Letters to the Editor
-
Obama needs to lead, not respond, with the following message: Champions fight clean
He is limited by two issues: how close he is to HRC on his policies, and his above-it-all message. He needs to show that a) he can be more effective at getting others to do what he wants and b) has the balls to fight for his own vision: THE CLEAN FIGHT.
What the 30%ers love about Dubya is the fact he's willing to tell people to fuck off. My problem with him starts with the fact that he does it 100% of the time, which king-like and impeachable. I also can't stand Dubya because he's wrong about everything, is a criminal, fights dirty and he doesn't work with anyone. But I would love it if a Dem got in the WH and told people to fuck off when it counted -- not 100% of the time like Dumbya -- and aggressively advanced the liberal policies this country needs to balance things out. (The side issue is whether Dumbya has damaged the presidency to such an extent that all other presidents are going to act like kings too).
He needs to get back on the offensive and aggressively purvey the following message: I will fight clean, and I will win. The best rarely have to fight dirty.
Obama needs to say, "Look at this. Voters, you have a choice: Rovian venality and politics as usual, ridiculous pettiness, or real change. My choice for myself and for you is to reject the Rovian/Clinton politics of smear, fear and, HRC's new addition, tears, and to show you that real leaders are not just good campaigners, but are principled, effective and have a vision. I will show the strength to rise above the gotcha politics, and show how bad for our system people like Rove and Limbaugh and Clinton are, because I represent real change."
He he lumps Clinton together with Rove and Limbaugh, that's an effective strategy.
Second, he also needs to get back on message, and provide some serious details about his policies and how he has the ability to get other people to do what he wants them to do. People are attracted to strength. Dem voters want a leader that is going to get GOP to do what he wants to do. Deals need to be made, sure. But tDEm voters don't want to elect some guy who's going to compromise everything at the table. HRC showed guts by coming back and kicking Obama's ass in the Ohio and Texas primaries.
His strength is fighting back without being petty, sure, BUT it is also going after HRC on her record, her prospective policies, and showing his superior grasp of the issues. Champions rarely have to fight dirty.
-
@ amosduncan
Yes, some people will not vote for Clinton in the election because our votes matter to us and Clinton has rejected our values.
But look at the candidates -- presumably what we're talking about here. It is Obama who said Clinton would make a fine president and Clinton who has said McCain is more prepared for office.
-
Lotza lotza posts...
Obfuscation…
Whos the pot and who’s the kettle…
Whatever You say bounces off me back to you…
False facts…
Partial factcs…
Misleading statements….
Lack of debate integrity…
No I didn’t… Yes you did…No I didn’t… Yes you did…
Deeps discussions on who is the bigger poopy pants…
Enough absurdity to make Kurt Vonnegut return from the grave…
And so on ….
10% content 90% bullshit. Ahh the smell of politics in the air.
So let me join.
See now Miss Walker, anyone who says anything against little Miss Clinton you accuse them of being "blatantly misogynistic," -- madamfauntleroy
You do realize you completely undermine your point by referring to Clinton with the title “little Miss”. You might want to use the title “Senator”, it better hides your blatant misogynistic tendencies. Or maybe you can join manos and go outside and step on ants or squish beetles or something.
-
Some free advice for Joe Conason
Journalism 101 - worth every penny of it.
Issues - look it up in the dictionary.
-
sajwan
Actually manos and I are kicking our cats.
Little Miss Clinton refers to how little she has become by playing cheap and dirty. Debate yes. Playing crooked no.
-
And if anybody knows about being an apologist for years of innumerable Clinton scandals, it's Joe Conason.
Obama; if you're going to go after a Clinton - from Bill to Hill to Chelsea to Buddy - you gotta go through Joe Conason.
-
You're kidding, right?
There is nothing to the Rezko flap -- you know it and so do Clinton supporters. It's been investigated thoroughly and shown, over and over again, no wrong-doing by Obama.
Rezko is more mythical than Whitewater, but funny how Clinton keeps using the Republican play-book to attack her opponent. She learned too well.
Releasing your tax returns is SOP for political candidates. In comparison to the lies and distortions being bandied about by Clinton these days, for Obama to point out that Clinton hasn't released her returns is totally above board. Not only is it fair, it's warranted.
Salon.com's biases are shining through these days, and it's a big disappointment.
-
@ 2-Cent
Right on!
I was thinking the same thing. Regardimg his issues i think it would be cool for him to post a twice weekly "chat with barack" video blog on his website where he appears to be addressing in great detail the various positions and specifics he plans to do when elected. This, if done simultaneously with his "Above it All" message would deflect the 'all talk no action' charge of the clintons, keep the race on=point, and cause no harm to the democratic party.
I hope his campaign GETS IT.
-
Good Piece -- and About Time
Thanks for the good article.
Obama acolytes don't want their candidate held up to examination.
IMHO Sen. Obama has run a negative campaign from day one: Accusing Sen. Edwards of dishonesty and corruption and sending Obama's surrogates everywhere to smear Sen. Clintion's personality and record.
I still remember being stunned to hear an Obama campaign manager say on CNN after his New Hampshire loss; "Senator Clinton didn't cry for Katrina," followed by a "supporter" stating that "Clinton said states with black votes don't count", and wondering how the press could fail to call Obama out on that.
Atlantic Monthly, I believe it was, reported that early in the campaign Obama managers were urging the press to "look into President Clinton's post-Presidential sex life." That might be audacious but it certainly isn't hopeful -- nor representative of a campaign based on issues.
Calling Clinton a "Monster" isn't a new tack for Obama. What's new is that for the first time a few of the national press are not letting Team Obama cover it up with homilies about hopefulness, pretending that the great one is above all that while conducting a campaign Karl Rove would be proud of.