Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

That is a provocative title but I'm experiencing a strong case of deja vu.  Three months ago bloggers and everyone else professed amazement at Obama's number of donors and fundraising success.  Then it died down and pretty much all I saw for the next few months was a lot of meaningless snarky nit-picking about Obama's perceived campaign strategy or utterance by him or a staff person, but really nothing about the what drives Obama and what is propelling his campaign.  Me included.  And I admit I'm judging blogs mostly by MyDD & DailyKos.  Thus, I'm sure I'm slandering a lot of bloggers who I don't read, but it's how I feel, sorry.  A lot of smart people seem to enjoy finding little things to knock Obama about.  That is good, it keeps his stratospheric expectations down to earthly levels.  Nothing is worse for a 2008 campaign than unrealistic expectations in 2007.  

Last week, however, I saw it.  I saw how students at Howard University were grabbing for Obama signs like starving children would grab for candy.  Students are almost always a leading indicator in campaigns.  I've seen it too among friends of friends and family who -- mostly I never could have imagined would vote for a African-American -- who are flocking to Obama in places like my hometown of St. Louis where both Democrat Congressmen (Clay & Carnihan) have endorsed him.  I've seen Obama too, a lot lately, and for the first time since the 1970's someone evokes the best of the 1960's.  The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like.  He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad.  I also see it almost every day in the District of Columbia a few blocks away geographically and miles & miles away psychically from the DC of the Capitol & K Street.  I see it on the faces of junior high kids who run over and want to talk to me, a middle aged white guy, and ask how they can get an Obama T shirt like mine.  They are faces of hope that I just don't see on an average day.

Obama could still fade or burnout.  The frontrunner is a frontrunner for a reason.  Obama is going to made some real rookie mistakes, not just the snark fodder that occasionally erupts.  Blogs should be critical.  If we have learned anything under Bush it is that everything should be questioned.  Cynics have good reason to be cynical.  Obama is a politician.  Still the 2nd Quarter success of the Obama campaign is THE political story of the year and I've seen very little that explains it.  I prefer a simple explanation.  Obama is, quite simply, the best candidate we have seen since Bill Clinton at his best and that he represents the true redemption of America, a better America that is closer to Dr. King's dream, the America that many fought for under Lincoln and FDR, the America of Thomas Jefferson's aspiration (not his sick, debased reality).  

On another day in another time I could be enthusiastic for Edwards, Richardson or maybe even the able Hillary Clinton.  Obama's thin record demands a bit of a leap of faith.  Obama has a great promise but obviously he is not running on his record, though it is a perfectly good record and I've long thought that state government experience is underestimated.  In any case, something is really beginning to happen "out there" for Barack and I think it will be the political story of a decade.  

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, bloggers (all tags)

Comments

105 Comments

Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Thanks for writing this - I see it too... I have friends ask me about Obama who I've never had a political conversation with before... I know people who say they are deciding between Obama and Gules (for whatever reason)... We keep hearing it, and a lot of people on blogs don't believe it, but I know several people who are supporting Obama and have never been in politics before.  These people are not polled, they are not "likely voters" but they are excited and I really think are going to vote this year.

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 03:47PM | 0 recs
Obama is an All-American

It's almost funny to keep hearing people refering to Barack Obama as an African American. It is disrespectful to his mother. Ask Tiger Woods and he would tell you how you cannot refer to him as African American. Barack is a bit dark and of course his hair, but what if he looks more like Shane Battier or Jason Kid with straight brown or blond hair, would you still refer to him as African American? I am sure he embraces both sides of his heritage (he certainly has the best of both worlds), but it seems stereotypic or even prejudicial to call him African American. What is the right word anyway? Let's just refer to him as an All-American.

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-07-01 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

He refers to himself as African American so that is what we will call him. I am Black/Cherokee, but I will call myself African American if I want to. It's our right. There is no disrespect to the Mother. I have Multi-Racial Nieces and Nephews who have also decided to call themselves African American and it's no disrepect to my White Brother -In -Laws. They have no problem with it. As a matter of fact, one of my White B.I.L's refers to his son as African American because my nephew calls himself that. So, please, don't go there. Tiger Woods calls himself whatever he wants to. Obama and I will call ourselves whatever we want to.

African Americans.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-01 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

Well, I hope that's what he felt. I haven't heard or read where he calls himself African American, only other people calling him that. But if he does then I don't see why other people shouldn't. For me personally, I like Tiger Woods's approach. He loves his Dad dearly and proud of his black heritage, but equally so towards his mom's side. He personally said he would prefer not to be refered to as African American just simply because that would eliminate his mother as a part of him. I'm sure he would prefer not to be refered to as Asian American either. 23 copies each. He's got a perfect point.

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-07-02 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

What the hell are you talking about?  If he wasn't "Barack Obama" and all that that entails, what do you think a cop on the street would see?  I'm not gonna use the crude word that some racist cop might see, but for lack of a certain crudeness---an African American.

by dlh77489 2007-07-01 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

This has to be the stupidest argument I've seen out there about Obama.  Before anyone knew who he was, if they saw him on the street they wouldn't see a guy with a white mother.  They would see a black man.  When he would go into a store, the clerk who would follow him around worried that might steal something would not know that he had a white mother.  When he would get into an elevator with a white woman who would clutch her purse a little more tightly, she would not have known that he had a white mother.  Surely you cannot be ignorant of the one drop rule and its legacy for our society, not to mention that the vast majority of African Amerians are of mixed ancestry to a greater or lesser degree?  Ask Strom Thurmond's "black" daughter.  It was not too long in the past where the child of such a mixed union would not have been looked upon as anything but black by the larger society. People who would have been regarded as bi-racial today would have identified with the only community that would accept them.  In so far a as race is a social construct, such a category could not have even existed when Barack was born. Tiger Woods has the luxury of identifying however he wants, but had he been born a few generations earlier he still would have had to go to the back of the bus.

by whitbreadale 2007-07-02 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

i think it would be hard to find a large amount of African Americans in this country without a mixed race background.

by leewesley 2007-07-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American

First up, name calling would not resonate well with Barack's message. The fact that you took a serious half a page to explain what's going on in our society proves that it's not the "stupidest" argument. It's simply what people are afraid to talk about which is not a good thing for our country. It leads to prejudiced assumption and misunderstanding. Please don't assume other people understand all this. I watch Charles Barkely on TNT and he said he prefers to be called black and not African American. He said African refers to those people who recently migrated from countries like Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia etc... and not those who had arrived here at the beginning of this nation. People should talk freely and should not be intimidated by hate speech and attack. This is the last thing Obama wants for this country. It's already ugly. Make it better.

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-07-02 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is an All-American
Name calling was not my intention, so I apologize if it was taken that way.  I tend to get a little passionate when it comes to Obama and race because of my own pesonal history and some of the really demented things I've heard people say about him in that regard.  It does seem to me that we're getting into silly season with all of this focus of what Obama chooses to call himself.  On one  side he gets criticized for not being black enough, on the other side he's accused of rejecting his mother by identifying himself as an African American.  For most of this country's history people like Barack would have been regarded as black no matter how much white blood they had in them.  Homer Plessey of Plessy vs. Ferguson, for example, was only 1/8th black.  W.E.B. Dubois had more white blood than black and Booker T. Washington had a white father.  People have only started to identify as bi-racial in the last 15 to 20 years. I just think that it is unfair to criticize Obama for not adopting a practice that is so recent and still controversial.
As for the AA vs. Black, I just happen to think that it is more of a generational thing.  Charles BArkley is a little older, so I'm not suprised by his opinion.  My great-grandmother used to say "colored", my grandmother "negro", and though I'm only 34 I've only gotten into the habit of using AA in the last couple of years, and even now I only use it in certain circles.  It's not really a big deal to me one way or the other.  I do resent it, however, when others say that we can't call ourselves that.  We can call orselves whatever we want.
by whitbreadale 2007-07-03 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing

Thanks for writing this - I see it too... I have friends ask me about Obama who I've never had a political conversation with before... I know people who say they are deciding between Obama and Gules (for whatever reason)... We keep hearing it, and a lot of people on blogs don't believe it, but I know several people who are supporting Obama and have never been in politics before.  These people are not polled, they are not "likely voters" but they are excited and I really think are going to vote this year.

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 03:48PM | 0 recs
If I wanted the big money

to determine the president, I'd go join the Republican Party.   Votes in a democracy is what matters, not who can fundraise the most from the big money guys.

So, we will hear about money a lot. Perhaps it's only money that matters.  If that is so, we are no longer a democracy.

Good for Obama and Clinton raising so much money.  They will get their message out.  But I wonder very much why big money finds them both so compatable.  

We will begin to see in Iowa. Either the people speak or just dollars do.  

by littafi 2007-07-01 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

the Obama story isn't about dollars it is about a quarter of a million people, many of whom will block walk, make calls, and put up signs...

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 03:54PM | 0 recs
Maybe

that remainds to be seen, but I can't remember a campaign that was successful that relied on teenagers wanting t-shirts and giving $10.

I'll take the union guys and the long-term activists anyday, at about a 1-5 ratio.

by philgoblue 2007-07-01 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe

i've worked with both union members and long-term activists, and my experience seems to be a little different than your own.  many of these, in my experience, want to forego working in the trenches and would rather pontificate than canvass.  i had a union actually withdraw their support because i mentioned to their political director that their members were returning false positives (one sheet had all ones on their voter contacts).  and both have trouble adapting to advanced campaign techniques and disciplined messaging.  i love those that do, though (and afscme was absolutely phenomenal in my last campaign).

personally, i love the energy and idealism that newbies bring into a campaign.  they are easily trained, eager to learn (and ask pertinent questions), and work hard.  i've never found a newbie hanging out at the coffee shop when they were supposed to be knocking on doors...

by bored now 2007-07-02 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe

Obama doesn't have a prayer in Iowa. In fact, when he didn't even show for that big thing last month - it was obvious Obama wasn't interested in being president and had other motives for being in the race - becoming clearer every day.

by annefrank 2007-07-02 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe you should rethink your approach...

What is becoming clearer everyday is that you have some sort of burr under your saddle about Obama.  What gives?  You repeatedly make ridiculous statements like this, "it was obvious Obama wasn't interested in being president and had other motives for being in the race."

Obama has generated record breaking crowds, a record breaking number of contributors, and a reaking breaking amount of money.  Obviously he is viewed as having a lot to offer by a lot of people.  It is fine that you prefer another candidate, but is it necessary for you to continually post such offensive statements?

I don't bash Edwards or his supporters at every turn, because I realize that we are allies.  I hope to persuade Edwards supporters that Obama has a better chance of stopping Hillary, and I hope to persuade HRC supporters that their preferred cnadidate will be highly vulnerable in a general election.  I do not attempt to persuade people at the end of a 2" x 4".  You discredit yourself by your approach. Try a little reasoned discourse.

by upper left 2007-07-02 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe you should rethink your approach...
Obama can't win the presidency. His role is to cha$e Hillary, making it an official
2-way race. Just the way the corporate media and their corporate sponsors want it.
Anything to distract from Edwards progressive solutions - opposed by anti-union corporateers who are quite happy with employees' low wages.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe you should rethink Edwards...

bullshit.  it's a wonderful conspiracy theory -- but that's it.  a wonderfully spun yarn that makes some people feel better.

edwards himself is responsible for being dropped out of the top tier, not obama.  edwards showed poor judgment by not being able to analyze 2006 and see that the dynamics had changed.  instead of raising $20 million a quarter, and demonstrating broad appeal, he's still raising 2004-type money.

i don't know about you, but i want somebody who's smarter than george bush in the white house.

let's face it, edwards isn't cutting it and it has nothing to obama being in the race.  if obama wasn't in the race, the democratic race would be all hillary, all the time.  i'm sure you'd complain about that, but then at least your complaints would be factually based...

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe you should rethink your approach...

"Obama can't win the Presidency"

This is exactly the kind of statement I am talking about.  You make a huge assertion with no analysis and no facts.

If you are going to say something like this you need to back it up.  If you think he can't win, why not?

You have a right to your opinion, but you are not going to persuade anyone who does not already agree with you if this is your method of discourse.

by upper left 2007-07-03 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

Don't worry. That's just an Edwards supporter with "Fox&Grapes" fever. He knows that all he has to do is go look at the website and see the 258,000 small donors. He doesn't want to. It makes him feel better to console himself with a bold faced lie.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-01 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

It would be nice if Obama supporters could talk about Obama instead of doing amateur psychoanalysis of Edwards supporters.  It further convinces me that there is no depth to the Obama phenomenon at least in the way his supporters write about it.

In this report it is all about the money and how people feel.  But I keep getting this sense that they are just joining in because everyone they know is.  I still do not see what Obama offers people that they are so mesmerized.  He offers a vision of change but no specifics of how we will get there.  Obama demonstrates little leadership in the senate.  It is mostly how to get along with Republicans and give them what they want.

Obama is tepid about withdrawal from Iraq.  His health care program continues to support the health care for profit industry while not covering everyone.  His support of the coal industry is not healthy for the planet.  His foreign policy speeches particularly about Iran are more hawkish than I expected from him.

The blogoshere examines positions carefully.  Yes we are all impressed with his fundraising prowess.   George Bush was a fabulous fundraiser also.  And I do not equate Obama's politics with Bush.  However great fundraising does not mean that the policies are what we want.  Often great fundraising taps into people's dreams not the politicians specifics.  This is an accomplishment of Obama's and not one to sneer at.  I genuinely applaud him for his appeal, I just don't trust emotional appeals without enough commitment to specifics that are positive for people.  I don't see that in Obama and I think it is why in the blogosphere there are still questions.

The diarist writes:

The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like.  He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad.  ....... I see it on the faces of junior high kids who run over and want to talk to me, a middle aged white guy, and ask how they can get an Obama T shirt like mine.  They are faces of hope that I just don't see on an average day.

Yes, Obama can still be a fad.  Desire for a t-shirt is not about change.  I would like to think there will be substantive change with Obama, but I have yet to see him deliver on these promises.  

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

Obama...the only top tier Democrat who was right, against the war from the start.  Case closed.

by howardpark 2007-07-02 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

What case does this close?  It means that he had little riding on his ass in 2003.  It doesn't mean a damn thing about his fitness for president or really anything else.

Don't tell me it's about 'judgment'.  Obama had no skin on the table in 2003 and was free to way whatever he damn well pleased.  What was his rationale for being against the war?

And how many times has he voted to fund it in supplementals since then?  How many times did he lead the fight to change the supplementals or defense appropriations bills?  

by Peter from WI 2007-07-02 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

No he only had to run for the position of United States Senator from the state of Illinois -- a fairly large state with millions of voters the overwhelming majority of whom do not share his color, urban residence, or politics. At a time when the majority of the country was supporting the war, this guy accurately predicted the exact mess we are in today in Iraq. I guess if we are looking for the the candidate that has enough hindsight to see that when things go bad it is a good time to lean to the otherside, but for me, I would rather pick someone who has the foresight not to get us into these foolish endeavors in the first place. And as for getting out of it, it is a bit trickier than getting into it, but only a thoughful person would carefully pull his head out of the tigers mouth, whereas some of us would end up headless.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-02 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

you forgot that he won the primary against a wealthy, wealthy self-funder who outspent everyone in the race and an old-line machine pol from a famous illinois family who already held statewide office.

in the end, obama trumped them both...

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Iraq war

The case is not closed for many of us.  I agreed with Obama then, and in 2004.  Obama was not in the senate though and given his votes in the senate in 200, 2006 and 2007 except for that last timid wimpy vote, he was wrong.  So being right a long time ago just doesn't do it for many of us who agreed with him originally.  His approach now doesn't give me confidence either.  Going along with Repubs doesn't give me confidence in his being right.

Edwards is far better on the war since 2003 when he agreed with Obama to vote against the appropriations bill.  Too bad Obama changed his mind when he came to the senate.   It is ironic that Edwards is the better anti-war candidate now.

Case is definitely not closed.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 09:23AM | 0 recs
But...

You've said that Obama's budget votes which continued funding for the war undermine his anti-war position.  This does not take into account the distinction between de-funding the war and de-authorising or mandating withdrawal.

Strategically I believe it is important to de-authorise or mandate a withdrawal for two compelling reasons, it restores the war powers to Congress, where they belong, and it undermines any attempt by the GOP to portray Democrats as putting US troops in harms way without support.  Senator Obama has made this distinction and I believe he is correct and his votes are consistent with this strategy.  And no offence intended to Edwards, I accept his epiphany on this issue, but he didn't just vote for the AUMF, he co-sponsored it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-03 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

Well- the Dixie Chicks were also against the war - but that doesn't mean one of them could be president. So much Reality that Obama supporters ignore.

by annefrank 2007-07-02 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

I'd certainly be happy to vote for any of the Dixie Chicks against the Republican nominee and against some of the dems.  They showed courage when it counted and would help us with key demographic groups souch as southern women and NASCAR moms.

by howardpark 2007-07-03 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money
Obama supporters actually think the DC elites are gonna allow a 2 yr senator to be president!! WHOA! When they wake up - Hillary will be prez - and we'll have another center/rightist prez.
Millionaire candidates advocating for the working poor are rare in U.S. history and I'm taking names and remembering all these Obama supporters who mocked and bashed the only viable Progressive candidate in the race.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

you should have stopped after the fourth word of your first sentence.  at least that was factual.

edwards doesn't meet the viability test.  if you want him to, send more money.  your contention that he's the only progressive in the race is laughable...

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

I am an Obama donor and supporter but I am totally shocked by the behavior of those so-called Obama supporters on mydd. Back over at the barackobama.com blog, it's a hopeful, bright, optimistic and civil blog. Over here it's getting nasty. Calling Edward's supporters names won't win any vote for Obama. It drives his true supporters away. Please! This is the last of me. Have fun attacking!

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-07-02 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

Please don't go, the Obama supporters here are a bit shell-shocked, that's all, and who could blame them.  The sooner Obama and Edwards supporters get their tents pitched near each other the better for all concerned.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-02 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: If I wanted the big money

republicans aren't raising the kind of money that democrats are.  the fact that fund-raising is the invisible primary shows that the permanent campaign exists and people are more interested in politics (as opposed to governance) in our current culture.

there is no reason to think that people don't speak with the dollars any more than they do with their votes.  btw, your comment makes me wonder whether you understand the iowa caucuses, where there is another form of screen, and not every voter's choice gets represented (necessarily)...

by bored now 2007-07-02 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Well, this is the story of the year but the MSM is doing a pretty comprehensive job of burying it, not to mention the nit picking by progressive coxswains, but the story just won't go away, will it?

Well, that's probably what 'people-powered' grass roots movements just have to contend with.  It doesn't seem to have affected the momentum or aspirations of the Obama supporters one little bit, and that's the whole point.  Thanks for your insightful comments, the revolution will not be televised, but this campaign will certainly be in the spotlight if Obama can translate this phenomenal performance in organisation and fundraising into impressive results in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  I think Obama is in a perfect position to accomplish just that.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-01 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

I have heard about his fundraising numbers about thirty times since last night in the media. How is that ignoring?

by RDemocrat 2007-07-01 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Initially the NYT and the Washington Post failed to pick up the AP and Reuters reports which appeared immediately and in the case of the NYT buried the announcement in the last third of a piece about John Edwards.  There is now a front page story in the NYT.  The Post still only has a breaking news link to the original AP story.  To my mind this is significant news and is not being treated appropriately.  The AP and Reuters reports have been picked up quite a bit by other sources, including CNN now.

I am not accusing the MSM of anything worse than lethargy and a general preference for the status quo.  When was the last time you read a significant article in either of those journals on any of Senator Obama's policy statements or the content of one of his speeches?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-01 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

With all due respect, a lot of Obama supporters were singing the praises of the Ny Times when they smeared Edwards. Whats changed?

by RDemocrat 2007-07-03 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

I guess I musn't have been singing the praises of the NYT when is was smearing Edwards.  Dunno.  No fear, the NYT came good on the Obama story in the end, they just waited until to see the AP story was picked up nationwide first.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-03 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

>>>>impressive results in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Where did you ever get the idea that Obama could win in those states???
Obama's role is and always was to sway supporters and financial support from Edwards! Mission Accomplished!

by annefrank 2007-07-02 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

of course obama could win those states.  there are many, many solid reasons to think that.  obama is a solid, charismatic candidate who stays on message and expands the electorate in his appeal.  i understand your resentment, especially since edwards doesn't have the potential to expand the electorate.  obama can win in florida, new mexico, colorado and maybe even a couple of other mountain states, as well.  america wants change, it is ready for change.  there is no question in the electorate that obama represents real change...

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Amen, Annefrank, Amen!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-03 10:35AM | 0 recs
cause we're waiting for

Obama to draw a strong contrast with Hillary on issues...

he also tends to speak in generalities in debates which makes him seem less impressive than he is

by TarHeel 2007-07-01 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: cause we're waiting for

It is frustrating - and the Clinton people want to paint them as if they have the same record.  When in fact, there record is fairly differint on several issues.  See this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_ pf.html

The big ones are:
Ethics Reform (Obama is for more stringent)
Ethenol (Obama supports)
Land Mines (Hillary is pro-Landmine)
Taxes (Obama has often supported higher and hillary hasn't"
Obama didn't support the gov't ability to take weapons in a disater area
Obama has voted to cut TV Marti
Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 05:19PM | 0 recs
TH

Would you please read this article:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community /post_group/1000AmericansforObama/CHjY

It includes some points where Clinton and Obama are sharply in contrast but mostly it puts out his record better then I could ever do.

Thanks :)

by Populista 2007-07-01 05:56PM | 0 recs
I know they're different

and trust me I'd never give a dime to HIllary.

but Obama let Hillary blur the differences on the war because he did not call her out on it.

Now Hillary will try to make herself the "change" candidate.

Will Obama point out how someone who's spent most of their adult life in DC can't be the change candidate?

by TarHeel 2007-07-02 04:28AM | 0 recs
How much will you risk for your candidate?

An important measure of a healthy campaign lies in how supporters answer that question.

I've been politically engaged for 20+ years. I've been willing to knock on doors in unfamiliar
neighborhoods; staff phone banks; hand out brochures; and write to my heart's content on
blogs like this one.

All of these scenarios provided me with opportunities to be as determined and fearless as I
needed to be with people I'd never met and probably would never see or talk to again, if at all.

Indeed, I've always drawn the line of political activism at my friends -- never willing to risk
rocking the boat with them by bringing politics into the picture.

A few days ago, after I'd donated for the third time this quarter to Barack Obama, I used
the Obama site to send an e-mail to my 15 closest friends, asking them to do the same.
It was the first time I'd ever crossed that line.

This is real.

by horizonr 2007-07-01 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: How much will you risk for your candidate?

Wow.  I am impressed.  I know exactly what you are talking about.

by aiko 2007-07-01 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: How much will you risk for your candidate?

I did the same thing.  Sent out emails to 50 ppl to remind them to donate.  And quite a few, responded, and said they did.

by icebergslim 2007-07-01 06:20PM | 0 recs
This is what annoys me about Obama supporters


The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like.  He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad.  I also see it almost every day in the District of Columbia a few blocks away geographically and miles & miles away psychically from the DC of the Capitol & K Street.  I see it on the faces of junior high kids who run over and want to talk to me, a middle aged white guy, and ask how they can get an Obama T shirt like mine.  They are faces of hope that I just don't see on an average day.

Yes, <u>everyone</u> understand that Obama's supporters believe this.  Everyone has heard this assertion about how his movement, involving X number of people threatens to transform America.

But, I almost never hear in these posts about the Obama movement:


  • 1.What this is, or does, and how it is different from the status quo, other than encouraging 'hope'
  • 2. How Obama's movement is qualitatively different from, say the 1992 Clinton campaign, or the current Edwards campaign, or any other Democratic campaign
  • 3.  WHAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD DO IF ELECTED PRESIDENT

I'm deeply unhappy with all of the candidates out there right now, and am kind of leaning toward Obama just because he's the best anti-hillary, but I'm sick of hearing meta-talk about the Obama movement.  You don't start a movement by talking about it.  You do it, you strive toward your goal, and after the fact, you talk about the movement that was.

by Valatan 2007-07-01 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

Have you gone to the website?  It's all there.

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-01 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

But why can't his supporters explain?  His website is confusing like most of them.  I can explain some of the key policies of Edwards.  I can't get the same back from Obama supporters.

Saying go to the website is not helpful in discussion.  What is it that you then want to discuss?  Oh, how wonderful Obama is, with no evidence beyond the numbers and other people feel the same?  Circular arguments that are unconvincing in the blogosphere.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

Agreed pioneer111!!! Well spoken!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-03 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

I think a lot of people don't really know the issues and are more interested in the complete "turn the page" draw of Obama... the since the World's opinions of America would reverse overnight with Obama as President... I think we like to see our President being greeted by millions of Africans - as there best hope - and our President coming through.

I think people like that Obama talks about, and does, work with Republicans and Democrats on issues like immigration and ethics reform.  He is a relief from the Rove/Clinton era of devide and counquer - which democrats, to be honest, lose at.  I really think people are sick of party gamesmanship and want to see things get done in a bipartisan way.

A lot of people are concerned about Iran - and they appreciate his judgement on Iraq.  Obama is really good, and specific on a lot of issues, and many of his supporters don't know this...but check it out at, http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

What evidence is there that this approach with Republicans will work?  The Republicans are the ones who cause the problems.  Democrats cave quite readily to get along.  The rest of us are sick of that.  This is the characteristic of Obama that scares me the most.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

DUH!  his approach of building consensus has worked.  he has proven this to be an effective technique in his career and it has proven to be an effective technique throughout the history of congress.  moreover, the call to bipartisanism is a frequent demand of the electorate -- you know, those people you keep ignoring.

democrats cave because they are conditioned that way by the democratic establishment in washington, dc.  democrats don't cave in illinois -- hell, look at the game of chicken currently going on in springfield.  you have to expand your horizons and outgrow your dlc mindset.  barack isn't talking about caving in to republicans, he's talking about appealing to republican voters who will agitate against their own elected officials.

just like he did in chicago.  y'all really need to start thinking outside the box...

by bored now 2007-07-02 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

Yes, Africans really trust millionaire sheepherders. What hope!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-03 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what annoys me about Obama supporters

sure.  but just like obi-wan, obama is our only hope...

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:46AM | 0 recs
HOPE INC

You_are_not_witnessing_"The_Audacity_of_ Hope.

You_are_witnessing_"The_Audacity_of_Bara ck_Obama."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle. cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

by Mike Conrad 2007-07-01 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: HOPE INC

dude what is with the underscore?  are you making a statement/point/what?

by icebergslim 2007-07-01 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: HOPE INC
That is an interesting article. I hope some of the Obama supporters will read it.
by robliberal 2007-07-01 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: HOPE INC

I don't know about that - but I do study sociology, and religion, and understand why this book is such a success... This article isn't very good at explaining it - but, as much as I like Obama, this book is kinda of the "you best life now" of poltical liturature.  

by gb1437a 2007-07-01 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

What we've been seeing is not a debate.  If we can get this thing down to the 3 candidates who have a real chance, then we'll see a much different impression of how Obama does in debates.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-01 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Thank You, on my weekly blog, I have list of the tenative debates coming up.  Need to bounce these ppl, quick.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/1/1 64826/4596

And I think by September, 1/2 will be gone.

by icebergslim 2007-07-01 07:34PM | 0 recs
why would any of them drop out?

Gravel and Kucinich aren't running real campaigns and don't need a lot of money. All they have to do is show up for the televised debates. Why on earth would they drop out?

Biden and Dodd are way back in the pack, but they'll be able to put together campaigns in Iowa and NH at least. Why would they drop out? Who knows, lighting could strike the front-runners and they'd be in the thick of it.

Obviously Edwards and Richardson are not going to drop out before Iowa. They both are poised to do well there.

So what's your thinking on this?

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-01 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

Obviously Edwards and Richardson are not going to drop out before Iowa. They both are poised to do well there.

So what's your thinking on this?

I don't know why Richardson is in there, but Edwards will not drop out until he get's his tooshie handed to him in Iowa. He knows he's lost this thing, but because he had a big fat mouth about Iowa, he has to stay in. He is preparing his people for his loss by blaming the Media for not enough coverage and by pretending that he wants to raise these small amounts of money on purpose. He's going to go out the victim instead of the loser.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-01 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?
Unfortunately, it appears Obama supporters are more interested in hearing more positive comments about their candidate - than the Truth. And anyone who doesn't toe the line - is labeled an Obama-hater. But as my previous predictions continue to unfold - I'm reposting.
It doesn't matter how much money Obama raises - 2 trillion - 3 trillion - he can't win the presidency in 2008 - and it's doubtful he'd be a VP candidate. As predicted, and confirmed by MSM articles today, Obama's role is cha$ing Hillary to the top of Money Mountain - to place Edwards in "distant 3rd." Hillary doesn't care how much money Obama raises. She knows that Murdoch's media Empire will continue dissing and dismissing Edwards while focusing on a 2-way race - giving her glowing reviews regardless of her performances or high unfav ratings - and she'll still be identified as No. 1 with Obama "close behind."
The goal is to minimize Edwards the Progressive - the real threat to the DC elites.
IMHO
by annefrank 2007-07-02 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

edwards took himself out of the race.  he can't compete because he is fighting the last battle -- 2004 -- instead of the next one (2008).  i understand that this is extremely frustrating to those who support edwards, especially for those who are energized by his message.  and you have to make a choice: is edwards so important to you that you are willing to give hillary the nomination (and thus lose the 2008 general election)?  or are you willing to abandon your own personal choice to give democrats a better chance in 2008?

edwards is already minimized, and -- as near as i can tell -- he did that to himself.  he's made himself a figure of sympathy rather than a figure of substance, which is not to say that he has no substance.  the media has only recently understood this...

by bored now 2007-07-02 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

Why do you keep saying that Edwards is running a 2004 race?

by clarkent 2007-07-03 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

have you seen his financial reports?  if he has a plan, it doesn't seem to account for the factors that are clinton and obama, or 2006, or much of anything else that has evolved since then.  i'm really disappointed in the lack of strategic vision coming from that campaign...

by bored now 2007-07-04 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

He's raising a lot more money that he did in 2004, and he has a good organization and popular support in the early states. I'd say he's doing alright.

by clarkent 2007-07-04 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

more money, but not that much more money.  he's still in a 2004 paradigm, not 2006 or 2008.  there's a lot more democratic money out there now, but he's not getting his share.  edwards should have raised $30-40M by now, instead of $20M.

he had a good organization in 2004.  for someone who's lived in iowa for the last four years, you'd think he'd have sown up all the effective caucus captains out there.  edwards didn't convince them to bet on him, there were plenty available as of may.

i agree that edwards is betting on an early win.  he won't have the money to go past florida (if he competes in florida) unless he wins substantially in iowa or new hampshire.  i wouldn't be comfortable with the campaign plan i see coming from edwards.  i won't quibble if you are...

by bored now 2007-07-05 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: why would any of them drop out?

You know, for an Obama supporter you sure have a lot of insights into what Edwards is thinking. Edwards will win Iowa whether you like it or not. Your comments on Edwards consistently ring of hatred and ignorance!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-03 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

What is the need for primary debates 7-8 months prior to the first state primary in the first place? It's truly outrageous - no other country in the world does this obscenely early, obscenely pricey production we call a presidential campaign cycle. Like Al Gore said, this is good for lining the pockets of political advisors and ad-men, and not much of anything else.

Bouncing the 2nd tiers off the podium so early tho? Really? Don't you think they will fall out of their own accord? If we're going to conduct these "forums", I for one, prefer to hear all of the voices.

by sybil disobedience 2007-07-01 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Purpose of debates

There are two main purposes of debates.  They put the candidates into the public eye and demonstrate whether they can handle it.  This is one of the skills needed by a president to "lead" people.  You can see how lousy Richardson is at this.  The top three candidates are actually quite good.  Obama has more difficulty because he isn't clear on his own specifics.

That is the second purpose - to present the candidates policies and thinking in ways that large groups of people understand.  Yes Obama can handle an extended academic discussion.  That is not good political leadership.  Being able to distill ideas into simple bite size pieces is helpful for a candidate to lead.  The debate process either teaches people the skill or their ineffectiveness is revealed.  Edwards is very good at this.  Clinton is quite good also, except when she feels real stress, she gets too sharp.  Obama is the least good at it of the top three - and he still is good.  Whether it is enough to lose support, I am not sure.  In his longer speeches Obama promotes simple ideas - hope and change, but in the question periods, he has to give specifics, this makes it more difficult for him.

The debates give the people a chance to think about who they really want to lead them.  It is a good thing.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Purpose of debates

Agree that Richardson is all at sea on a podium - period. Give him a minute and he doesn't do too well, give him 5 minutes and he loses it. It's kinda sad really but it just won't do.

OTOH Talking in sound bites tells us nothing. So far Edwards and Hillary are best at telling us nothing.

DK delivers more substance in 30 second sound-bites than anyone but we already know he can't be pres.

Which is one reason IMO that if we're going to involve ourselves in the nonsense of premature primaries we should allow all voices on that podium. With all of this time in front of him Obama will undoubtedly master the sound-bite venue...also kinda sad.

...because NO. You don't need sound-bites to be president. You need in-depth understanding of issues.

America would be well-advised to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, restrict presidential campaigns to 60 days prior to the primary election with 30 days prior to the GE for mud-wrestling the opposition.

All of it publicly financed and leaving K Street out of it entirely.

Besides, it would require so much less time for damange control.  

(and put so many 'cargalas' out on the streets looking for honest work)

by sybil disobedience 2007-07-02 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Purpose of debates

In depth understanding of the issues is essential.   What I said was "Being able to distill ideas into simple bite size pieces is helpful for a candidate to lead."  That does not preclude, in fact it requires, in depth understanding of the issues.  

I don't sense that Obama really understands his own health care plan.  Long winded answers that I have heard Obama give in TV interviews have not been great either, so I'm not sure that format would be better, but I do like the idea of having a variety of formats to be able to assess a candidates positions.

The long campaign actually favors Obama in that it is forcing him to really consider what it means to be a president and who you represent.  It shapes people and it focuses their attention on the voters and not the lobbyists.  This is a good thing.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

So, as an Obama supporter, I went and read that article. I really did. When I wasn't trying to decipher meaning from the high school civics class-level screed about capitalism and whatnot, I was marveling about how the author gripes that Obama is a millionaire who recently bought a nice home, while simultaneously slathering support on John Edwards. I don't have my facts, but last time I checked Edwards wasn't too hard up himself...

I got nothing against Edwards. But the hypocrisy revolving around his support is sometimes frustrating.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-01 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

The above is a response to Mike Conrad's post.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-01 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

All the candidates have more money in pesonal wealth.

by noquacks 2007-07-01 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Paul Street is a jealous uncle tom who has been attacking Barack Obama personally since he was in Illinois. This is total crap.

TOTAL CRAP.

If it says Paul Steet or Andy Martin on it, it's a personal attack. These people two are  intentionally trying to attack Obama for personal reasons. They hate him and will say anything against him.

Look them up.

If Edwards supporters want to quote a confirmed diagnosed mental patient and a crook, they can. It just reflects on them. But, seriously, look up those people.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-01 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Not to mention 'Low Blow' Joe Novak.  Another predator-parasite media stalker Obama has attracted.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-07-01 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story
Do you see the political "experts" on TV panels talking about Obama's wealth or house - or it's relationship to Rezko?  No. The focus is on John Edwards wealth and house which have NO controversial strings attached.
But Obama supporters can't seem to see or understand this.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 05:33AM | 0 recs
Progessive &quot;Hypocrisy&quot; Storyline
Huh?  You're going to argue that the media are ignoring the Rezko story?  The story that despite lacking any new information is continually reborn on front pages and, yes, has received no end of misleading coverage from the talking heads --- if you don't believe me, go to mediamatters.org.
All progressive candidates at one time or another get the wealth and hypocrisy story --- this is what you don't understand.
Obama has had plenty of them --- the Chicago Tribune went so far as to print the number of fireplaces in his new house since he came into money through book sales (he had before that lived in a condo with two mortgages).
Deval Patrick is another great example.  He was attacked mercilessly... for the drapes he installed in the new governor's office being too expensive.
The storyline is always the same: wealthy Republican passes self-serving taxes for rich while wealthy progressive Democrat decried for hypocrisy for deeming to help the poor.
Edwards will weather this just like all the other candidates have.
by psericks 2007-07-02 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

right, because obama doesn't have an edwards-type house.  the house that obama has wouldn't go for more than the national average in north carolina.  and you couldn't find an edwards house in the southside of chicago.

and you're absolutely right, edwards didn't need help to buy his house because he was fabulously wealthy.  unfortunately, obama can't say the same thing.

edwards disclosed assets of $30 million, while obama disclosed a range from $460,000 to $1.1 million.  iow, edwards is 30 times richer than obama, and more than a thousand times richer than most americans...

by bored now 2007-07-02 07:06AM | 0 recs
Obama has a million dollar house

not sure what you think but his house is definitely about 10 times the average in NC

by TarHeel 2007-07-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a million dollar house

well, i went to school in durham and the place i stayed priced out at $200k.  i haven't spent enough time in nc to know their market, though.  i choose my words very carefully.  what we can say, though, is that obama couldn't have afforded edwards home, whether in nc or the southside.  

by bored now 2007-07-03 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

And this is why Obama is more susceptible to pressures in the senate and in the WH.  Just like Bill Clinton who went along with the corporate agenda.  They paid him well ever since.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Even though I support Edwards, I'm seriously thinking about Obama because I'm starting to believe that he would be the best man for the future of the party and the left. I know Hillary Clinton wouldn't change peoples' opinions, but someone like Obama could.

by scaryice 2007-07-02 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story
If you believe that a candidate raising the MOST money and attracting the MOST followers has a GREATER chance of winning the presidency - you're wrong.
Also - in order to detract from another candidate - would it more advantageous to engage college students with this endeavor or Ragin Grannies?
by annefrank 2007-07-02 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

He/she is WRONG???

You checked with God, did you?

by tibbs 2007-07-02 04:06PM | 0 recs
The even larger picture...

...which has to be should be addressed is whether or not these low dollar donations translate into support when it becomes primary time.  

This goes for all candidates, not just Obama.  How much can you count on a person that donated $10?  I wish I had a source on this but I've been told that if a person donates $5 or more they are extremely likely to vote for that candidate.  Makes sense.  Except I'm not sure this applies right now.  I can donate to any of the candidates in less than 60 seconds.  The internet has made campaign donations equivalent in ease as the impulse buy at the supermarket checkout lane.  Donating $10 costs me little in time, effort and money.  Getting off my butt, making sure I remember to register in advance of my primary, getting off my butt again to go to the polling place on election day and filling out my scantron, all require significantly more of an effort.  So will this type of support translate to votes in the end?  I think that's one of the most important subplots of this cycle.  

by cesar 2007-07-02 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The even larger picture...

If you donated, then the campaign will remind you to register for the primary and get out and vote on election day.

by KCinDC 2007-07-02 05:47AM | 0 recs
Obama is not the frontrunner

Hillary is.

And this diary is all "feel," not substance.

I read many like these about Dean in 2003.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-02 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not the frontrunner

Dean did become the frontrunner

by gb1437a 2007-07-02 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not the frontrunner

Dean was rising in the polls, if you care about such things.

Obama is falling in the polls.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-02 09:20AM | 0 recs
Actually, Obama is pretty stable in the polls
Also, here's an interesting counterpoint.
by horizonr 2007-07-02 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not the frontrunner
True. Hillary is the front runner and Murdoch's Media seeks to keep it that way.
Even Tavis Smiley has sold his soul - as per MTP yesterday regarding the PBS Debate. Nothing was mentioned about Edwards doubling his support per the before and after polling of the audience - compared to Obama and Hillary LOSING support. In fact, PBS scrubbed the poll on their front page less than 24 hours after posting it.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 05:48AM | 0 recs
IMO

There is room for both kinds of diaries.

by pamelabrown 2007-07-02 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: IMO

there is room for any kind of diary that a diarist wants to write.

There is also room for any kind of comment to said diaries.

This diary is flawed because it pruports to be fact based imo when it is just anotehr "feel" diary.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-02 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

I have a theory about the need to be cynical about Obama's appeal on these blogs.  Progressives have had a very long, hard few decades.  There was Reagan and Bush1, and then of course the chameleon Clinton, who was hogtied by his Republican congress and who blew it bigtime (was blown bigtime)causing 8 more years of misery and deception.  So we've all had it.  

There is a whole progressive industry built upon anger, resentment and cynicism.  Edwards' message of rich against poor, Democrat against Republican, feeds into the victim mentality that is prevalent on the liberal blogs. Even his fundraising campaign - "Don't let her get away with it" and so much of the language from his campaign literature and website reinscribes the notion that it is us against them.

We're comfortable with that, it justifies and confirms our negative emotions.

Enter Obama.  No anger, no resentment, no cynicism in his message.  WTF???  But Obama knows a secret.  While anger has it's place, cynicism and resentment get a person absolutely nowhere.  To move forward, one needs a completely different set of emotions.  One needs hope and inspiration, one needs to feel good about our country, our friends and neighbors, our communities.  Then we can tackle the problems together.

Obama is an inspirationist.

It's hard for us old cynics to allow ourselves to be inspired by a positive message such as his.  We have to let go of all the decades of anger and resentment, the gotcha, the knitpicking to find any excuse to criticize, and we have to trust the future to those who have a new perspective.

The old guard was for yesterday's problems. The generation of Clinton, and Edwards, and Kucinich and Biden and Dodds - it did ok.  But their realities are all about conflict.  We need to let go of that now, and be led by people who have a new understanding of a complex world, people who have a more heterogeneous, more tolerant and more hopeful vision.  And those people have chosen Obama as their leader.

I for one have finally decided to hop on board.  I've decided to allow myself to be inspired.  I'm tired of hating Republicans, tired of hating Christians, tired of hating rich people, tired of hating corporations, tired of hating, period.

I want to breathe again.  

by tibbs 2007-07-02 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Obama doesn't inspire me.  And I don't see Edwards hating.  I do see Edwards being far more practical in his approach.  Edwards inspires me.  To each his own I guess.

by pioneer111 2007-07-02 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

There is a lot of truth here.  The most popular and successful Presidents of the last 100 yrs generally spoke to people's hopes and dreams - FDR, Kennedey, Reagan, Clinton.  

by John Mills 2007-07-03 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Oops.  Meant Kennedy.

by John Mills 2007-07-03 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloggers Keep Missing The Obama Story

Very interesting and well thought out diary.  I have not committed to any candidate yet but I have never seen anything like the excitement around Barak Obama and I have been voting in Presidential elections since I voted for Gary Hart in the 1984 primaries.  He has excited a whole generation of people and that is really something.  I think his emergence scares some people because whether or not Obama himself makes it, he is the beginning of the next generation taking over and that means a shift in attitudes, direction, powerbases, etc.  

I know he gets criticized by some for not outlining a ton of specifics but Presidential campaigns are about themes and visions, hopes and dreams.  Examples - Morning in America, Putting People First, A Bridge to the 21st Century, Compassionate Conservatism.  I am not belittling policy positions - they are very important - but it would behoove the Dems to think a little more like marketers and less like policy wonks.  The Repubs get this which is one of the reason they have done better over the last 30+ years in Presidential races although I think that is about to end in 2008.

by John Mills 2007-07-03 06:05AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads