jerome?

Yeah I thought he's back to the same-old same-old.  It seems the only thing his campaign wants you to know is he's not Hillary Clinton- in a party where 85 percent view her favorably, I'm not sure where that is going to get him.

I believe those headlines are quite misleading. The jabs are not really as sharp as those headlines sound.

But I do agree Hillary is in driver's seat in shaping up the narrative. She has made a very strong and aggressive argument regarding change & experience. This definitely puts Obama/Edwards in defense.

I know we can set these goals and reach them and I know too that you don't just do it by making a speech. You don't just do it by hoping it happens," she said.
...
Sioux City Democrat Shirley McArdle was leaning toward backing Obama in the caucuses, but was impressed by Clinton, whom she had never seen in person.

"She was much better than I expected," said McArdle, who is undecided. "I like what I heard today. She came across as passionate."

I don't think it's a terribly bad choice for Obama to start making subtle snides and attacks towards the Clinton camp. To say the least, recently the Edwards campaign has had momentum that has been fueled by his populist position against Washington Insiders, of which Clinton is currently the major figurehead there. Obama has been relatively stagnant in the polls, maybe even dropping a point or two.

I think it's also safe to say that Hillary's honeymoon of 45% of the Democratic Primary electorate is over, and is now probably closer to 39-40% right now. And, thanks to Edwards' populist speech, I think Obama has not gained much of that support, and he needs it. Time will tell whether or not a small tagteam of Obama and Edwards against Clinton - all saying that Washington needs a big change and not an establishment candidate - will lower Clinton's poll numbers, attract undecideds, or take away from some of the smaller candidates (like Kucinich or Richardson). I also think that by not directly attacking Clinton he probably nulls the effect of what happened whenever he called her "Bush/Cheney Lite", which as you said, increased her poll numbers.

But again, time will tell if this message will resonate for Obama. It has for the most part with Edwards, but can Obama catch on? We'll see.

This is the kind of rookie stuff that makes an Obama candicacy a risky proposition in the general.

I agree, and I also think the ideas obama presents here are consistent with those he's been campaigning on from the start.  if hillary is indeed the frontrunner, then is any other candidate's attempt to present their opinions or ideas doomed to be labelled "defensive?"

Interesting to see more Hillary support on this site.

The big question will be:  If there are more GOP attacks on her, won't that drive her negatives up?

Obama is a nice enough guy, but he seems too much like an ordinary politician.  I am watching him in debates, on the stump.    Yes, I say that as a Clinton supporter, but even though I have my reservations about Edwards, I can take something inspiring away from some of his speeches.  Something that makes me go "yay, Democrats," even though I don't support him for the nomination.   With Obama it seems like he is wasting a lot of his talent on bickering, talking about his opponent.  He needs to build a case FOR himself, not against someone else.    

Who knows what his campaign could have been like if he had continued with the "different tone - hope" campaign until he built a good connection with a lot of Democratic voters, something that gets him close enough to Clinton's popularity level.   He changed course way too early.   The effect:  He fell in disfavor with many of the already established Clinton supporters, who make up such a large portion of the Democratic voter constituency that it has negative repercussions.  Clinton increased her poll lead on Obama in national polls and the early states (NH, South Carolina, etc.) by a solid 4 to 5 percent across the board.  Intrade, the betting site that gave Obama plenty of respect, has completely turned away from him, with Clinton now leading Obama with a ridiculous 51% - Clinton 67.5%, Obama 16.5%, Edwards 7.2%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

Well, it's been a weird seesaw summer:  first, Edwards was losing steam; now it's Obama.  Unfortunately for both candidates, Clinton has not lost momentum; she keeps gaining it.

(Unfortunate for the candidates, mind you; not unfortunate for us.  I'll be delighted with any of them as our nominee, and as President.)

Todd, I agree with everything you've written in your diary, but I would like to take it one step further.

The message of Bill Clinton's and Hillary Clinton's new stump speeches is a powerfully positive message. Other than Bush/Cheney, they aren't attacking anybody. Both were inclusive of Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton had explicit praise for the other Democrats. It was a "visionary" or "future" speech in the sense that it laid out a blueprint for effective government.

There was nobody in the crowd last night in Portsmouth who heard the Clintons as attacking Democrats. The fundamental message was "Yes, we can!" The effect was not having the crowd gnaw on chunks of red meat tossed from the stage, but a plausible, knowledgeable, reality-based agenda of change. For lack of a better term, it was a "serious" political message of the kind that a President delivers in a State of the Union message.

The interesting thing from my conversations is that these voters are aware of, and like, the issue positions taken by many of the Democrats. They've kicked the tires. They've done the math. And, the are making calculations about which is the strongest candidate to a) get elected and b) accomplish some of the policy goals. This is not, IMO, a Democratic electorate that is likely to respond to negative intra-party attack campaigns.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

This is too funny...

Done with the press, Romney walked about 20 yards to his east. There, Barack Obama was greeting a small crowd of wellwishers, mostly high school and college kids wearing "Department of Peace" tee-shirts

Obama knows where his votes will come from and it's not pandering to Hillary supporters. Obama believes that he will win the primary's with alot of "Jesse Ventura" type voters. If you don't like it don't vote for him but Edwards has tried the "issues route" with Hillary and it's bombed.Now Edwards is wisely trying the "electability" thing but it should come from him not Elizabeth. If the universe of primary voters is made up of nostalgic loyal democrats Hillary will win anyway. The "concern troll" type posts about his campaign are frankly scared that his strategy of appealing to non-partisons and younger voters might just work.  Hillary is a devisive figure and both Obama subtly and Edwards not so subtly are pointing that out.

I really think Obama has little choice, he seems to have mapped out this strategy of engaging the disenchanted and the disaffected voter.  The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough disenchanted Democrats to propel him into the nomination.  Edwards is hoping to sway voters on the far left and the union element in the party by painting Hillary as the past.  Edwards message is at least clear, where as Obama's is more vague. His main constituents seem to be those who can't forgive Edwards or Hillary for their IWR vote, but again that is not the majority of the party.  One of the reasons I'm so steadfast with Hillary, is that she seems to fully understand what it means to be a Democrat.  I'm of the thought that while you may not agree with everything your family, in this case the Dems do, you don't publicly castigate them.

exactly what is your campaign about besides attacking Clinton?

Obama's life and  politics has always been to bridge divides.

He is not reacting to anyone; that is at the core of his appeal.

While your diary may be correct about the past two days - doesn't the meat of Hillary's comment prove that Edwards and Obama are driving the debate.  Anytime she gives a speech talking about change using the 'system' she looses - just terrible language.

She ought to say change 'the way our founders intended' or change using the 'tools of our democracy' but if NH voters are anything they are anti-system.  This is something, nearly the exact words, you hear over and over again in NH - 'Nobody can change the system' the 'system is broken' the 'system is against us' and so on.  The new stump speech needs some retooling if it is gong to work, because Obama can bash it as well as say he has cross-over appeal,

... since March and this is somehow a bad thing?

If he had changed his message, some would have said "look Obama's re-inventing himself."

Isn't it more accurate to say that Clinton's changed her message to try to head off Obama? And that it is, in fact, Obama who is controlling the debate -- at least more so than Clinton?

Whether it is talking about foreign policy and Washington style politcs, Hillary Clinton comes off as sounding pragmatic, while Obama and Edwards sound idealistic.  This works to her advantage.

It dove tails nicely with her assertion that she is strong in the face of challenge (whether from the GOP, or a foreign nation), and that she is the most experienced candidate.

I think it also gives her a boost because I think after 8 years of George Bush most Democrats simply want to focus on winning the WHite House and starting to undo the damage caused by Bush.  I don't think most voters have any other higher purpose than that.

Lastly, it certainly doesn't hurt that traditional primary voters don't mind red meat. They like it.  So while talk of a new high minded style of politics may strike a chord with a few, sticking a knife in the backs of Republicans and turning it will register with far more.