Obama and Edwards, it is clear from Obama's recent rhetoric (and this speech) that he is adopting Edwards' explicit request to Americans that THEY do good things, that THEY volunteer and be part of a progressive, national grass roots effort. Like Edwards, Obama is now pointing the finger away from himself, and out into the audience, asking YOU, the listener, to get busy doing progressive things. Do I foresee dueling volunteerism between the Edwards and Obama camps? Sure, why not? A lot of people will benefit, regardless of the outcome of the presidential race.

by Demo37 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (3.00 / 1)

Given the DLC listed Obama as a member in 2005 and he demanded to be removed as he isn't a member, that pretty much should answer your question.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (3.00 / 1)

I agree that Obama has structured his announcement well but the bigger picture is that as a candidate his honeymoon will end. It always does. Always. Ask Howard Dean. Because the system forces these candidates to announce a year before the first primay or caucus some may tire of them by the time the real voting starts. Everything Obama does now will be seen through the distorted carnival funhouse mirror of presidential politics.

by howardpark on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:29:17 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory (3.00 / 1)

Which is also part of why he's doing this now. We'll all get to learn that David Axelrod is a heck of a lot better at this than Joe Trippi was.

By getting in now, another aspect of the timing is that the first round of 'Bama bashing will run its course. At the end of that he still survives, giving a stronger answer to the "is he tough enough, has he been tested enough" gauntlet he needs to run. It also brings more of the garbage out of the closet earlier.

Plus, that sound you hear in the background is all of the first-tier politicals and activist, previously committed to someone else, squirming in their chairs. People are falling out of other nascent campaigns in droves all of a sudden. These are experienced people who know that at the end of the day it's all about the character of the candidate.

Surviving the extended barrage of an earlier-than-Dean-even announcement is an incredibly shrewd way of proving you're up to the task. And in Sen. Obama's case, I can tell you from having known him for over a decade, he's up to it. This is going to be fun.

So...anyone up for a quick game of Who Should Barack Pick as His Veep?

by ericd1112 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (none / 0)

I'll put this out there:

Colin Powell.

by ericd1112 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (none / 0)

So would Powell decide to move to the left given he's a committed GOPer or would Obama move to the right due to the heavy pull of the corporate media and "serious people" that Powell represents?

by adamterando on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (none / 0)

Iraq aside (and frankly alot of that was towing Bush's line) Powell's politics are very moderate... The main reason he is a GOPer is he came to prominence during Reagan's administration. But beside that 1) Powell could have been the VP or Pres candidate if he wanted too... he doesn't. 2) Obama is not picking a Republican 3) There are equally as good Dems out there...

My pick would be Richardson.. Western Governor... has an extensive Resume to counter-balance Obama's charisma... great on Foreign Policy...

He'd make an excellent choice, IMHO.

Maybe Edwards... Clark...

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (3.00 / 1)

Colin Powell,

You mean the Colin Powell who, as a puppet for George Bush, sat before the United Nations and lied about proof of WMD's in Iraq?

by jfoster on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Veep (none / 0)

While I'd prefer Edwards/Obama in 2008 and Obama/Someone in 2016, I could get used to Obama/Edwards in '08.

by Arthurkc on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory (none / 0)

Yeah... I agree... He has been forthcoming with a lot of his past demons (the drug use and generally thuggery in the past) more so than most high profile candidates have, but I am curious what skeletons will be unearthed... there is some potential with Tony Rezko, although frankly I don't know if that will hurt him... But is there something else out there?

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But it cuts both ways (3.00 / 1)

With the media attention comes added scrutiny. Iraq, of course, will be the issue. Will he follow Edwards in opposing funding for escalation? The country, especially progressives, will be watching. By not saying he'd block escalation, he's already dug himself a little hole. If he doesn't vote to block funding, he's gonna catch hell with the base; if he does, the media will say, "he's capitulating! His reputation as a unity candidate is threatened!"

It's never easy, not even for Barock star.

by david mizner on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:43:14 PM EST

Re: But it cuts both ways (none / 0)

Personally, I just don't see how Barack votes to fund the escalation. With moderate republicans already jumping ship, maybe someone could explain to me how that would benefit him politically...

by gabr1el on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But it cuts both ways (none / 0)

Clarification: he has NOT said he would NOT block escalation funding. I think you said that, so the emphasis is on "little" hole he has dug.

I agree it is ticklish.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ehhh... (none / 0)

I think you're overestimating the amount of press coverage Obama will receive. I don't forsee any of these guys having any sort of different media coverage during this "exploring window". It's not like CNN or MSNBC is going to be doing 24/7 ObamaWatch.

At least I pray they won't.

by meekermariner on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:14:28 PM EST

It's funny ... (3.00 / 1)

No one has commented on what this means for HRC ... it's not good news for her .. can she win the nomination running to the right of Obama? ... and I don't see how she can now run to the left of him ... she'll also have a lot of explaining to do about her vote for Smirk's misadventure

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:20:15 PM EST

Re: It's funny ... (3.00 / 2)

Yeah, it's a disaster for HC. She'd assumed that she'd could slide through in second or third till primaries were held in states with large African-American candidates. She's never had much of a chance; now she has no chance.

I'm not convinced she'll run.

by david mizner on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's funny ... (3.00 / 2)

You and me might be the only folks unconvinced, but ... I agree with you completely. The only compelling case I saw for Hillary's strength was the argument that she had high favorables in the African-American community and enough money/institutional support to squeeze out enough support elsewhere to grab the nomination.

Now, with Barack in, I don't see her path to the nomination. I just don't see her core constituency. Maybe she's a stellar campaigner, but I just don't see the boldness she would need to break out of the pack.

by BriVT on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's funny ... (3.00 / 2)

Count me in on this list. I think she sits in a room by herself and then calls Harry Reid to accept his earlier offer to step out if he steps aside and she becomes Senate Majority Leader. Then in eight years - she's young enough - she runs against Barack's veep to succeed him. In the meantime, she leads the charge on the issues she cares about, still gets tons of power and acclimation yet without getting shelled every single hour of every day of her life for deciding to continue breathing.

I think she saw Barack at the DNC in 2004 and (the look in her eyes when they cut to her made me thing she) realized that she gets to be Ted Kennedy. Senior lion of the party, champion of the old left, for labor and healthcare.

by ericd1112 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's funny ... (none / 0)

If Hillary evolves into Ted Kennedy, that would be fantastic. She's fifteen years younger than he is, and he won't last forever.

by One Hand Clapping on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GO OBAMA! (none / 0)

!!!

by danIA on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:22:19 PM EST

Problems for Hillary already (none / 0)

She apparently postponed her press conference on Iraq that was scheduled for today, in light of Obama's announcement:

UPDATE: Interestingly, the woman viewed as Obama's top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination at this moment - U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who was originally supposed to appear at a 2 p.m. press conference to discuss her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, suddenly has no public schedule today.

The press conference, at which Clinton was to be joined by her fellow travelers, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-In., and U.S. Rep. John McHugh, R-Watertown, has been moved to tomorrow at 3 p.m.

by tparty on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:26:52 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

meh.

by msstaley on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:30:05 PM EST

Who could suck the air out of his five weeks? (none / 0)

Even though I doubt he will run...

Al Gore would drown out any media focus on Obama as the media would take at least two weeks talking about why or why not Gore should run...

by Nazgul35 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:43:36 PM EST

Re: Who could suck the air out of his five weeks? (none / 0)

On the Netroots sure... nationally, I don't agree with you.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Gore Were To Announce (none / 0)

Some feel that if Gore wants to run again, he should announce AFTER his presumptive win in the documentary category at the Academy Awards, on February 25. (Heck, if I were Gore, and I wanted to announce, I would be very tempted to announce at the Awards.) The funny thing about doing it this way is...well...what happens if he loses the award? At any rate, all of this would be well after Obama's early February deadline.

by Demo37 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 09:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (3.00 / 1)

"With the media attention comes added scrutiny. Iraq, of course, will be the issue. Will he follow Edwards in opposing funding for escalation?"

Obama leads Edwards (and Clinton) on Iraq

1. Obama opposed Iraq. Edwards and Clinton voted for it. We need a president who gets the war/peace issues right the first time.

2. Obama (way before Edward's NO announcement muff) called for US withdrawal from Iraq by 2008 and redeployment to get Bin Laden.

So Obama owns the Iraq issue. The only candidate who got it right on Iraq.

by BrionLutz on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:13:37 PM EST

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (3.00 / 1)

Right. Obama opposed the war when he was a state senator no one outside Illinois had heard of.

As a superstar freshman senator, he immediately declared Joe Lieberman, the biggest cheerleader for the war, to be his mentor. I don't care whether he was being sincere or playing to the beltway media, I don't want anyone who views Lieberman as a mentor representing my party.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

Do you have evidence that he "declared" Lieberman to be his mentor?

I have read others suggesting that Lieberman was assigned to Obama, that Obama in no way chose Lieberman.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

It's been reported both ways. In any case, Obama has been a supporter of Lieberman. Here's his endorsement of Lieberman during the CT primary:

"But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America.
"I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

by justinh on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

OK, you have no evidence.

Obama did support Lieberman in the primary, and Lamont in the general.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

If you mean evidence about mentoring, the only evidence I have is what's been reported in the press. Is there another kind we have access to?

Obama did support Lieberman in the general, but his support for Lamont (if you could call it that) was clearly much less enthusiatic.

by justinh on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (3.00 / 1)

And it would have been impossible for Obama to win the Illinois primary if he had been for the war.

by justinh on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

"Obama opposed the war when he was a state senator no one outside Illinois had heard of."

Take it up with the person who claimed Iraq was going to be the key issue.

If Iraq is the key issue in 2008, Obama owns the issue vs. McCain, vs. Edwards, vs. Clinton, vs. Clark.

Obama is the guy who got it right. They are the people who got it wrong.

by BrionLutz on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

I think that's right. Obama will certainly have the advantage in that he alone can say he was against the war from the beginning.

(But that his opposition somehow signals that he is more progressive than someone like Edwards is a separate issue. If Obama were in the U.S. Senate in 2002 and Edwards running for Senator in Illinois a year and a half later, their positions could have easily been reversed.)

by justinh on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins if Iraq is the issue (none / 0)

Obama public anti-IWR statement was in '02.

by Sam I Am on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama trips up on the youth vote (3.00 / 1)

No doubt, if he follows through, Obama will be strong with young progressive voters in the primary. But in watching his pre-announcement video he made a classic mistake that was bad enough 4 years ago, but we should be so beyond now.

In describing the new economic realities that Americans have to deal with he touched on the escalating cost of college and how we worry about "how to pay for college for your kids."

As if only parents vote, and as if only parents deal with the problems of rising college cost and burdensom student debt.

I think a young voter hears that and they get a message about who he is talking to: Parents.

I think he can do better, and all our candidates need to do better in reaching out to young voters.

Don't hate the media, become the media. -- Jello Biafra

by Orlando on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:32:15 PM EST

Re: Obama trips up on the youth vote (none / 0)

Are you kidding?! Obama mops up the youth vote. He'll bring out young voters like no candidate ever before.

by ri on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama trips up on the youth vote (none / 0)

Yeah but Orlando brings up a fair criticism in his statement. The speechwriter ought to be aware.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

I'm not sure I agree with your thesis, Chris. Though lesser known candidates are put in a tough spot given Obama's excellent earned media position, I'm not sure its going to play the same way for Clinton.

The story is going to be that a Clinton (a woman) and Obama (a black man) are facing off for the Democratic nomination. That was going to be the story months ago, a la the Time magazine cover a while back. If anything, Clinton will be forced to enter early to stoke that horserace narrative and piggyback on her top competitors earned media. She's not boxed in -- she's still the frontrunner.

by IsaacGol on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:44:39 PM EST

Doubtful (none / 0)

I don't buy that this is a problem. Anybody who announces will get some free press and none of the non-top tier candidates will get much without fighting for it - their route to the nomination can only come by taking the place of one of the other leading contenders.

If Clinton gets in soon, then there could be problems as the narrative would probably be that they're the only two serious contenders, but for now it's not a death blow to anyone.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:32:46 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (3.00 / 1)

Has anyone checked on Stoller?

I'm worried what he may do now that Obama made it official.

;)

by Disputo on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:33:10 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase (none / 0)

Nobody will get the press and media attention that Senator Hillary Clinton will get when she announces she is running. It will make John Edwards attempts to get seen on every tv show in the country look like the minor league. Hillary's been laying the groundwork for her Presidential campaign for years and not just in New York but all around the country. And she will have President Bill Clinton promoting her everywhere.

I do wish Barack Obama the best of luck. He would be wise to run a positive campaign and not lash out at the 110th Congress the way John Edwards has done.

by marycontrary on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:01:50 PM EST

Spinning Away Credibility (none / 0)

Mary,

Edwards did not "lash out at the 110th Congress." He asked them at this critical decision point, to take a stand and speak up about the war. He asked them to use the power of the purse to stop Bush's escalation.

It is sad to see you spinning things away from the truth, just as Hillary Clinton's campaign did yesterday.

by Demo37 on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 10:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's announcement video (none / 0)

I just watched it. He said nothing that couldn't have been said by a reform-minded Republican. Seriously. His singular message was that our politics are broken. He sounded like Ross Perot.

I like Obama and I think he's probably a progressive, but this is taking caution to a new level.

More good news for Edwards.

And Mary Contrary: it's a pleasure to see you. I'm honored to be on the same thread as Hillary's one netroots fan.

by david mizner on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:25:22 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase (none / 0)

Well david mizner, our next President will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's annoying to the netroots but the netroots represents a very very small percentage of the Democratic party. Bad news for John Edwards!! :)

by marycontrary on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 07:37:18 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem (none / 0)

"If Obama were in the U.S. Senate in 2002 and Edwards running for Senator in Illinois a year and a half later, their positions could have easily been reversed."

But they are not and Obama owns the Iraq issue and the person was speculating on what happens if Iraq is the central issue of 2008...which it likely will be since Bush Jr's 20,000 troops will make no change in the nightmare scenario.

Edwards chose poorly. Perhaps he would make similar poor choices as president.

Obama is the only major candidate in the field who was right about Iraq.

by BrionLutz on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 07:52:23 PM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

Obama as of now reminds me of Edwards' campaign, circa Jan 2003. At first no one could quite believe he'd gone ahead and done it on such limited experience, then there was a series of quotes about what a "natural" campaigner he was, then the stories about his early fundraising prowess and he was, briefly, the front-runner in the then-important Shrum primary...then came Dean.

Edwards eventually regained his footing once he had thought through his message and his campaign style, and thats not easy. He's had 4 years more to think it through and its clear he's got a strong sense of why he's running and how he wants to go about it.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to be riding the buzz far ahead of any serious thinking about an agenda or a strategy, especially a strategy. Can anyone seriously lay out a scenario in which Obama wins the nomination?

I think by June, we'll start seeing stories about "what happened to Obama"?

by desmoulins on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 09:37:25 PM EST

Opening Moves (none / 0)

I agree that the timing of Senator Obama's announcement is very crafty, and good on him. I am very interested to see the suggestion that HRC may not even run because I have a feeling that just might happen, as unlikely as that may seem today; her minders can't run a negative campaign on Obama, nobody dares at this point (Biden 'He's a quality guy'). So what is she left with but an overdue penance for her 2002 Iraq vote; not a great way to start a campaign. She would be a great Senate Majority Leader though, wouldn't she? Maybe she will just bide her time.

And as for Barack's reticence on the funding attack now being proposed, I think he is carefully avoiding a pitfall which John Edwards, and others, have unfortunately had no choice but to risk. They don't have Obama's credibility on this issue and are overcompensating. This funding issue is a tar-pit which will prove problematic later for Democrats who are unwary. Ted Kennedy can get away with it; he's not running, is he?

So far, so good.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:16:31 AM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

Obama was probably helped by that visit at the California drug rehab center. He knows where to go and who to meet with and that is a major advantage from my point of view.

by tiberiu on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:43:11 AM EST

Re: Obama's Exploratory Phase Poses Problem For Un (none / 0)

I heard to about a visit at the clinic Narconon Vista Bay, but I don't think this was trully a problem. It must have been something else!

by timada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.