Obama On Message

In a sign of things to come if Barack Obama does become the Democratic nominee, John McCain hit Obama for a statement he made in last night's debate.

First, what Obama said (h/t TPM):

"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

McCain's predictable response:

"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable. I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'"

To his credit, Barack Obama responded swiftly at a campaign stop in Columbus, OH today (h/t Ben Smith):

"John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq," he said.

"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, Al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like  didn't know what was going on." Obama said, leaning into his developing McCain impression.

He then described the context -- a hypothetical question from Tim Russert -- and said, "First of all, I do know Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and that's why I said we should continue to strike Al Qaeda targets."

"I have some news for John McCain," Obama continued, "That's there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain" began the Iraq war, he said.

"They took their eye off the people who really were responsible for 9/11," he said.

Obama and Clinton have been consistently on-message tying McCain to Bush at every opportunity and it's good to see him do so again here but this exchange points to a real problem for Obama were he to be McCain's opponent in the general: McCain's experience advantage.

Today's LA Times/Bloomberg general election match-up is the second poll in as many days to show McCain up over Obama, albeit within the margin of error (the first being the USA Today/Gallup) and the internals demonstrate why.

From USA Today:

Americans are split, 46%-46%, over whether Obama, a first-term senator, has the experience to be president. In contrast, Clinton is seen as having enough experience by 2-1, McCain by 3-1.

And from The LA Times:

McCain runs ahead of Obama on every issue except health care. The Arizona senator has a 13-point advantage on Iraq and a 37- point lead on terrorism.

Obama's strategy against McCain will, of course, be not only to tie McCain to Bush but also to use the argument he's used against Clinton, making experience actually a dirty word and making the case that judgment is more important than Washington experience. So far in the primary, Obama's lack of experience has not been a hindrance, in fact it's arguably been an asset to him but will that remain so against McCain if they are the nominees? Right now, I suspect Obama's experience deficit is the primary reason these election match-ups are even close and exchanges like the one above probably favor McCain. The problem for Obama is that over the next few months, McCain can distance himself from Bush but Obama can't gain the experience. The problem for McCain, of course, is that this country deeply hates this war.

So, I have no doubt Obama can overcome this concern among voters and we can effectively eat away at the mysterious confidence that voters who otherwise lean toward voting Democratic have in John McCain, but it's telling that these two general election match-ups that show McCain actually up over Obama, the first since January to do so, come in the wake of the recent New York Times article and deep scrutiny into McCain's lobbyist ties. That would seem to indicate that the US electorate at large may be far less susceptible to a "McCain is a part of the problem in Washington" message than Democratic primary voters have been and that turning McCain's experience into a liability may be far more difficult than we think.



Display:


Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I think it's only fair to mention that Clinton trails McCain more substantially in the LA Times poll. It's not the biggest deal, but the omission might seem to imply some kind of advantage for Clinton.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (1.00 / 0)

what kind of advantage ?

just in case you didn't read the post , it was on obama and mccain.

by the way a -2 , or -6 , is not Z" more substantial" , don't know what the moe is but it could all well be in it.

the post is about obama and mccain , i don't see why he should state what you said he should and i don't see any unfair advantage outside of paranoia.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

Well, one reason to mention it is that Todd is attributing Obama's deficit to his lack of experience. Yet, Hillary has more experience but a greater deficit. This could be explained by Hillary's problems in other areas, but it seems worth mentioning if we're serious about interpreting the data.

But, the main reason to mention it is just clarity. Omissions can be construed to imply things--in this case, the implication would be that Clinton fares better versus McCain, which isn't so.

Again, it's not a big deal.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Nobody can beat a war hero.  I think it's time to
realistically forget about the presidential election, and concentrate on Congress.  Make sure
McCain has to deal with a more Democratic Congress.  That can still happen.
by mikelow1885 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can't beat a war hero? (none / 0)

Uh...tell that to Bush circa 2000..he might be surprised to here that.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

John Kerry, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush were all war heroes.  


by telephasic on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

Or, it could mean nothing at all, as the MoE is bigger then McCain's leads.

Can't get caught up in every little poll fluctuation...

I don't understand how you could posit that McCains' position of defending the Iraq war is in any way strong.  He is fighting from a serious disadvantage.


by Cycloptichorn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (1.00 / 0)

"I have some news for John McCain," Obama continued, "That's there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain" began the Iraq war, he said.

I don't know if I believe this at all.  Where is he getting this information?  


by JustJennifer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

It's common knowledge Al-Qaeda wasn't there and it was a central reason why the war was a mistake.

Of courss if you believe it, then maybe you believe the war is a good thing.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Is this a serious question?


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I dunno... maybe from everywhere?

How about the 9/11 Commission Report?  How about the fact that the group "Al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until after we invaded?

I don't think it's even been open for debate, unless you were one of those people who thought that Iraq was tied to 9/11.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Invading Iraq was a FUBAR of epic (none / 0)

proportions.

Jim Webb called it exactly right before we went in.

Took the eye off the ball in Afghanistan, greatly enhanced Iran's power & gave the genuine terrorists the opportunity to kill Americans, more easily.

Besides that, our invasion weakened the United Nations and the Iraqi AUMF extended the horrible War Powers precedents that include the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the invasion has seriously weakened our military.

Oh and thousands of dead Americans, tens of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and DEBT as far as the eye can see.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Invading Iraq was a FUBAR of epic (none / 0)

What about an Obama/Webb ticket?  It gives the Obama camp national security chops.  It gives voters a chance to vote for another accomplished service man instead of McCain.  It would probably shove Virginia from purple to blue and Webb was so drooled over by the press after his win as "a new type of moderate democrat" (inaccurately I think) that it allows independents and disillusioned republicans to vote for change.  Change is a concept that's polled well among the same groups.

I think that the democrats could win the White House with any of our candidates or with a Pet Rock,  maybe even by running a Chia Pet against John McCain.  Look at the fund raising, the number of donors, the turn out, the number of conservatives that will never vote for McCain.

I realize that a lot of people at this site really want a President Clinton, but the number of folks around here who are just positive that BO can't possibly win and we'd better just concentrate down ticket makes me wonder if maybe perceptions have been formed as much by desires as reality.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends on demographics (IMHO) (none / 0)

Jim Webb would open up Southern States such as Virginia:

Virginia is considered as a red state, having voted for the Republican candidate in all presidential elections since 1952 except during 1964's Democratic landslide.

His FISA stance worries me however.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Invading Iraq was a FUBAR of epic (none / 0)

i've been thinking a lot about an obama/webb ticket.  it's really got a lot going for it (as you mentioned).  i'd be interested if anyone could think of reasons why this wouldn't be a great ticket???  (no obama-haters need reply, thanks :)


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Invading Iraq was a FUBAR of epic (none / 0)

I guess I don't argue that it would be a great ticket but I hate to see Webb leave that seat.  I hate to lose his voice in the Senate where he is currently giving us some serious national security credentials.


by nintendofanboy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No thanks (none / 0)

Webb screwed the pouch on FISA.

Obama/Kaine I could get behind and would have far more impact and be a much stronger ticket, particularly in VA.


by lestatdelc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No thanks (none / 0)

Kaine is actually fine with me too.  Virginia is worth 13 electoral college votes.  If we can get the same states as Kerry got and add Virginia and Missouri (perhaps the swingiest of states) which is worth another 11 then we won't even need to worry about Ohio or Florida.  

Given the overall craptasticness of the Ohio GOP of late, we may have a pretty damn good shot at the Buckeye State too.

What we really need is for Lloyd Carr (who has free time these days) to volunteer for the McCain campaign.  The guy just can't win where Ohio is concerned.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 0)

Do you believe there was a link between Saddam and 9/11?

Maybe he really had WMD after all, now hidden in Syria.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

No I don't think there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.  But to say there was no influence of Al Queda in Iraq before.. I dunno I think it's hard to say where they were and where they weren't.  And no I am not a Republican or a John McCain fan - just a true skeptic about any and all information our government has been feeding us about the "terrorists" and who and where they really are.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There was no... (2.00 / 1)

...meaningful connection with the group that would (after the invasion) rename itself Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Saddam regime. In fact they operated in the Kurdish/US controlled north prior to the invasion, and Bush refused on three separate occasions to take out Ansar al-Islam (aka Al Qaeda in Iraq) before the invasion, because they were using him as a propaganda tool to link "Al Qaeda" to the Saddam regime and hence 9/11 to help sell the invasion.

All of which was throughly debunked by not only media reports, by the 9/11 commission itself.

Seriously, there is no question that Obama is correct on this on the merits and on the optics vs. McCain's bogus attempt at a political bomb-throw. Google is your friend BTW.


by lestatdelc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There was no... (none / 0)

I never said I believed McCain.  And I sure as hell have never believed George Bush.  I am just a skeptic when it comes to any information regarding Al Queda, who they are, where they are, and who is really funding them.  I am not quite on the level with the conspiracy theorist but I will say it isn't that hard for me to believe that the US was instrumental in setting Al Queda up to be the target so we could act on the plans of the neo-cons behind Bush 43.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

   Wow.  They've come to MyDD.  Never thought I'd see the day.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Do you read, watch, or listen to the news?  


by sbbonerad on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:15:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Jennifer, you cant be that ignorant: There was no Alqueada in Iraq before the Invasion! In fact, "Alqueada in Iraq" is a creation of Bush which serves as a sort of boogieman to justify the killings and bombings of innocent iraqis.


by AnthonyMason on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:57:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep Your Eye on the Prize: November (2.00 / 1)

Even though I don't believe any polls anymore, despite what progressives think, if this boils down to the war and to homeland security, Obama is toast to a war veteran like McCain. In every picture of the two of them together, Obama looks like a 12 year old boy looking up to his father.


by thetruthsquad on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST

Re: Keep Your Eye on the Prize: November (2.00 / 0)

Newsflash- Clinton is toast too. A former first lady with a shaky Senate voting record on foriegn affairs hated by half the country vs. a war veteran. It'll be framed as the "witch vs. the warrior"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great, another member of the Democratic (none / 0)

Capitulation Caucus.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great, another member of the Democratic (none / 0)

As opposed to the cheerleaders for the "Great Conservative No-Win War Strategy". You're only destroying the American Armed Forces and for nothing. Perhaps there's a reason active duty military are donating more to Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and even Ron Paul before they're giving to McCain.


by Skipster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My preference is to attack McCain (2.00 / 0)

head on. The Iraq War was a strategic blunder from Day One.

We do not need to be hawkish on Iraq out of fear of the American electorate.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As I said above thread... (none / 0)

John Kerry, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush were all war heroes.  And they all lost.  


by telephasic on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I said above thread... (none / 0)

So what? This is the liberal blogosphere. Don't confuse them with the facts or past histroy. Their minds are made up.
Anything containing gloom and doom for the Dems is thje absolute word ardun here.
by spirowasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What nonsense (none / 0)

The vast majority support getting out of Iraq. War hero means nothing (as other have pointed out) in that numerous "war heros" lost presidential races.


by lestatdelc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

McCain's strategy....National Security, trust.


by Liberty on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST

I'll take Obama's experience gap (none / 0)

against McCain over Clinton's honesty gap vs. McCain (so long as we're talking about perception).


by CarolinaNumber23 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:30:06 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 1)

Shouldn't this have been the conversation before now?


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Well thetruthsquad, what's are our options here?  The American people rejected Biden, Dodd, HRC and Edwards so honestly, its Obama.  The only concern I have is that I think Obama's popularity can only go down from here on out because from now on the country as a whole will have a say.  It's just sad that in the midst of 4,000 dead soldiers and an incoming recession we can even have a close election.  America why won't you wake up and see that McCain is only 4 more years of Bush..


by nzubechukwu on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

It's coming close to time to give up on this country. It won't change until ti destroys itself and then it will be too late.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

yuck.  what a defeatist...


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:33:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

A defeatist yes, but just one of the crwod here in the ilberal blogosphere.


by spirowasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Everyone's unfavorables go up in a general election.  McCain's will go up too.

American's no that McCain isn't Bush, but if they think he's basically continuing the policies of Bush, it should have some resonance.

On the other hand, people tend to just vote for who they like, rather than on issues anyway.  So getting McCain's unfavorables up and his favorables down will be important going into the general election.  Once we actually get into the general election (ie, we have a presumptive nominee), this is what should start to happen.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

Obama is the choice of the MSM, some former Republicans such as Arianna Huff, DKos and John Aravosis, and the Independent and Republican voters.  We, the true blue Democrats got screwed because if it is true that Obama is a movement, then he should be blowing away McCain by at least 20%.


by tiffany on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but if you honestly believe that Obama's negatives are going to go through the roof and therefore cost him the election, HRC would be no different.  She ALREADY has a net-negative favorability rating, but you're argument is that somehow her's can only improve while Obama's can only go down, at the same time that McCain will somehow hold his own because he's a "known" quantity?

That's a lot of assumptions there... HRC would be no better off in this election if what you're saying is true.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

At this point, I would not be surprised if Obama won more than 60% of the vote in the end. Simply because he will have a much easier time to motivate the electorate to actually come out and vote. Why should evangelicals vote for McCain? Well I don't know, and I think nobody does. Big parts of the Republican electorate are basically not motivated to do anything in this election. They will tell every pollster their standard response, that they will vote Republican. But they won't move their asses because, honestly, they don't care about John McCain.


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Yeah well we're not playing blackjack. It's ok to get over 21.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Iraq War was a MISTAKE (none / 0)

in every conceivable sense and staying another hundred years will only make it worse for America.

Obama eviscerates McCain on the Iraq War issues.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Americans are not stupid, they know McCain for what he is, his own man, hero, maverick - someone who didn't particularly like Bush.  Big mistake - Americans won't buy it.

Which is why he won't lose to either of our candidates.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Iowa rejected Biden, dodd, etc.  The rest of us had only a choice of two.  This true blue Democrat is disgusted by this undemocratic primary and the only way I feel the DNC will hear me is if I Probably stay home in NOV. I am sick of the way Obama's campaign race baited the Clintons, I am sick of the way Republicans and Independents are choosing my Democratic nominee and i am sick of the way the MSM and many blogs have become agenda driven liars and hypocrites.  


by tiffany on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Stay home in November if you want, but the Democratic Party will not listen to you if you do.

Personally, I have a few friends in Iraq. If something happens to them because McCain got elected because people like you stayed home because your candidate didn't win or dropped out too early, they would be hell to pay.

This isn't about you.

I supported Edwards and he lost. I got over it, so should you.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

No end in sight to the war.  McCain says: hell why not another hundred years?  That makes him easy to label as W's third term.  The economy will be in the middle of a recession by election time. Obama is an incredible inspirational speaker.  Even if you're an Obama hater you'll likely admit that.  He sells Hope incredibly well whether you bought it or not.  

McCain standing next to Obama comes across as yet another old white guy from the GOP.  That fact combined with his huggy squeezy love affair with Boosh and Boosh policy will sink him.  

Obama comes across as fresh and new.  Guess what?  When you ask voters of just about any stripe what they say they're looking for, the answer most often comes back: change.  Obama wins this thing easily.  McCain quits politics altogether right afterwards.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain does have more experience. (2.00 / 1)

But if experience was what the voters were looking for he wouldn't be beating Clinton.  Voters want change and there's no way McCain will provide that.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST

Brilliant answer!!! (none / 0)

Give 'em HELL Obama!!!!!


by puma on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Then why is he (McCain) ahead GFORD?


by nzubechukwu on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

He has a point...the country does want change, it just doesn't know where to get it from.

This election is a question between whether or not this country truly wants progressive change; to do a whole 180 from Bush and the GOP...or does it want Republicans who aren't Bush?

If it's the latter, well, then our 2012 candidate is not going to be at all progressive.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All Obama needs now is (none / 0)

Webb or Clark as his VP and we're good to go!!!


by puma on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I have to say, it is kind of sad that the NYTimes thing seemed to actually raise McCain's support.

It sort of goes along with the idea that, once someone has an impression of a person, nothing can change it and actually contradicting information will just cause people to get defensive and increase support.  The general impression people have of McCain, for whatever reason, is that he's a "straight shooter" and a "standup guy".  When a NYTimes story comes along and tries to distort that, the response isn't "Oh... I guess I was wrong about him", it's "That can't be true!  He's such a straight-shooter!"

Hopefully, once we have a presumptive nominee, people will start focusing more on the general election race and have a more critical eye for him.  I think right now there's still so much activity in the Democratic race that it may be skewing results.  There are probably even HRC supporters who, for the sake of the poll, are refusing to say they'll support Obama in the GE (and vice versa), even though they probably will in the end.  Once the nomination fight is over with, the nominee will probably get a "bump" in the polls anyway, which will hopefully counteract this recent McCain bump.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Well, one story isn't enough to weaken settled attitudes toward a person. However, a steady line of criticism can be. So, we need to target some character problems with McCain (e.g., flip-flopping, doesn't play well with others, lobbyist influence) and stick with these criticisms over a period of time. Moreover, the criticism needs to be done carefully in order to avoid backlash. It certainly can be done, but one (bad) NY Times story can't be enough.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Agreed, and this is partially why I think it's probably related to how early this story is coming out too...  People are still focused on the Democratic primary, and we don't really have a presumptive nominee yet.  Once we do, I suspect that we'll have more of an ability to start chipping away at McCain.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you ignore the core of Obama's point? (none / 0)

He added: "I've gone some news for John McCain: He took us into a war, along with George Bush, that should have never been authorized and never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than anytime since 2001."

al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before we invaded.

The decision to authorize and wage that war was a HUGE strategic blunder.

Obama can and will shove that down McCain's throat.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST

Re: Why do you ignore the core of Obama's point? (none / 0)

maybe,

but people aren't so concerned about what happened in the past.  Most people supported the war, and don't want Obama scolding them. The 'surge' as been at least partly successful, in terms of casualties, and Mc Cain will get credit for that.


by bigbay on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only people Obama will scold (none / 0)

are Beltway insiders.

The American people were LIED to. Remember?


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Once he has the nomination absolutely sewn up, look for McCain begin moderating his stance on Iraq just enough to satisfy those moderate voters who want us out of Iraq, but believe that before we go, we have to "fix the mess Bush created".  That alone will win McCain the independent voters, I'm afraid.


by aggieric on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:49:14 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I've been saying that, and it will be to the country's peril.

Although Dems can use his "100 years in Iraq" quote;

"Is he REALLY going to fix the mess and get us home?"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)


by aggieric on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

The poll is interesting.  The polls continue to ask the question about experience.  It seems Sen. Obama has been able to change the experience debate to a judgment debate.  I wonder if people still care about experience or if pollsters just continue to ask that question anyway.  If Sen. Obama can continue to do that in the general election I would be really surprised if Sen. McCain has a chance at all.  I guess this is the fun of picking apart hypothetical polls.  


by jakedecker on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:49:36 PM EST

Obama's Soldier Story (none / 0)

As Democrats, I don't know why we're not promoting this all over this place;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27 /army-chief-of-staff-gener_n_88737.html

It refutes the "Obama is inexperienced, so his judgement is bad" meme.

Let's face it, he's likely to be the nominee, let's cover ourselves if he is.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

The comments on this page demonstrate how a protracted primary fight will distract us from winning the general.


by JoeFelice on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

No they demonstrate that once again when it comes to selecting nominees we are day late, dollar short. ALl of this stuff was predictable, and predicted by a lot of us. Why the surprise now that its actually true?


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

What exactly are you trying to say? That in some weird dream world of yours Hillary Clinton would not fact the same problems that Barack Obama does against John McCain?


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

The worst part is that as long as it continues the Hillary supporters are carrying McCain's water as the No. 1 perpetuators of the Experience Meme.

I'm hoping Hill takes the high road and bows out after next Tuesday for the good of the party.  Her supporters need to leave their talking points to McCain.  

Once they are on board we will see these polls turn,  as they no longer answer that experience is the most important thing ever.


by nintendofanboy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

That LA Times poll overcounted Republicans. I think that's obvious.


by obamania on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:52:40 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

That one had Obama up 4 on McCain, no?

Not sure what the make-up of the poll was, though.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 0)

Clinton wasn incumbent Presidnet who was vitually uunopposed and Obama is a newcomeer still in a primary fight maybe?


by spirowasright on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Richmond,

Please give it up alright. Hillary polls worse in both. I'm sorry your girl lost, but do you honestly want to see McCain in the White House?

It's over. Let's move on and win the election.

Also, to answer your question: Yes, I think Gallup overcounted Republicans. They are notorious for doing so.

NYTimes/CBS has Obama 12 percent ahead of McCain. Every other poll has Obama ahead of McCain.

It's time for Democrats to unite.


by obamania on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 1)

I can't help but share this comment (from a thread at Ezra's):

To build on Helter's point, a poster in the original Drum thread did some math:
Since 1976, the candidate with more experience in Washington has lost 7 out of 8:

Ford 28, Carter 0
Carter 4, Reagan 0
Mondale 16, Reagan 4
GHWB 12 (not counting CIA, UN, etc), Dukakis 0 [the exception]
GHWB 16 (again, not counting . . .), Clinton 0
Dole 26, Clinton 4
Gore 24, GWB 0
Kerry 20, GWB 4

McCain has 26; Obama 4; HRC 16 if you count the firstladyship, 8 if not.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak lein_archive?month=02&year=2008& base_name=experience_and_comfort#comment -6157717


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Very interesting.
Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Not sure exactly how "experience" is counted there, but both Clinton and GWB were governors before being elected President.  I wouldn't really call that "0" years of experience.


by leshrac55 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Yeah, the post to which this comment responded had emphasized the importance of "Washington experience." Basically, it was discounting Obama's experience at the state level (8 years). So, the above numbers are meant to rebut the claim that Washington experience is that important to voters.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

That's deceiving because it just measure experience in Washington not experience in total. Reagan had equal governing experience to Carter in 1980. The thing is that after a certain point experience brings diminishing returns too. People see Hillary as qualified as McCain because she meets the qualification hurdle. Obama does not. Someone who hasn't even served one senate term will not be seen as qualified by most of the electorate.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama has as much (actually, more) experience than Carter did in 1976. And, he beat a very experienced incumbent during the Cold War.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama does not have more experience than Carter did. Carter had served one full term as governor. Obama hasn't even made it 4 years in the senate yet.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

But, Obama has 8 years as an Illinois senator. Add 4 years of national experience as a US senator and that compares pretty favorable with Carters 4 years as state governor with no national experience.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

No one seriously considers Obama's record in the Il Senate as experience. Carter served time in the GA legislature too.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Carter:
4 Years in Georgia State Senate
4 Years as Governor of GA

Obama:
8 Years in Illinois State Senate
4 Years as US Senator

How exactly did Carter have more experience?  Do you consider 4 years as Governor more experience than 4 as US Senator?


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama only has 3 years as a senator not 4.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

4 years come election day.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I'm going by the time they are sworn in and/or rounding up from election day.


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I'm talking about right now.
2005 1 year
2006 1 year
2007 1 year.
That totals 3 complete years. You can't jump ahead. He is competing now with the inexperience he has not the inexperience he will have.
No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Ok fine.  Than I suppose you're saying 4 years as the Governor of Georgia is somehow more relevant that 3 years as a United States Senator?


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Okay, let's add Carter's 2 years as a state rep. Obama still has more experience.

I don't see why being a state senator doesn't count at all, while being a state governor is given so much significance. And Illinois is a much larger state than Georgia, which should count for something.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

That should say "Carter's 4 years as a state senator. . ."


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama doesn't have more experience. I think counting state legislative experience makes Obama's experience problem even worse.

A Governor is a leadership position. It's an excutive position while a state legislature position is sometimes even a part time positions right? Obama was a part time state senator right?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

give me a break.  if you want to talk about experience "running something", obama beats the pants off hillary in that department simply by virtue of the horrible way she has run her campaign.  honestly, hillary was never my first pick, but seeing how much mismanagement there is in her campaign, i'm really glad that democrats seem to be going with someone else.  

she's a good legislator.  executive...not so much.


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

additionally, what kind of executive experience does mccain have??  i admit that i'm not especially knowledgeable about his record, but has he ever "run anything"??  

what i do know about his record is that he's been a senator a long time.  that is generally not a good thing when running for president (too many votes that can be demonized, washington culture, etc.)


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama has done well in the primaries but since when does that translate into running a good general election campaign? Rarely right? The way he has played it has worked to his advantage in the primary but just don't expect it to work in the general the same way.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Why should it not translate?

Try to support your very biased thinking by facts. That will help us take you more seriously.


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Have you been paying attention to elections for the past 20 years or so? Dukakis ran a great primary campaign too. Read some history.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Dukakis's problem was that he didn't know how to fight back. He went on vacation when Lee Atwater was attacking him. After watching Barack Obama these last few months - and often complaining about his supposed underhanded and mean tactics against Hillary Clinton - do you honestly believe that Barack Obama would keep silent while under attack? Look what he did today! He responded to McCain's Al Qaeda remark the same day. That means the news cycle records it as a tit-for-tat and Obama holds ground. Bill Clinton figured that out in 1992 but John Kerry forgot it in 2004. Obama is no Dukakis.


by elrod on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

My understanding (based on representations by others and one newspaper article I read) is that Illinois senate work is more full-time than most state senate seats. Moreover, he was dealing with serious legislation related to health care, education, criminal procedure and laws, death penalty reform, welfare reform, tax reform, etc. Many of those issues are actually more complex and sophisticated at the state level, so I think he deserves lots of credit for that experience.

It's not like he was the dogcatcher.  


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

What do you think the average voter thinks when someone touts time as a state legislator as experience? They look at their own legislator and say "So Obama thinks he's qualified to be president?". That's the problem. I'd never say that my state legislator is qualified to be President. It's ridiculous on it's face.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

By the same token, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were not nearly as qualified to be President as Barack Obama.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

That's a pretty poor argument for Obama. After all, this is the 21st century isn't it?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

oh yeah and I forgot, the country was a peaceful place in 1861.

If anything it's a great argument for Obama...Lincoln was elected when the country was in the middle of it's worst crisis ever.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Once again, McCain bests Obama.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:08:54 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Once again, Clinton does even worse.


by DPW on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Sorry but no. Obama is repeating what John Kerry said verbatim in 2004.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

What's that, that he was more electable than Dean?

Everybody knows if we couldn't win with Kerry, we sure as hell weren't winning with Dean.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

No his response to McCain is lifted verbatim from John Kerry circa 2004.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

You will have to provide a reference for this gem. I don't buy it.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Why are we left on blogs to be limited by your inexperience with politics?


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

because blogs are filled with people who make stuff up.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Yes, I know. But then, that's sort of  my point about you.


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

you are correct about the quote.

Obama NEVER voted for the war before he was AGAINST the war.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

No he had a speech against the war before he decided to be for funding it.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

If he had voted no on funding you would be whining that McCain could easily accuse him of not supporting the troops.


by conspiracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

Yep but Obama was stupid enough to say that voting against war funding was "playing chicken with the troops." And then proceeded to vote against said funding. So when did he decide it was okay to play chicken with the troops? You see when you are deciding everything based on that kind of stuff it comes back to bite you. You have to look at the whole situation.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

You are talking as if McCain is not going to be stuck in the same kind of trap. He is basically running for a third Bush term and comments like his ''hundred years'' and having no clue on the economy aren't exactly going to make it difficult for him to escape that reality. Again, the race won't be run in a vaccum for either of them - they both have challenges, I just think Obama falls on the right side of the issues and this time, finally, we have someone who can sell them to the American people.


by conspiracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One HUGE difference even if (none / 0)

Well then Obama better start making the case because according to him "democrats are just as bad as republicans".


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Will you continue to undermine (none / 0)

this line of attack against McCain if Clinton withdraws from the race?


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will you continue to undermine (none / 0)

Obama has been undermining himself for the general election. Don't blame me for pointing out how poorly he's doing. I call them like I see them and if you don't want to hear it then you can just ignore my posts. It has nothing to do with Clinton. When she's out who are you going to blame for Obama's screw ups?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats who believe Bush was (none / 0)

right to have invaded and occupied Iraq need to be removed from positions of power within the Democratic party.

Full stop.

We very likely violated the UN Charter, the Iraqi AUMF vote expanded a noxious interpretation of the War Powers Act (Tonkin Gulf Resolution was another example), we let al Qaeda off the hook, we alienated our allies around the world, we have significantly weakened the American military, we are rapidly bankrupting America AND we have caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

This war should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 1)

The difference being Kerry voted for the war which completely undermined his position from the start. Obama doesn't have that problem.


by conspiracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Sorry, but see his actual voting record and his statements about playing chicken with the troops. You guys got the wrong message from 2004. It wasn't Kerry's vote for the war that got him. It was the waffling that's the same thing Obama is doing-waffling on everything.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"You guys" (none / 0)

..meaning "Democrats". Why are you here?


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "You guys" (none / 0)

as in Obama supporters.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "You guys" (none / 0)

You leave the impression that you are not a Democrat though. At this stage of the primary, if you still try to undermine Sen. Obamas positions in contrast to Sen. McCains, I'm left wondering what your aim really is. You don't even try to argue why Sen. Clinton would be in any way in a better position against John McCain, you just support McCain's position by ridiculing the standpoint of Sen. Obama, which is, by any means, the same as Sen. Clinton would have to take were she the nominee.


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "You guys" (none / 0)

I'm pointing out how poorly Obama has been handling McCain. Would you rather have me stick my head in sand? Obviously.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

C'mon...Clinton doesn't "waffle?"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Nope. You got the wrong message. Kerry lost because he tried to have it both ways. Hillary would have the same problem.


by conspiracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

No he didn't, not even close.

Obama shoved al-Qaida right down McCain throat. McCain will not be repeating this line of attack again.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Nope. It didn't work before and I don't know why anyone thinks it's better recycled. It plays well with people who already believe it but no one else.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

About three times as many people believe it in 2008 than did in 2004, so even if what you say is true, Obama and the Democratic party are in much better shape.


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

So then why is McCain killing Obama in national security if it's such a winner?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Because the General Election hasn't even begun.  

Do you want a Republican to be president in 2009?


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Do you really think that Obama's recycled statements are going to change that number? Obama's made a name for himself as the "anti war candidate". Anti war candidate means weak on national security to the general electorate. Sorry but true.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Well if we want to stop having terrible, misguided wars, we're going to need someone who's going to change that definition.  

That should be Obama's goal, not trying to morph into some Republican-lite war hawk.  He needs to make "anti-Iraq war" synonymous with strength in national security.  He's starting to, and he's doing a good job (the 60% opposed to the war is certainly going to help him toward that goal).


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Well I agree that the impression needs to be changed but Obama's not going to be the one to change it.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Then who?  It can't possibly be someone who gave into that definition in the 2002 vote.  That type of inconsistency won't fly.  Obama, Jim Webb, etc. etc., these are the people with the authority to change the definition.


by davisb on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

It would have to be someone with credibiity like Wes Clark. Obama doesn't have the national security creds to change the definition. He just comes off as another whiner and since he has repeatedly voted to fund said war he really can't make that argument stick.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Based on recent history... (none / 0)

I'm going to to trust Obama's instincts on this. Hillary never got out from under her Iraq vote.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Based on recent history... (none / 0)

well he's going to have to do better than he's doing right now. His instincts certainly aren't good when it comes to McCain.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Based on recent history... (none / 0)

Are you somehow representative of the whole American electorate? I find your comments quite stupid, frankly. Why do you think that, only because you are an adamant Obama-hater and his positions do not convince you, he is not on the right side of history? I think most Americans are on his side, you should take of your glasses and for once look at the reality as it presents itself.


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

It plays well with anyone who wants out of Iraq. Like 60% of America at this point.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

His point is that the emotional appeal works. Or, at least, that's what I am understanding. Namely that Americans aren't thinking about that next step-- all they are doing is comparing McCain to Obama when it comes to the statements, and not what the statements mean in a larger context.

This is a strategy that many Obama supporters should understand. It's how they have framed many of the discussions when issues have been discussed in the primary. namely,r esort to saying candidate x or y is worse than my guy.  Nearly every conversation indeed, devolves into "your guy is worse"

The problem you face here is that the other side is as good or better at that.


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Correct. And the fact that Obama keeps harking back to the past is a loser. People no longer care about all that. They only want a solution.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Finally something we agree on. The solution that poll after poll is telling us the American people want is the troops to return home. Looks to me like Obama is on the right side of the argument.


by conspiracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

You are confused. It doesn't matter if he's on the right side of the issue or not. This is the whole point about personality and emotional appeal. Again I am amazed an Obama supporter is actually arguing against emotions and its ability to trump everything else.


by bruh21 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Then he needs to stop getting sucked into making dumb statements. McCain played him like a violin with that one. He's obsessed with McCain's war vote that no one cares about while not taking the chance to talk about getting out. Dumb.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

What was the dumb statement again?

Thank you for bringing up the Republican talking points on this blog, anyways.


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you believe the "surge" is working? (none / 0)

Maybe a number of Clinton supporters are indeed closet neo-cons.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you believe the "surge" (none / 0)

45 % of the population believes the surge is working.
Mc Cain is not going to be buried by supporting the surge.
by bigbay on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you believe the "surge" (none / 0)

Mark Penn follows polls.

We need to tell the American people the truth. And the polls will change.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How so? (none / 0)


by lestatdelc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

Name one state that Kerry won in 2004 that McCain will take if he is matched up against Obama.  And please explain how this national polling data will help us ponder that question.

In terms of predicting who will win the election, national polls are meaningless, except for how the numbers are trotted out by pundits in their attempts to create compelling horse-race stories.

I think our role in this forum should be to repudiate that kind of punditry, and develop a more sophisticated narrative -- one that's about issues, and in particular issues that will matter in the battleground states come November.

To that end, rather than agonizing about the national poll numbers, let's ask about the Obama/McCain positions on the issues that will matter in states like Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada.


by Erik Love on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:03 PM EST

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

McCain takes PA.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

Really? I know like ten Democrats who already decided on McCain and another three or four on the fence.

Most are Hillary supporters, but at least two already voted for Obama and lost respect for him.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

So, do you also want to tell us why they lost respect? And why you are not working to change their minds but instead tout their wrong choices on this blog?


by marcotom on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

Yeah, I'm working on changing their minds...it's going nowhere.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

hilarious!


by bluedavid on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are utterly, Utterly meaningless (none / 0)

Clinton is getting killed in Oregon and Washington and might even lose California.

The general election will be tough. But I'd much rather have an inspiring candidate that turns the page on the Iraq war than a Mark Penn creation.


by elrod on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

"Fools are destroyed by their own complacency"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (2.00 / 1)

Any objective look at the various polls out there would admit that Obama is leading McCain in many national polls. Hopefully the Clinton people will be able to let go of their grudge against Obama if he is the nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html


by AdrianLesher on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST

Likely v. Registered Voters (none / 0)

Look at the two Gallup polls:

"Likely Voters"
Feb. 21-24: O47-M48
Feb. 8-10:  O50-M46

Looks like he's fallen in the polls.

But look at the registered voters:

Feb. 21-24: O49-M45
Feb. 8-10:  O49-O46

What's that? McCain actually dropped in support among registered voters.

So this only looks like a "drop" in support for Obama if you use Gallup's likely voter model. I'll go out on a limb right now and say that any likely voter model this year that skews 3 points to the GOP is incorrect. Whatever the Democratic primary turnout means, it certainly means that likely voters will not be more Republican this year than registered voters. Keep this in mind as you read general election polls the next few months.


by elrod on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama can not win without HRC supporters.  This primary has been to divisive.  The media has hurt Obama's chances by babying him through this process with nothing but positive stories on him


by nzubechukwu on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Which is why we need to get over ourselves. Democrats have blown elections because of divisive primaries before.

Republicans never do...except maybe in 1964.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

    Obama is also leading by 12 in a CBS poll.  I'm not sure I buy this post.  I mean, sure, Obama is less experienced than McCain.  I'd really like the meme on McCain to be something like "he's experienced at being wrong."


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I'm not quite sure why a nominally Democratic website is making the argument that John McCain, is essentially, a better candidate. I mean, are we serious? This is a guy whom even with his opponent mathematically unable to win, can't drive the game home. A guy who, despite being the defacto nominee for the month of February past the 5th, has been unable to raise enough money to erase the almost 3x money advantage BOTH Democratic nominees have. The RCCC and the RSCC have been behind in raising money, individual candidates have been behind in raising money, McCain's Arizona co-chair is going to jail, and McCain's meet and greets fill up a small ballroom at the local Holiday Inn. If you call that a great candidate, I have a bridge in Chicago to sell you.

This whole "It's over, McCain's going to win!" is a bunch of nonsense perpetuated by people with sour-grapes over the results of the primary election. For once in a primary cycle, not only will Democrats not only be attracting more interest in their primary season, but their going to be wielding a cudgel full of money at their opponent. Why does everyone look at the tea leaves and somehow see a easy McCain victory?


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Democrats have to ability to blow elections against the worst candidates.

Even McCain could beat us.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Snark, as evidenced by the Clinton campaign, does not win one elections. What does, however, is a ground game that is backed up by a well-funded, well organized professionally staffed campaign. And thats what the Obama campaign has. In states that were deliriously close in 2004 (such as Iowa, where Bush won with .68% of the vote) it'll be the ground game, even more so than the ad buys, that will win the day. Neither candidate in 2004 had an especially convincing ground organization.

And the reality is that the primary campaign IS the general election campaign. The very late date for the respective conventions leaves both candidates only roughly 2 months to get their message out. So this summer will be the general election campaign more so than anything. McCain's hot air doesn't make the Straight Talk Express run; money does. And he doesn't have any.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

How do you know that? McCain hasn't released any numbers despite his supposed "Great haul". And like Clinton's statement last night that she is "raising a million dollars a day" is irrelevant. Do you forget those train problems from math class? If train O is two hours along the track on the way to its destination, and another (say train M) is 6 hours behind, and they are both going the same speed, which one will reach its destination first? The answer:Obama.


by Sean Siberio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

The wild card in this election cycle is... George W. Bush. If he and his cronies decide to bomb "strategic" Iranian sites before November, everything gets turned on its head.
Has anybody thought about this very likely scenario playing out??
by devoted1 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Yes I have been wondering what the current administration's "strategery" is going to be if they sense a Democrat will win the White House.  I put nothing, and I mean NOTHING, past these people.  They are evil on a level that we have never seen in our lifetime.  


by JustJennifer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

or how about if the terrorists attack again.

We'd be finished.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

possible (none / 0)


Mc Cain has good standing with the Latino community, and will do well there, I think.

Obama does have a ton of money , though.


by bigbay on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama has plenty of time to re-tool his message if and when he receives the nomination.  It's not terribly surprising that McCain, who has no competition, would be able to hit an opponent whose hands are currently tied.  Moreover, several of the polls out right now show Obama with a GE lead, including the recent poll from CBS which shows a lead of 12 points, if I remember correctly.  So, who knows.  In any event, is it healthy to hyperventilate about daily tracking polls when the election is 8 1/2 months away?


by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:18:40 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Obama's response to every one of McCain's attacks has been strong, and his own attacks on McCain have been very strong.

I'm more worried right now about Hillary supporters accepting Obama as the nominee. Everyone was talking about how not picking Obama would lead to black voters staying home, basically implying that Obama's supporters weren't really democrats.

Now on all the left wing websites there are people in the comment sections claiming they hate Obama and will never vote for him after he beat Hillary. It's really irrational and dangerous. The worst one going is people claiming that Obama "race-baited" Hillary, which I think is a statement beneath silliness.

Yet my own mother and her friends talk like this. They can't stand that Hillary is going to lose and they're ranting about Obama every day now. I don't get it. This has been a divisive primary, but it's been nothing compared to a general election or any of the Bush years.

Come on folks. This is about the country. Don't create four more years of Bush because you're mad about your candidate losing. I backed Edwards, and he lost, and then i switched to Obama, but if Obama had lost, I would've happily supported Hillary. Yes, she would've by that point been my third choice, but my third choice among Democrats would be about ten places higher than my first choice among Republicans after Bush.

Don't destroy the country just to spite the other voters in the Democratic party (and if Obama wins, he will have won through votes, not some sort of subterfuge).


by Siguy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:58:11 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I think wounds will heal in time for the election. As a woman and Hillary supporter, I have been very shocked at how many things have played out in the media. I have watching Dems trash other Dems and I think initially I felt it at Kos with all the Clinton-bashing. It offended me.

With that being said, I realize we're all quite invested in our chosen candidate, and will probably be that way until one has prevailed. I know I will back Obama if he's the nominee, but I'm one who always votes party. I would guess cooler heads will prevail and to not read too much into anonymous threats on blogs.


by Dari on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I think there's a lot bitterness that will, indeed, heel in due time. Most of the polling from Hillary supporters shows a strong willingness to back Obama so I'm not too worried about a divided party in November. This is especially true if things are settled by March 4. HRC supporters will rediscover very quickly just how repugnant the Republican Party is.

There are certainly some HRC supporters that will be difficult to reach, like Adelfa Callejo, a racist woman who admits on TV she won't vote for Obama "because he's black." I think Obama will reach some of those folks - including many here in Appalachia - by actually campaigning in these quarters and showing that he is not Jesse Jackson. But the Adelfa Callejos are probably a small minority.


by elrod on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Hillary supporters will rally around Obama. There is no question about that. As will she herself -- if he is indeed the nominee. I'm a huge Hillary supporter, but even I am beginning to think that we will nominate Obama. It is the other way around that I would worry about. I think that Hillary supporters are stronger partisan Democrats than are Obama supporters. Just as are the candidates themselves. I think that either way, we will have a strong candidate in the general. One who can defeat McCain and lead the country out of the mess we are currently in. I have to say that I don't envy the task.
by carrieboberry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

I'm not terribly concerned about how Obama will handle McCain in a general election. I did not vote for Obama, yet I do think he's much, much smarter than McCain and will handle it better than Kerry did. Even though he didn't get me under his spell, I have no doubt he has those talents. :-) And yes, I will vote for him in the GE if he is our candidate.

I don't really think the conversation should be about whose candidate would do better (HRC or BO) against McCain, but rather we should all be shocked and horrified that the more "popular" candidate, BO, is much too close for comfort in the GE match-up polls. I'm not sure that speaks to BO's inexperience as much as how completely irrational many Americans are. Given the state of affairs in our country, how in the world could a Republican or Independent support another Republican? It's not rational at all. It's terrifying.


by Dari on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

It is the kind of conventional wisdom like this that makes me laugh. You find this kind of fitting the data to a preconceived notion analysis almost daily in the press. Obama was leading John McCain in 10 polls or something with double digits in some and no one was talking about his lack of experience vs. McCain then. Just now, one or two polls showing McCain barely in the lead and folks jumped in to claim the experience thing since it fits the narrative well. This is amazing. It's the same reason people took Hillary's 35 years of experience as facts and that for those 8 years as first lady, she represented the United States on foreign policy. Obama will beat the crap out of these two. Let's see what folks are gonna come up with.


Not another Bush or Clinton.
by Barackulikahurricane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:33:15 PM EST

Re: Obama On Message (none / 0)

Yes he is. I don't understand this. I've heard of self-defeatism and self-loathing but this hits the nadir of it.  If 7 months out you're willing to give up on a candidate, than hey, best of luck with that, I salute you, now let people who are actually trying to do something get on with it.


by Sean Siberio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:55 AM 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.