As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, I can't relate to the "buzz" nonsense

For starters, I am sort of new to this site and generally enjoy it quite a bit.

I find this Obama "losing buzz" stuff quite amusing and as a rebuttal of sorts would like to relate my personal experiences to date with the Obama For America campaign.

First of all, I live in Greenville, SC, home of the notoriously fundamentalist christian school Bob Jones University. My congressional representative is a conservative Republican and our Senators are R- Lindsey Graham, who is absolutely villified in this county as being a "moderate", and R- Jim Demint, who is being praised for his staunch opposition to the bipartisan immigration bill. Demint, you may recall, said during his campaign that single mothers shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. He won this county with little difficulty.

That having been said, I am quite proud that the next President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), will be coming to Greenville Friday for a campaign rally. I'm not a political scientist, but I doubt he'd becoming here if there were not significant interest in his candidacy.

I have attended two "official" campaign organizing meetings in Greenville; the first, shortly after his announcement, drew approximately 75 people. The event was professional in organization and informative in content. There was a multimedia presentation that seemed pretty damn Pro to me. The staffers running the show emphasized the importance of the individual and the responsibility the individual must assume in promoting the candidacy of Senator Obama. They gave us a specific list of tasks around which to organize our efforts. One thing that impressed me was that the staff was sincerely grateful for the participation and the enthusiasm of those who were volunteering for the campaign.

The second meeting I attended was last Saturday in preparation for the "walk for change" national canvass. The meeting was at the main branch of the downtown library and about 50 volunteers were present in addition to the "official" camapaign staff. Again, I was kind of blown away by the enthusiasm and professionalism of the folks running the show. Those of us who did not come with a partner were quickly partnered up. We were given very practical and organized maps and voter lists and scripts (although the staff emphasized that we tell our own story and not follow the script verbatim). We were given numbers to call should we have any problems and each canvassing team had leaders who would stay in touch with each other throughout the day. Those like myself who had never canvassed were given enough support to succeed. I was blown away by the professionalism, leadership and organizational ability on display, and I remember thinking that if Greenville, SC can do this, then the sky is the limit for this campaign.

We got a lot of people involved and engaged in this campaign for the first time. We collected a great number of supporter cards and were able to speak face to face with quite a few leaners and undecided voters. I think we made a difference this weekend, and I think that in the coming weeks the "polls" and perhaps even the more coveted "buzz" will reflect this tremendous grassroots effort.

My friends, we had 10,000 people knocking on doors across the country. If my fellow volunteers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Timbuktoo had a similiar experience, we're going to reap the benefits.  

This is a true people powered, bottom-up movement, and I'll just continue to do my thing and we'll see where the race stands in the weeks and months to come. I believe that Barack may need, in the not so distant future, to get a little bolder, and yes, perhaps even sharpen the rhetorical knives a bit. It may be neccessary eventually, but I believe that right now Obama is earning the trust of his supporters and of voters gernerally. Believe it or not, he is still in the process of introducing himself to much of the country. I believe we have the potential to reach a whole new level with this campaign. Good luck to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns and indeed to all the campaigns.    

all due respect, by the way, to our friends mr. stoller, mr. bower, et al, who have undoubtedly earned their bullhorns, etc.

Display:


Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (3.00 / 1)

Believe it or not, he is still in the process of introducing himself to much of the country.

I didn't believe it either, until I saw that 15% of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents don't know his name! I wonder how that 15% responds to pollsters asking them their candidate preference... somehow I doubt they are choosing Biden or Dodd!


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 07:11:57 PM EST

That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

he is still getting introduced to the public.  And there is no shock that Clinton is leading in the polls, mostly from NAME RECOGNITION, but she is also leading in the negative polls, which should question every democrat, can she win if the nod.  


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

except even if every single one of those 15% of those voters who dont know who he is ends up supporting him, he's still within the margin of error and still doesnt actually lead in polls.

The other thing is that as his exposure increases, so does his negative percentage.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

but I can't see his negatives as high as Clinton's.  I mean, who would want that?  Her negatives are perceived, hard as granite for the public, they know her.  Obama is still unknown, it can go up and down.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

Her negative have gone down since she got in the race!  Heck, even Bush's numbers go up when he goes amongst the people.


"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama
by gb1437a on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

But his negatives have gone up sharply.  The Rasmussen poll has his negatives now at 44%, which is a very high number.  He also just received a bad "head-to-head" number against Giuliani, who he is now trailing by 12%, whereas just a month ago he was almost even with Giulinai (trailing only by 1%.)  

I believe with Obama's negatives going up so sharply, it is fair to talk about some of the buzz diminishing and the shinyness coming off Obama's candidacy.  

The keypoints of this development are probably the debate performances, where Obama in the end comes across as just another calculating politician, whereas Clinton comes across witty, 'take-charge', in command of the room.  


by georgep on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

Of course his negatives were going to go up. Staying around 65% or whatever was never realistic. Candidates always look a lot better for they actually start campaigning (that means you Al Gore).


by Korha on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:06:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

republicans kept saying this in illinois all through 2004.  now he has 73% favorability in the state...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

I wouldn't say that Obama comes across as calculating.  And claiming that Clinton comes across as anything but that is ridiculous.  Her soundbyte answers in the last debate were testament to that.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I will say that he comes across a lot better to the people who will be part of a changing political dynamic in this country a helluva lot better than Hillary Clinton.

On another note, I had no idea Obama's negatives were up to 44% in any poll.  Frankly, I'm surprised by that.  Without seeing other positive/negative numbers, I'd be skeptical of that.  With those of name recognition of Obama, my gut feel is that he's going to have solid positives and low negatives right now.  What has he done that would induce high negatives?  As the point has been made, his name rec is low and most people probably don't really know a damn thing about him.  His negatives will go up as people do get to know him, that is an inevitability, but having his negatives at 44% right now just seems off to me.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

From what poll are we quoting about Obama's negatives 44%, and are there more than one?  Because Clinton is at 50%, and she can only go higher.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 02:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why I continue to say, (none / 0)

Rasmussen has Obama at 44% unfavorable.  And, yes, there are more.  

Plus, Obama is 12% behind Giuliani, the worst showing of any of the Democratic candidates.  This is as of SUNDAY.  Not sure what old data you are looking at.

As for your point that Clinton's negatives can only go higher, that is ridiculous BS.  She has 100% name ID, but as people see her they actually like her (see campaign coverage, debate coverage.)  So, she will be able to bring negatives down some by destroying the caricatures that have been spread of her (courtesy by the right-wing, but also people on the left who do so shamelessly, like many of the Obama fanatics here, who can't handle that "the chosen one" can't dent her national lead, and more importantly, does not impress voters in ANY state enough to be in the or close to the lead.   Her negatives have already been going down, and they will continue to do so, the more people watch her in debates, on TV shows, etc.  On the other hand, Obama's negatives can only go up.  He does not have 100% name ID yet, and is already at a very high negative rating.  In addition, so far he has disappointed hard-core Democrats.


by georgep on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 06:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aren't you getting dizzy yet? (none / 0)

My god, nobody spins harder here for any candidate than you do for Hillary Clinton.
by horizonr on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary loses in BLUE states... (none / 0)

she probably couldn't win any of the big three (ohio, florida, pennsylvania).  she's unlikely to win iowa.  then there's that nasty drag on the rest of the ticket, hurting democrats down the line.

i sure the hell won't vote for her.  living in illinois for a few years now, i'm aware of the corruptive effect of political dynasties.  bush > clinton > bush > clinton????  can we be that stupid?

and that's not even thinking about dredging up all the old scandals.  i'm sorry, but i don't want to live another four years with all that.  it's just not worth it.

but the number one reason why hillary won't win is because her presence on the ticket will solidify the republican base in a manner we've never seen before.  she is that divisive a figure.  hillary == loser.  what democrats have to decide is, do you want to lose again?


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:10:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary loses in BLUE states... (none / 0)

although you perhaps express it a bit harshly, i agree with the larger point. i have nothing against this lady, but the GOP will move heaven and earth to stop her. i honestly don't think i'm buying into a repub "talking point" by saying that.


by the green and bold on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm honestly appalled by the thought... (none / 0)

of american royalty.


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:12:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

Great post.  Yes I had the same experience, both about the professionality of the staff, and the fact so many people really don't know him.  They have heard of him, but that was all.  And many of the Hispanics we talked with had never even heard of him.  I am glad to see he already has translated video working on his Spanish language website.  


by dougdilg on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 07:30:20 PM EST

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

thanks, buddy. let's keep working.


by the green and bold on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 09:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, I can't r (none / 0)

Great Diary, thanks


by parahammer on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 08:13:01 PM EST

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, I can't r (none / 0)

you're welcome- and thank YOU


by the green and bold on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 09:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary (none / 0)

A great and positive diary. Thanks.


by Korha on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 09:57:05 PM EST

deaniacs (none / 0)


My friends, we had 10,000 people knocking on doors across the country. If my fellow volunteers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Timbuktoo had a similiar experience, we're going to reap the benefits.

Sounds like Deaniacs' pyramid scheme.


by carolinezhang on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:51:19 PM EST

Re: deaniacs (none / 0)

did Howard Dean enjoy similiar grassroots support? 10,000 canvassers (NONE in orange hats, as far as I know) in a single day?


by the green and bold on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good for you for volunteering (3.00 / 1)

I know some Obama supporters and have meet a few Obama staffers. I think there's no question the campaign has "buzz" in the sense of energy from staff who are real believers and volunteers who are highly motivated.

I do sense that Obama picked up a lot of support during the first two months of this year, and that he is at more of a plateau now (at least in Iowa--I have no idea what's going on elsewhere).

The people who were going to decide early have decided early, and the others (a plurality, maybe even a majority of the caucus-goers) are still undecided.

I don't get the sense that Obama is steadily gaining support in Iowa, but I don't get the sense that he's hit his ceiling either. A lot of undecideds are considering him.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 11:18:45 PM EST

Re: good for you for volunteering (none / 0)

thanks- and fair enough- we'll see where it goes...


by the green and bold on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 11:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is a link to Obama Rally, (none / 0)

in Greenville, SC, June 15th, free, but you must sign up:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/2007061 5greenvil?source=eventcenter


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:31:00 AM EST

Re: Here is a link to Obama Rally, (none / 0)

thanks, slim


by the green and bold on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 07:59:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's Achilles Heal (3.00 / 0)

Obama is clearly the strongest candidate for the Dems and their best hope of regaining the White House.

While every other candidate has to now change positions, apologize for past votes or simply run from their record, Obama talks about hope and uplifts his audience.

Its also clear that his current strategy is to introduce himself and his ideas to Americans. A lot of people have no idea who he is, don't know he's running for president or have heard of him but don't have any idea where he stands on issues. Therefore polls at this moment are insignificant - any political scientist worth his salt will tell you this.

True. Clinton may have the best political team ever assembled, but she also has the largest achilles heal of any candidate that has seeked their party's nomination in a long time. As soon as many of her supporters realize this they will do what the Dean and Gephardt supporters did back in 03/04...jump ship because they realized their candidate was simply not electable.


by gsopo on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:27:22 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Achilles Heal (none / 0)

There are some good'n'ridiculous statements in here, like "Obama is clearly the strongest candidate for the Dems" (since you apparently have decided to throw out 100+ years of political, cultural, and social history of the U.S.) but I'll just say something about one:

"True. Clinton may have the best political team ever assembled, but she also has the largest achilles heal of any candidate that has seeked their party's nomination in a long time. As soon as many of her supporters realize this they will do what the Dean and Gephardt supporters did back in 03/04...jump ship because they realized their candidate was simply not electable."

Hillary Clinton has a decent political team.  Just because there are insiders and experienced people, don't mistake them for being good at politics.  Remember, her insider crew is that which is most responsible for the breakdown of the Democratic Party, failing electoral and political strategies, and people utterly incapable of grasping the new realities of politics in this country.  

Dean and Gephardt are bad examples of people jumping ship over electability.  Hillary's claim is not electability, it's inevitability.  

Tell me the states that Bush won in 2004 that Clinton and/or Obama will compete and win in.  

There is one candidate who can and will compete everywhere, and one candidate that has won a 'red' state - there is one candidate that can go into the border south, mountain west, rust belt and upper midwest and turn swing states into romps.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Achilles Heal (none / 0)

I think any of our top 3 candidates (and maybe a couple of the others) will be able to win states that Kerry lost.

In particular, I think that Obama will have a particularly good chance (meaning better than Clinton or Edwards, who you seem to be supporting) in states that were close in 00 and 04 where there were absolutely HUGE numbers of voting-age African Americans who were either unregistered or didn't make it to the polls. I just don't see Edwards bringing a lot of new black voters into our camp.

He will have similar appeal to young voters who, although they constitue a historically unreliable voting bloc, are the target of sophisticated mobilization tactics by the Obama campaign (have you seen the My B.O. site or heard of the "Students for" chapters?) and are breaking overwhelmingly for the Senator from Illinois.

Obama will also hold great appeal to moderates, though I think Edwards can too if he's able to shake off the Kerry baggage.

You wanted states, so here's what I think: Ohio (where a large number of black voters were either disenfranchised last time or simply didn't even try to vote) would be the number one target, and a state where Obama would have a particular advantage over Edwards. Florida is similar, but the Democrats haven't exactly been gaining much ground down there lately. In Virginia, we need to make up about 125,000 votes, and over 20% of the state's 7.6 million residents are black. Missouri is always a target during every campaign. A lot of smaller states will be in play, like New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, maybe even Arkansas, West Virginia, and Arizona (okay, I'm getting optimistic).

Like I said, any of our best candidates can win this thing, but Obama's my guy, and I also think he gives us the best chance.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 07:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Achilles Heal (none / 0)

Obama gets unregistered democrats into the process making the democratic party stronger.  

Will edwards be doing that?  Or will he be bringing to the booths people who will split their ticket?


by sterra on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

"This is a true people powered, bottom-up movement..."

No, you were out canvassing because the national campaign organized a day of canvassing.  That is not bottom-up.  It's got a grassroots activism component, but it's not like someone on the ground said "Hey, I'm passionate about Barack Obama, I'm going to organize other Obama supporters in this neck of the woods to go knock on doors."  

Obama is still running a traditionalist campaign and relying upon his cult of personality to drive attention.  Whatever serious plans he has on any issues are an utter mystery to most people because of this.  Longer-term, Axelrod-style politics is not good for Democrats, liberals, and progressives.  

Let's not make it out to be something it's not.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 10:57:07 AM EST

Edwards supporters need to take note (none / 0)

Yes, let's not make it out to be something it's not, which is exactly what you are doing and the question has to be why.  The petty attacks that many Edwards supporters like to engage in unfortunately reflects on their candidate.  Obama's campaign did something very smart and praiseworthy, and I think John Edwards would be one of the first people to say so.  In LA one of the events was coordinated with an existing grassroots organization that in the past has been responsible for registering 80,000 new voters.  There is nothing here to criticize.  The Edwards supporters would be wiser to get off their computers for a bit and start some legwork because in my one long block experience of Saturday I can honestly tell you this: we talked a lot about Obama, we talked about Hillary, and the War and Immigration and voting and empowerment.  No one brought up John Edwards.  No one.


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 11:27:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters need to take note (none / 0)

ditto that. i spoke to about 35 registered dem. voters saturday and not a single one said anything about john edwards. quite a few hillarys, and weirdly, a couple of people like rudy g.

i would vote for john edwards. i like him. but for my taste he's a bit of a weather vane compared to O.


by the green and bold on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters need to take note (3.00 / 1)

It would be unwise to ask me to get up and do legwork.  I was the only person from a candidate campaign to travel the entire state to attend congressional district party conventions, I've put together multiple house parties around the area and around the state, I've organized a presence at the state party convention (Edwards is the only candidate who will be there organizationally), I've secured endorsements, put together fundraisers (and will do more - by my count, I'll raise somewhere on the order of $50-75k myself for the campaign), I've put together a presence at our local farmers' market every weekend since April, I've put together truly bottom-up canvassing days, and countless other things.

I'm also the vice chair of the congressional district party, on the executive board of the county party, a fundraiser and activist for a number of candidates and party apparatuses, many other projects, and all-around political operative (hate to use that term).  I'll put my activist cred up against anyone.

My point was that it's not bottom-up when someone from the national campaign sends down a directive that "we're going to canvass this weekend."  That might be grassroots activity, but it's not bottom-up.  

And no, partisan comments from random-ass people on the internet do not speak to a damn thing about a given candidate.  I don't judge Obama or Hillary based upon Yitbos or GeorgeP.  I don't speak for John Edwards, and really, it's simplistic, naive, and juvenile to think that any of us do so on a blog.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards supporters need to take note (none / 0)

thanks for the comment. like I said in my diary, good luck to the Edwards campaign.


by the green and bold on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 06:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

Considering the almost cult-like devotion that many of Edwards' netroots supporters seem to have towards him, it's kind of rich that any one of them should be throwing stones about a personality cult surrounding Obama.
Regarding the Walk for change, you have no idea what you're talking about.  I not only participated on the Walk for Change, I helped organize a canvass in my city, and though it is true that we did get some guidance from the national campaign,  the actual work, organzing and recruitment of volunteers was done by grass roots people, ordinary folks like myself putting in our own time and resources.  
How many of Edwards' supports are out there on the ground trying to build a grassroots movement for their candidate?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Maybe if his supporters were actually out there doing something instead of sitting on their butts posting on a web page, he wouldn't be stuck in third place in the polls. I live in a  major city and I haven't even seen any evidence that Edwards is even running.  It's like he's invisible. Obama and Clinton both have have been down here and had public events with some big crowds. Edwards had a few fundraisers with trial lawyers, and that's about it. For all of his populist rhetoric, I don't see a people-powered movement for Edwards out there.  
"In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it." Barack Obama
by whitbreadale on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 01:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

See my post above.  I've gotten a number of calls and comments from active Democrats throughout the state about how the Edwards team is the only one doing anything.  And it would be silly for you to comment on my activist credentials and organizing without knowing much about me.  My best guess is that I put in around 30-40 hours per week on Edwards campaign things and another 10 hours per week right now on other Democratic Party things.  

Don't kid yourself.  Obama and Clinton were in your city because they were there for fundraisers.  

Don't be dumbass too.  The Obama campaign strategy and narrative is built around the personality of Obama, not his vision for anything.  That's what David Axelrod is known for.  Even a novice would likely know that, since the NYT Magazine story from about a month ago made that very clear to people who were not familiar with his previous work.  

You're selectively choosing what you read and comprehend and then commenting on it.  Read the whole thing carefully, think, and then post.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

well, I mean, when you talk about selectivity... you could've at least given him credit for organizing the walk for change in his district or take back what you said about the lack of organizing being done at the bottom


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

I have to disagree with you on this one.  It was actually a bottom up effort.  The campaign said, we will set up canvasses in 33 cities - if you want to set one up we will send you some literature.

There were 1000 (+-) canvasses.  That means that 967 (+-) were organized entirely by grassroots individuals.  I was working on organizing one and we had to make the maps ourselves and recruit individuals.  This event was all about providing people with the tools necessary and allowing them to run it themselves.


by Obama08 on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 01:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a grassroots volunteer for Obama, (none / 0)

Good for you (seriously).  I've only heard about the top-down canvasses (which is what they had here in our area).


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

Since you are a big time worker for Edwards and hold us dumbasses in such obvious contempt for being swayed by the politics of personality not vision, and we are less than naive, perhaps you could answer a question I posed in another thread and never got an answer.  Although the first part of that is sarcastic, the rest is sincere, I really would like to know.  Here's what I asked before, just slighty edited:

What truly bothers me is what appears to be the dishonesty lodged in Edwards apology for his mistake.  We now know the NIE report was available to him, a report by our own people which seriously questioned the existence of WMDs, the connection to Al-Qiada, and the imminent threat.  He seeks to brush over his vote by saying it was a mistake without detailing what the mistake was.  He said in the last debate he was fully briefed and didn't need to read the report.  He said in the first debate he should have trusted his intincts more.  These admissions, far from soothing me, just makes the issue more troubling.  

I'm for another candidate, true.  But at the end of the day I'm a Democrat and will be voting for a Democrat so, please, I would like an answer - knowing what we know now, if his intincts were otherwise and he was fully informed, how does someone make a speech the day after September 11th, 2002, and say these words by mistake?


"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

Being a hardworking activist on the ground makes me privy to exactly nothing in the way of insight on this.  

I hold none of you in contempt.  I was responding to the notion that we lazy internet kidz Edwards supporters should get out and do some activism.  It's not like I was name-dropping and said "this morning when I was talking to the state party chair" or "the other day when I was on the phone with David Bonior" or "sorry, can't type any more, I'm off to my meeting with the governor."  By the way, only one of those previous statements is actually true.

My point is that I'm an activist, a volunteer, a Democratic Party leader, and someone involved with the campaign.  I'm not on the policy staff for team Edwards.  I'm not John Edwards.  I don't speak for the campaign.

But I can offer this perspective.  Edwards' position in 2002-2003 was based on the idea that George Bush would actually do what he said and work through all available channels before actually using military force, which is what the AUMF was widely known to include.  The choice was not about whether or not there were WMDs, it was on whether or not the Congress would provide one more bargaining tool for the president to use to negotiate with Iraq.  It turned out, as we all know, that the president, while saying the right things, never had any intention of doign anything other than using military force.  

Again, his position was about the president having the authorization to include military force as an option and at the bargaining table, and not about whether or not he thought there were actually WMDs and whether or not we should be going to war in Iraq.  Don't be like Mitt Romeny...it's important not to forget that many people thought that if the weapons inspectors could complete their work, it would all be a moot point.

Does that make sense?  I'm not sure I explained myself clearly.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 04:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

Perhaps you didn't mean to express contempt, but when accuse people of being driven by the cult of personality, that is something dripping with contempt.  Really, how dare you question people's response to the clear vision of politics and our role in it that Barack has expressed?  Where do you come off, especially as one who has put words into action,  questioning our motives and our intelligence?   People here did what I'm sure you, as a dedicated activist, wish more people would do.  I wasn't calling you or any other Edwards supporter lazy, I was merely saying what my experience was which came as a surprise to me.  I view this as a 3 person race.  The people of 5th Street between 34th & Exposition do not see it that way.  If any Edwards supporter was out canvassing a whole day and never heard Obama's name mentioned that would worry me.

As for your explanation of Edwards mistake, thank you for at least trying but I'm sorry it doesn't make me feel any better.  The explanation you gave is essentially the same thing Hillary is saying, that her mistake was to trust George Bush to do what he said he was going to do.  Edwards says he is honestly admitting it was a mistake and HIllary isn't - then what is the difference? And Edwards' words are certainly more alligned with Bush - he doesn't question the existence of WMD, he says he knows they exist and that the threat is imminent and he relates the question of our response to the experience of 9/11.  I think it's a very troubling passage which if he becomes the candidate is going to  absolutely be ripped to shreds by the Republicans.  I certainly feel he needs a much better response, and needs to give his supporters a lot more to work with.


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

"Perhaps you didn't mean to express contempt, but when (you) accuse people of being driven by the cult of personality, that is something dripping with contempt."

That term has been used by Elizabeth Edwards recently when describing the rivalling campaigns.  I guess Peter is just echoing it, so it is really not HE who showed contempt but those he listens to.     :-)


by georgep on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 06:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

I have heard Elizabeth say this.  But if you look back at my comments here going back for a number of months, it was a sentiment that I expressed before Elizabeth said this.  Not that I'm some opinion-leader and that Elizabeth is parroting me; but the larger point is that a lot of people have noted that.  And again, that's the kind of campaign narrative for which David Axelrod is known.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

I think you missed my point.  My point is not that the Obama supporters are swept up in some kind of pied piper's fantasyland around Obama.  My point is that Obama's campaign narrative has played up and focused on, as is David Axelrod's MO, Obama the personality and figure, and not a vision for what the country can and should be like.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

as the original diarist and obviously an Obama loyalist, I have a question:Who the f*&^ is David Axelrod? Doesn't he play for ther Mariners?  


by the green and bold on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 10:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

david axelrod is a prominent media strategist here in the midwest.  he is terrific on message and visuals, but has the reputation of overemphasizing the same, which has brought him far too many loses (detroit mayor's race, cook county board president).


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

"I wasn't calling you or any other Edwards supporter lazy, I was merely saying what my experience was which came as a surprise to me. "

Fact Check:

"How many of Edwards' supports are out there on the ground trying to build a grassroots movement for their candidate?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Maybe if his supporters were actually out there doing something instead of sitting on their butts posting on a web page, he wouldn't be stuck in third place in the polls."

Obama and Hillary are MIA right now in my state.  No one has heard anything from them on the ground.  That's what I know, my own state.  Neither campaign has been at any party function and they are lined up to be anytime in the coming future.  There is not a single organizer of note or figure in state Democratic politics of whom I know right now that is doing anything for Obama.  Hillary has a few major players, but nothing on the ground.  

All I know is that from an objective standpoint, the Edwards campaign in my state is absolutely kicking ass, and there are tons of volunteers out there absolutely rocking - and the majority are "never been involved in politics before" types.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

"My point is not that the Obama supporters are swept up in some kind of pied piper's fantasyland around Obama.  My point is that Obama's campaign narrative has played up and focused on, as is David Axelrod's MO, Obama the personality and figure, and not a vision for what the country can and should be like. "

Your dislike of Axelrod is evident so I don't know why you give him such credit.  I think it's just wrong for any campaign to characterize supporters of another candidate in a way which questions their integrity, intentionally or not.  Many of us were very moved by the vision he expressed in his convention speech, by his calling to look beyond ourselves and come together as a country.  This vision and our response to it were reinforced and heightened by his books, his speech in opposition to the War and other personal appearances.  To think that the response from most of us is a result of master manipulation is as insulting and as uninformed as it is to call Obama a "fluff" candidate - another perjoritive I've seen Mrs. Edwards use which really lowered my opinion of her.


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 10:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps you can answer a question (none / 0)

You are holding people in contempt. Sorry man but a lot of people in the general population got it wrong too. Saying I told you say is pretty damn bad politics.  

Btw I was against the war from the beginning.


by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.