Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops

As Republicans watch the Democratic race unfold they have their fingers crossed.  Could Obama upset Clinton?  Maybe?  Hopefully?  It is a thought that has Republicans licking their chops.

The Republicans plan on running basically running their standard playbook, the difference is that unlike most Democrats, present and past, Obama seems oblivious to possible general election issues and is running headlong into a potential GOP buzz saw.

He will either be painted as uber liberal based on past positions that he clearly staked out while in Illinois, or he will be painted as a flip flopper as he trys to temper those positions in a general elections run.

'The Politico' offers up the on the record Republican quotes and there are some that Democrats better think long and hard about.  Furthermore they highlight a questionnaire that Obama himself filled out when he ran for the Senate in '96.

The questionaire is troubling.  Obama in filling it out did not seem to sense a political ramifications for his answers.  Given space to explain the yes / no answers more clearly, Obama left the spaces blank on key questions such capital punishment and the banning of the manufacture and sale of handguns.  

Worse, Obama has since taken conflicting stances.  He now says he supports the death penalty in some instances, instead of the simple 'No' that was his reply in the questionaire (when asked if he supported the death penalty).

From Kieran Mahoney, former advisor to Bob Dole, Politico gives us this:

"No candidacy of his avowed liberalism has succeeded in the United States in much more than a generation," said Republican strategist Kieran Mahoney, a national political adviser to former Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.

Mahoney said GOP consultants typically have to game out: "Is this a guy who has the nuance and cleverness to hide the fact that he is an unrepentant liberal?"

"That's the question you have when you're trying to beat these guys," Mahoney said. "He's not even trying."

One of the knocks that I have made against Obama is his lack of experience and his lack of vetting.  He has never been tested in a tough race.  I have to wonder if he isn't trying because he doesn't fully understand what the general election will bring.  I wonder if he knows how hard it will be.

Furthermore, the longer the campaign runs, the more I feel that my early gut about Obama is more right than ever.  That is a very smart guy who think that he can get by with slick talk.  If he has a problem with the handgun issue in PA or OH, my feeling is he thinks he can simply address it with a good speech.  I don't think that will be the case in the general, when the audience isn't fawning Democratic activists, but skeptical moderate Americans.

From Mike Allen and Ben Smith at 'The Politico':

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/120 7/7312.html



Display:


Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

Obama's thin resume is what will kill him- I don't think the issues will.
If we were to rate all the candidates on "electability" I go Dodd, Hillary, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Obama.
It also matters who the GOP opponent is. McCain can beat all of our guys except Dodd.
by NYFM on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:27:52 AM EST

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (1.00 / 1)

Just as Hillary's made up resume will kill her.  Just because you are sleeping with the President (or not depending on which stories you believe) doesn't make you experienced to be President.  By this convuluted rationale, Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush should jump into the race.  

The only real experience she has is as a Senator.  She has 8 years and I give her that, but it is far less than Dodd, Biden and Richardson and not too much more than Obama or Edwards.  The Clinton  Experience myth is the biggest myth since Bigfoot and Lochness monster.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree. (none / 0)

I just assume that when people say Hillary has experience they don't mean that she has actual experience governing or working with people to get things done.  I now assume they mean she has experience campaigning against Republicans.  

Personally, I am not convinced that she has been too successful at that campaigning.  But other people do think otherwise.


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

really? (1.00 / 0)

If she was so qualified, why didn't she run for president in 2000?


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

misogynist. (none / 0)

many people have worked in the white house and contributed greatly.  Bill Richardson, Bob Rubin, Robert Reich, Donna Shalela, and even Al Franken worked for Bill Clinton.  so did what's his name- you know- george stephanop...and they didn't do it secretly.

I do not believe that anyone is "prepared" or "experienced enough" to be president.  I do believe that some people have better judgement than others.

I personally do not trust Hillary's judgement.


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

Re: really? (none / 0)

If you kept an eye on the stories coming out of Vanity Fair about the end of the Clinton years, you'd have seen that people did think that she had a shot. In any case, that was Al Gore's turn.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

Come on, she had a major policy portfolio in the White House.  Comparing her to Laura Bush is just absurd.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

Yeah, I remember reading a story on Google News a couple of months ago with the headline "Laura Bush Takes on Policy Agenda" and I thought "Oh great, here she's going to talk about how wonderful reading is, being married to an semi-illiterate person." To me it's a tragedy that she couldn't have taken more advantage of the path Hillary blazed for her, sinking instead into the traditional role of part-time collectible stamp advocate and occaisional vistor of hospitals.

Hillary Clinton really did turn First Lady into a position of power because of her interest in policy and her unwillingness to be just some smiling sandbag for 8 years. I think that deep down, that's what upset the GOP the most. From day one when they tried to run that story supposedly about advocating for children suing their parents, it was clear that they were just unnerved by a presidential spouse who was unabashedly an accomplished professional, both opinionated and active in policy creation.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't settle for Hillary (none / 0)

Author Paul Loab (Democrats shouldn't settle for momentum-killing Hillary) makes the case ....

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her re-energizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the Iraq war. A Nov. 26 Zogby poll actually shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while John Edwards and Barack Obama defeat them.

Given Hillary's protracted support of the war, her embrace of neocon-servative rhetoric on Iran and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

If Clinton's contributors are any guide, like the homeland-security contractors she courted at a $1,000-a-plate dinner, she's likely to cave to corporate interests in her economic policies. The relative party unity created by Bush's policies will quickly erode.

Don't let fear keep us from our potential.


by JoeCoaster on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:31:40 AM EST

Loeb is excellent on many issues (none / 0)

politics and politicians is not one of them. Here is a really clueless article he wrote in 2000, that was NOT helpful to getting Gore elected.  In it he sounds like a total moron.  Sorry, but he has no clue about the realities of electoral politics and he is a terrible judge of character.

If I were Clinton I would advertise his opposition on my website.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

The GOP is afraid of John Edwards and is pulling hard for Hillary and Obama.  Why? Becuase Edwards populist message will resonate with working families across the country and will wipe out the GOP's typical devisive campaign on wedge issues.


Enough is enough!
by Bear83 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:33:55 AM EST

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

You may be right about John Edwards.  But, it just seems that many voters consider him "old news".  I think he will need to break through that perception to make it as the nominee.  It definitely can be done, but he hasn't sold the public on it yet.


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:39:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

I don't think you're right about Edwards at all.  Easiest way to bring down a politician is to attach him with the general public sentiment that politicians stand for nothing, that they are all hypocrites, phonies.  There is a string of about 6 big ticket issues where his voting record stands in opposition to his present stance.  The idea that he has changed for the better may be actually true, but that is something which only plays well in certain very small circles within the Democratic Party.  To the country at large, to the non-politico, it is a major problem.  He is the easiest to take down because it can be done with his own words admitting his votes were a mistake.  


by Piuma on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ignore the fact he was a Senator from (none / 0)

North Carolina, not Northern California, and he was beholden to those interests.

Tell me how great the faux Democrat Obama is.  He's nothing but a warmed-over Lieberman yet pushed as something he isn't.


by Susan Nunes on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He is NOT the easiest to take down. (none / 0)

Your head is up your rear.  EVERY SINGLE POLL SHOWS EDWARDS BEATING THE REPUBLICANS.

Keep being delusional and think Clinton or Obama can win ANYTHING.


by Susan Nunes on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, DUH! (none / 0)

Why isn't he "resonating" with the voters?  It's because the media have blathered forever about Clinton and Obama, a pair of surefire losers to the Republicans.  The media are in the tank for the Republicans.

The media have been instructed to ignore Edwards, just as they were told to in 2004.  That is a fact.


by Susan Nunes on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow... (none / 0)

Barry Obama sounds like the reincarnation of FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ all rolled into one.

I certainly wouldn't want the Democrats to nominate anyone like that;  they actually won their elections by more than 50% and got things done while in office.


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:35:21 AM EST

You left out Santa Claus, P Diddy, and Rambo (none / 0)

I mean if you are going to go over the top in comparisons, go all the way.  Why don't you just say Obama is 'God'.  It would faster.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You left out Santa Claus, P Diddy, and Rambo (none / 0)

No.  I don't think he is God.  I'm not sure that Christ can be reincarnated.


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

dirty tricks (none / 0)

you miss the best part of the article

The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign....

Somebody has a Dirty Tricks Division in her campaign and somewhere Rove is smiling.


by JoeCoaster on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:56:31 AM EST

proof? (none / 0)

Do you have any proof?  I realize Barry's campaign doesn't need proof to make accusations, but here it is always fun when someone provides proof just for the fun of it.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: proof? (none / 0)

Why wouldn't an opposing camp be up to this? I don't have any problem with opposing camps dumping oppo on Obama.


"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama
by General Sherman on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dirty tricks (none / 0)

This questionnaire is part of Obama's political record.  You seem to have set a very low bar in terms of defining "dirty tricks."


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

political record. (none / 0)

If you call 11 year old paper in a small state voters group filing cabinet, his political record...I guess so.

You have to admire her DTD's (Dirty Tricks Division) thoroughness. Can't wait to see what else they dig up.


by JoeCoaster on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: political record. (none / 0)

Well of course it's part of his record.  I mean, Obama's campaign clearly cared enough about the endorsement of this group to fill out the questionnaire, and the group surely thought they were getting straight answers.  I assume you wouldn't take the position that when you're dealing with a "small voters group," you can just make up any old thing about your position on the issues because it doesn't really matter.

Part of politics is tracking down your opponent's record and confronting them with it.  This is true in every election I've ever witnessed.  I hope you understand that just by calling it a "dirty trick," using capital letters, etc., doesn't actually make it so.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

Why should we cede our natural advantage to Iraq to the Republicans?  Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney - none of them voted for the War, none of them have changed their minds about it.  If we nominate either Clinton or Edwards, far from being our natural strength, the War will become our weakness.  Voted for it than ran from their responsibility for it - is that the mark of a leader.  What a bunch of nonsense that the GOP is licking its chops at the sight of Obama.  He is the only candidate who can take the anti-War sentiment and own it.


by Piuma on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:59:00 AM EST

I disagree on that issue (none / 0)

A solid majority of Americans supported the war at its outset.  

A solid majority of Americans now oppose it.

That means a lot of Americans ... many in the middle ... have changed their minds.

I don't think such people will hold the past, re: the war, against a candidate who says they will end the war, as both Edwards and Clinton say they will.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

I definetly agree. Republicans are licking thier chops to run against Obama. It's not a race issue, it's an experience one. They also see him as a lightweight, one that really won't fight back as hard as others might against attacks because he talks about a New Kind of Politics. Hillary they're secretly scared of. They know she's a fighter, a political heavy weight, and someone who looks like a true leader and is very well qualified for the job. Electability is not my only reason for not supporting Obama, but it's one of the reasons Democrats must concider.


by Christopher Lib on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM EST

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

They may see him as someone who won't fight but there are about a half a dozen diaries up right now which say otherwise.  A lightweight in terms of experience?  Against Huckabee, Romney, or Giulianni?  I don't think so.  

Electability is actually one of the major reasons to vote for him.  He is the only one who can stake claim to the anti-War sentiment in the country.  He is the only one who is identified with the National mood of wanting to unite the country, not divide it.  


by Piuma on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not Obama who americans find dishonest (none / 0)

and unlikeable, it's not Obama's face the GOP candidates are tyring to use against the dems in todays congressional races.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:31:34 AM EST

Re: it's not Obama who americans find dishonest (none / 0)

C'mon. Don't be a punk. Just say that the Repubs are itching to go against a black man.


"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama
by General Sherman on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Play Innocent (2.00 / 1)

Why are some especially many Obama supporters playing "Innocent" ?

Why can't we all admit that If Obama is the nominee, INEXPERIENCE & RACE will be TWO MAJOR issues put forward by Republicans?

Have Obama supporters suddenly develop  a case of amnesia?

INEXPERIENCE will be the "Official Language" to the general public.

And BLACK ( w/ fictional Muslim ties) will be the " Unspoken Language of Fear" that will circulate across america. ( thru Drudge, Rush L., Hannity & co.)

If they had no issue destroying dem candidates in the past using the whole kitchen sink, wait until they are faced with a Liberal Black Man who wants to be President.

They made a living of destroying the likes of Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill & Hillary, Max Cleland- - wait until they're done with Obama.

That's why I agree 100% with many veteran Black politicians like Andrew Young. Any poll right now on general matchups  concerning Obama are literally meaningless.

Once he is the nominee, toe to toe, one on one with the White Male GOP nominee- you will Obama behind with the fake poll #, and even behind further with the real number.

I agree with what many are saying.

How can you expect a 1st term Black democrat from a very Blue state who won by default by beating another Black person  who was a last minute out of state substitute candidate by the GOP.

How can you then ( thru the creation of the MSM & its 2 years of darling creation of Obama)expect this Black democrat to somehow Win the the vote of the entire nation?

To win the majority of Electoral votes of the entire nation when ALL the African-Americans who have ever won statewide office as Governor or Senator combined would amount the a nothing but 46 electoral votes!!!! As of today, 47 states in the United States have NEVER elected a Black person for statewide higher office!

And we Democrats somehow think Obama will be Superman?

This is our biggest chance for Presidential victory in decades. And thanks to our Liberal Elite segment of the party, they want to turn this into a Historical "Feel Good Making moment" of nominating a Black person at the expense of winning.

If Obama is the nominee, inspite of Bush's lousy #'s- this will defeat will worst than even Dukakis in 1988.

In fact, You don't find any Obama supporter who can pinpoint what state Obama can win that Gore could not win. Honestly, they privately doubt if her can even carry blue states like NH,CT,NJ & WI.

What a big loss for the sake of ...........


by labanman on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:10:38 PM EST

Cold hard truth (none / 0)

Thanks for bringing it.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

really? (none / 0)

Obama would lose no matter what?

Because the people in the midwest and new england are so racist?

Really?


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

Well then, I sure hope Giuliani is the Republican nominee since he's "obviously" unelectable.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about the primary.  Everyone else in this diary is talking about the general election.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

"the mob".

is this 1936?

where's dick tracy?


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know the GOP has a pile of dirt (none / 0)

on Obama, hence the reason they are peddling him so much through their media connections.


by Susan Nunes on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They want Clinton (none / 0)

to run against.  Why do you think they are already trying our Congressional candidates to her?  Her running will lose us House seats in 2008.  


by Toddwell on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:01:31 PM EST

Re: They want Clinton (none / 0)

You forget that all women identify with Hillary Clinton.

Those ads won't hurt democratic candidates at all.  In fact, they will turn out even more women to vote for Hillary so she can make history.

At least that has been the argument.  What is forgotten are the number of voters who don't want Hillary to be the woman to make this presidential history.


d
by d on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no way we lose House seats in '08 (none / 0)

I'd bet a zillion that we pick up at least 10 even if Mike Gravel was running.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Its beyond one candidate (none / 0)


This issue is now pass Clinton, Edwards or any one candidate.

The bottom line here is Obama will be the weakest GE candidate among any of the 1st tier or even 2nd tier democratic candidates.

Don't take it personally. That's what's called REALITY! We are not talking about carrying the Liberal Blue state of Massuchetts here. We are not talking about winning the Liberal Blue state of Illinois here.

We are talking about Barack Hussein Obama having to carry the states of Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, West Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, NH, NJ,CT.

This is not trying to defeat Alan Keyes now.

This is not for some community leader position.

I predict that if Obama pulls off Iowa, you will start seeing "Anybody but Obama" movements among many democrats across the nation.

This is a real issue. Not some made-up bullcrap.

In fact, you should read black editorials by some prominent African-American political leaders like Andrew Young. They are saying that the exact same thing. No way will Obama win in 2008 against the GOP.We're just throwing away a tremendous opportunity to win the White House.


by labanman on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:13:24 PM EST

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

Obama is an easy target. He is the definition of Mr. Vapoware. If you run a campaign based on your personality, then the GOP attacks your character. And they are very, very effective.

Clinton understands, that you run a campaign of select issues. You try to neutralize the phony wedge issues, and play up the issues that voters care about. Plus, Hillary is so well known, it is hard for the GOP to paint her with their character brush.

Obama is totally unknown guy who biggest claim to fame is that he was endorsed by Oprah. Watch for a crushing Dem defeat by this rookie - but I don't expect him to even get close to winning the nomination.


by moi moi on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:39:59 PM EST

Why did Obama change all those names in his book? (none / 0)

How many more of Obama school chums - ex cons who live in their cars  - are going to come forward?  Did he change all those names of friends and associates in his book to try and hide things from the past?


by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has Republicans Licking Their Chops (none / 0)

He has no chance, and neither does Hillary.

Democratic voters need to recognize one simple fact:  If the media are pushing certain candidates, those are the ones to avoid like the plague.

Remember, the corporate media are little more than tools for the Republicans.


by Susan Nunes on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:45:58 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.