Obama and his surrogates need to stop going on TV and whining about how the Clinton's are a bunch of meanies! It makes Obama look weak and unprepared for the office he seeks.

What does he think he was getting into, a quilting bee?

No doubt, the Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there may be some "Democratic Party Leaders" who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Democratic Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.

Democrats take note: this is how Presidential campaigns are won!

As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that they actually know what it takes to win one of these things. After all, there is a reason why the Clintons are the only Democrats to win the White House twice since FDR.

Finally, that Obama finds himself so easily thrown off his game by a little bit of friendly fire from the Clintons tells me that he will be eviscerated by the balls out business end of the GOP attack machine.

This is what folks feared with Obama: That he'd be too high-minded to stand up to the smear machine.

Hold on there cowboy.

I'm pretty sure what Obama's doing right now is standing up and fighting back. What he's not doing is smearing back. That's sort of the point of his campaign - to leave the smearing and distortion to those willing to play dirty.

I agree, however, that he needs to find a way to nonetheless make the focus more on Hillary. I'm not sure pointing out that there are really two Clintons running for POTUS is the best strategy.

It will be worse now. I predict Obama (if he wins) will win by a very small margin (2-3%) in SC. The reason is the two Clintons' campaign (race, gender, and ethnicity baiting). Even Dick Morris is onto this. Of course, I predicted from the start that no one can beat the two Clintons. No one has. No one will. Ever. Forever.

The prediction again: The power of the Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even though you do not want to. The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now in your DNA, especially if you are low-income (or low-education) white woman.

Please see --

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/24/reuterszogby_poll_obamas_lead_slips_in_south_carolina.html

I used to be feel sorry that Obama will not win. Now I will sorry for Obama himself. I mean what a way to be destroyed.

See, I think that line of argument is profoundly mistaken. You seem to be implicitly arguing that because Hillary will be running against a Republican in the general election, she ought to campaign like one in the primary. I feel very strongly that the Bush/Rove campaigns redefined acceptable tactics and I'd like to see a candidate who can credibly redefine politics as usual, not one who is essentially making the case that she can win under Republican-defined rules.

Let me shoot from a different angle: you want to see if Barack Obama can defend himself from unfair attacks (a statement which includes a troubling legitimization of those distortion as valid campaign tactics), while I'd like to see Hillary offer something that has a prayer of standing up against John McCain.

Experience? Courage? Those aren't really going to work against McCain. Additionally, his reputation as a maverick (whether or not that's a fair characterization) protects him from the fallout of the Bush administration.

Doesn't this type of defense just boil down to it's ok for Democrats to use racial dog whistles when running against minorities because Republicans will as well. If there is one thing you don't need more practice with when you're a minority is dealing with racism.

I'm sorry, but this media-enflamed "dustup" between Hillary and Obama leaves me feeling "That's it?" I mean this is pretty tame stuff compared to the long line of standard GOP smears, like "Democrats don't support the troops" or "Democrats don't want to go after OBL".

This is just one more example of IOKIYAR. You can guarantee that once the nominations are made in both parties, the Republican standard bearer will get the "he said-she said" treatment, while the media will continue to pillory any Democrat who dares critize his/her opponent.

More popcorn, please...

From my perspective, Obama's fight-back strategy has been to:
a) Lump "The Clintons'" together
b) Drive home the "Clintons as liars" theme
c) Emphasize the need to turn the page.

It's hard to elect someone you don't like and don't trust. And even most partisan Dems don't trust Hillary.

And what exactly would be a better strategy for the Obama camp to take?

I think that y'all are missing the point - if Obama tries to go toe to toe with the Clinton sludge machine, that very act will expose his central motif of transformative change as fraudulent. His whole message is centered on the notion that par for the course isn't good enough - the course itself is a mess, supported by "rules" which are hopelessly slanted towards those who seek to protect it (and profit from it) as it stands. Both Dem and Repub.

Now, maybe you believe in that message, maybe you don't. Maybe you think that it's hopelessly naive, or that it won't fly against the big mean bully Republicans. But insinuating that Obama is "weak" because he is sticking with the principles upon which he is basing his whole campaign is pretty weak itself.

if obama fights back, the media scorns him as falling into the clinton entrapment and if he takes the high ground, the media perceives him as weak.
he is a very decent human being. he represents that in this campaign, even if there are snares and double-pronged attacks all around him.
all of the craft in the world cannot change the essential truths of a person, as their natures are revealed over time.
i still believe in goodness and hedges of protection. and i wish that for barack obama each day, as do many others.

I'm an Obama supporter and I agree with Ezra. Obama needs to either rise above the attacks or put Hillary away when she makes them, like he did at the Philadelphia debate.

You don't have to be a knife fighter to be president but you better be able to deal with knife fighters. He needs to show he can deal with this stuff and not be thrown off his game.

This post seems inconsistent with the previous one. Hillary is simultaneously a good candidate because she's willing to smear, but any smearing of Hillary only helps her? Apparently it's not IOKIYAR but IOKIYAClinton.

You don't have to be a knife fighter to be president but you better be able to deal with knife fighters. He needs to show he can deal with this stuff and not be thrown off his game.

Judging by the last few years of "leadership" as practiced by the majority Democratic party, the established wisdom seems to be that the way to deal with a knife fighter is to retreat into a fatalistic crouch that is predicated on the hope that the knife fighter will take pity on them, or that the crowd will storm the stage and stop the fight.

As Digby, Greenwald, et.al. have pointed out over and over again - Democrats are not issued knives for these types of fights. The choice is to fight with your fists, or cower in the corner. Which option do you thing is the option of the strong, and which is the option of the weak?

I understand what Ezra and the rest of you are saying, but I think we would do well to remember that this is the primary, not the GE. If Hillary uses her old stand by of divide and conquer now, she will be spening to much time in the GE trying to paste the democratic base back together to overcome the republican attack dogs ripping her to shreds (and let's be honest there is enough material to destroy clinton in a GE). This is exactly why I despise the Clinton machine so much, they have no problem cutting off their nose to spite their face, it's utterly counter-productive, and it may be what ends up loosing the democrats their presidency in a year when we should be just waltzing into the white house, no muss, no fuss. Obama needs to let hillary run her mouth if that is what she wants to do and LEAD by example by shouting his message of hope as loud as he can and drown her out once and for all.

First, I think we fall into a rhetorical trap when we associate running a tough bare knuckled campaign as "running like a Republican". Thats how campaigns should run. Politics is war, negative campaigning works even though people claim to hate it. Governing is about unity, campaigns are about winning. Complain if you want but in order to set the agenda you have to win. Period.

Second, this "Clinton is smearing Obama" stuff is crap. And keep in mind this is exactly why negative campaigning works. If Obama calls Clinton a liar then Obama supporters cheer loudly and then say "well thats not smear thats truth" If Clinton slams Obama Clinton supporters cheer and say "they're just drawing contrast based on the facts". "Smear" and "negative" are in the eye of the beholder and the eye of the beholder depends on who you support. It always has been like this and it always will be.

Third Jacqueline says :

if obama fights back, the media scorns him as falling into the clinton entrapment and if he takes the high ground, the media perceives him as weak.

Exactly. Thats why its a good strategy It's called a double bind.

This whole affair has more or less revealed how morally bankrupt many on the left are. all of these years, they've been complaining that the Bushies are evil because of the tactics they use. They are evil because they divide us. They are evil because they used staged events and planted questions. They are evil because they lie and because they slander good people. You hate Republicans because they disenfranchise voters.

But the Hillary campaign has shown all of those to be lies. You don't hate any of those things. You just hate having those things done to you. Just like the corrupt and wicked Republicans, you think that anything your side does is acceptable and anything the other side does is innately evil. There is truly no difference between you.

People need to understand that mudslinging was not invented by Karl Rove or for that matter Lee Atwater. It's the way political campaigns have been fought since the beginning of human civilization, and it will always be that way. Hillary isn't "running like a Republican," she's running like a politician.

What's happening isn't really all that surprising. It's not going on on the other side right now that much because there are clear distinctions between the candidates. But the policy differences between Hillary and Obama are slight, so what else are they going to argue about? They basically have to each make the case that they, personally, or better suited to be the Democratic candidate.

Theoretically you could do this in an exclusively 'positive' way, i.e. only talk about how great you are and not how bad the other is. But there's a fine line between those two approaches, and the one starts blurring inevitable into the other.

I think we're talking about two different, but related things here:

1) Clinton is hitting Obama with a bunch of distortions and Obama is trying to correct those attacks.

2) Clinton is attacking more often than Obama is.

If Obama didn't respond to point one, everyone would be saying he's not standing up for himself (which, by answering the false charges, he is, but people still are acting like he's not).

Now, one point two, there's an argument. He's letting her creative a narrative about him that is damaging and he needs to come back against her, but, as noted above, he undercuts his own message if he does it.

Basically, he's between a rock and a hard place and it is made worse by Bill Clinton running around and disgracing himself every time a mic or camera is in his general vicinity.

phil....

"the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands."

Ryan said:
From my perspective, Obama's fight-back strategy has been to:
a) Lump "The Clintons'" together
b) Drive home the "Clintons as liars" theme
c) Emphasize the need to turn the page.

Finally someone gets it! Obama is not whining. He is lumping them together which totally undermines one of the central ideas of her candidacy. She looks like she can't stand on her own without Bill. It creates a message that THEY are the past, not the future. All of the talk that the Clintons are LYING force us to remember what a good liar he was in his presidency. Until they found the blue dress. It is totally undermining their credibility as truthtellers.

Read this Gail Collins column today. She's a better writer than I am so just go there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24collins.html?ref=opinion

I can't agree that Obama's not being rough. He's doing a pretty good job of twisting things so that Hillary appears to be a dirty politician. For example, in the debate he pretended she said something she didn't, which has resulted in a whole slew of terrible publicity for her (even your post).

Obama made two separate comments to the Reno Gazette-Journal. One related to Reagan ("I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America..."). The other referred to ideas ("I think it is fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10, 15 years...").

In the debate, Hillary referred to the second quote. She said, "The facts are that [Obama] has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote. Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. They were bad ideas for America." The last 10-15 years does not have anything to do with Reagan.

Obama started to respond about Reagan. and Hillary immediately said, "I did not say anything about Ronald Reagan." It was clear she was referring to Obama's statement about ideas, not to his statement about Reagan. And it is not unfair to characterize the second quote as meaning that the Republicans had good ideas. You don't say a group is the "party of ideas" if you mean that they have useless, crappy, or even neutral ideas. What she said was perfectly fair.

In the debate, Obama chose to pretend to misunderstand and he responded as if she were referring to the Reagan quote.

This is just one of many distortions that have been happening to Hillary. The characterization of Bill as attack dog is also way over the top. I saw video footage of one of his so-called "meltdowns" and it was a perfectly civil, polite exchange.

Whoever is the Democratic frontrunner is going to be subject to this sort of distortion. Al Gore was briefly made to seem a delusional liar and John Kerry was made to seem a coward, and now Hillary Clinton is being made to appear a dirty politician. It’s just not so.

This seems like good practice for Obama, who needs to prove that he can do precisely that.

It's worth noting that this is not at all good practice for Clinton, as she won't be running against anyone like Obama on the other side. (McCain and Huck can act like nice guys, but they clearly know how to knife somebody when they feel like it.)

If Obama or Edwards pulled this off that would prove a great deal about their strength as GE candidates, but if Clinton pulled it off it wouldn't prove didly squat about the GE. It wouldn't even really prove that much about Obama's weaknesses--Clinton has advantages in the Dem primary that no GOP candidate will have over him (unless Bill Clinton turns into McCain's attack dog or something).

Remember, friends, that the Clintons are as likely to use their vaunted hardball tactics against progressive politics as against conservatives. Remember DOMA, Dick Morris, "the era of big government is over," stripping benefits from legal immigrants, the 1996 telecom bill, "don't ask, don't tell," and Rickey Ray Rector?

I wouldn't object to the Clintons' playing rough (minus the racial stuff, of course) if they reliably played rough in support of progressive politics. But they don't. Playing hardball purely out of self-preservation isn't admirable.

This campaign is, IMO, exposing the fundamental flaw of Obama as a candidate, which is that he paints himself into a corner this way. He stakes everything on being above the fray leaving him no room to maneuver when it turns out that joining the fray is necessary.

This relies almost exclusively on the power of his personality. The idea is people will just like him so much that they won't countenance anyone who attacks him. Obama's likable and charismatic, but he's not that likable and charismatic. Is anyone?

I'm still baffled by the anger at the Clintons. If Obama's candidacy is fatally flawed in this way (if - we'll see if he can adjust), did you want to wait until the general election to find out? Don't you wish Kerry would have been put through the ringer before we nominated him?

Anyone who is so bitter about this that they won't vote for Hillary in the fall is just being petulant. Republicans aren't evil because of their 'tactics' or because they call us mean names. They're evil because of what they do in office. GWB is a son of a bitch not because he slings mud, but because he starts wars.

Complaining about the other side's campaign tactics seems utterly pointless to me. It's like complaining that you don't get to live to be 200 years old. It's just the way it is, now deal with it and act accordingly. Sitting out the election because you're mad at Hillary is tantamount to saying "Fuck you" to every poor person without healthcare. It's immature, selfish, and reprehensible.

(unless Bill Clinton turns into McCain's attack dog or something)

Well, I'd imagine if Obama is the nominee, the Republican will be thanking Bill for the useful clips of the previous Democratic president blasting the Democratic candidate as unqualified for office (something GHWB didn't provide against McCain).

(1) Republican leaders are sociopaths

(2) Therefore, Republican leaders engage in smear campaigns

(3) ?

(4) Hillary Clinton is engaged in a smear campaign

I think the people who are considering not voting for Clinton should she win the nomination (and I'm almost but not quite one of them) are worried about what exactly is going on in (3). You might disagree with that worry, but it's not entirely unfounded.

Jason, I agree that it's good for Obama to be tested by smearing. That doesn't mean that I think the campaign doing the smearing isn't scum.

If Hillary wins by these tactics, I'll certainly hold my nose and support her, but I will be holding my nose, and it will take me a while to come around even to that point. I'm still holding out for the possibility of for once having a candidate to vote *for*, rather than once again being motivated purely by voting against the Republicans who are wrecking our country.

I'm still baffled by the anger at the Clintons. If Obama's candidacy is fatally flawed in this way (if - we'll see if he can adjust), did you want to wait until the general election to find out?

But this is NOT the sort of challenge Obama would have to face in the general! Bill Clinton's lies have forced Obama into a position in which Barack has to insist that either the Clintons are lying or he is. No matter which one wins this race, they will BOTH be damaged by this negative-sum game of chicken Bill forced the campaign into. Win or lose, Bill has ONCE AGAIN set back the cause of progressivism--a cause which assumes that honesty in government is a goal worth pursuing. It's worth noting that the idea that all politicians are dirty scoundrels is worse than a GOP talking point--it's an axiom of conservative thinking in general. That's why these techniques are GOP techniques--Grover Norquist starts making a lot more sense if you assume all campaigns are run by Karl Rove and all politicians are Tom Delay.

Oh, good Lord!!

All this 'surprise' that the Clintons would do and say just about anything for power.
Does anyone remember Bill wagging his finger in the camera and telling the American people directly a lie? Paula Jones trial? Doesn't *any* of that ring a bell??

The lesson is: It's the Clintons. Don't be so surprised!!

FWIW, Jason C., I'm not so much complaining about the other side's campaign tactics as I am about the other side's implicit embracing of a set of "rules" and political traditions which are horrifically slanted towards those that would preserve the status quo (also known as "conservatives". It legitimizes the notion that principles in politics are somehow ballast that must be jettisoned in order to give oneself a chance.

The truth is, this might look like realism, but the real reality is that there are no rules - just a shared set of assumptions and common stipulations, that are only valid as long as both sides agree. These "rules" can, from time to time, indeed be shown not to be immutable at all, and those that pull this off do it not by clever slight of hand or adroit political policymaking, but by illuminating fundamental truths. It takes a Hell of a lot of personality to pull this off. To pooh-pooh the strength of charisma and personality is an ultimately defeatist stance.

Imagine what the Clinton's hometown would look like today if the "rules" of politics as usual were really immutable, and if the "strong" always won...

Anyone who is so bitter about this that they won't vote for Hillary in the fall is just being petulant. Republicans aren't evil because of their 'tactics' or because they call us mean names. They're evil because of what they do in office. GWB is a son of a bitch not because he slings mud, but because he starts wars.

I agree that the fact that GWB starts wars is a problem, but the tactics that are being used are intended to depress turnout. That, in and of itself, is bad for democracy in my opinion.

In the last debate, HRC said the following:

The American people should not have to work so hard to get leaders who will actually help them and recognize we are strongest when we lead by our values.

While BHO said:

I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that.

That, in my mind, is the main difference between these candidates. I realize that it's silly and naive to believe that people will actually do anything. But the biggest changes in our society come about as the result of large scale civil society getting involved.

Hmm...I seem to remember many Democrats making the argument that we should not stoop to the tactics of our enemies when it came to the GWOT. But since it's the Clintons running for office, I guess those rules don't apply.

GTF, your logic is fatally flawed. It's not that "repubs are sociopaths and therefore engage in smear campaigns" but, rather, "repubs are sociopaths AND ALSO engage in smear campaigns"

Characterizations on others who run smear campaigns can't be trusted on that one fact alone.

What is it about the Obama campaign that turns nominal progressives into pearl clutching newspaper editorialists? Waldman has to get real if he has any interest in advancing progressive causes.

"exaggerating his comments"

It's not an exaggeration, it's a bald-faced lie, not just casually mentioned once or twice, but at the center of an advertisement. It is extremely slimy.

Obama, despite his rhetoric, is most assuredly NOT running a "bottom-up" campaign. If Obama were to be lifted up into heaven by a whirlwind tomorrow, his movement would immediately die for lack of a raison d'etre.

I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up.

I agree, and this is party of the reason I'm not crazy about Obama. His candidacy is sort of an inherently top-down affair. It eschews (to some extent; this is all relative) ideology and is mostly designed around Obama being a great and wonderful person.

It's the Obama supporters, mostly, who talk about the need for a "leader." That talk bothers me a little. I prefer Edwards in part because he's pretty clearly running as a servant of working people.

Obama says that change happens from the bottom-up, but then invokes Reagan's model, which whatever its tactical advantages was a paradigm case of a top-down approach. But conservatives needed somebody like that because they didn't really have broad support for their agenda.

Obama seems to think that the majority of the public has not bought into the progressive agenda, and thus we need our own Great Communicator to win them over. But he's wrong; progressive policies already enjoy broad support, for the most part. He has fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem.

These policies don't get stalled because of a skeptical public but because of corporatist politicians in both parties. Thus, what we need, IMO, is a president who (a) has staked his/her success as a president on a specific and ideological agenda and (b) has the ability to make it unappealing for Congress to obstruct that agenda.

The Obama supporters seem to want him to "stick to his principles" and not put Clinton on the defensive. This doesn't surprise me at all. Obama supporters want a candidate that will allow them to lose with dignity and leave them with fond memories of how they were part of a high-minded campaign that was "too good" to win in the modern political environment.

It looks like you're all going to get your wish.

The reason Obama is on the defensive is because Clinton put him there. Campaigns haven't changed, and the old rule still applies: "if you're explaining, you're losing."

Jason C, I understand what you're saying about Obama's supporters putting him at the center of the movement here. I think that's a mistake, too.

But I disagree with the idea that Edwards (or Clinton) are running more bottom-up campaigns. They are both arguing over who is able to fight for us more. And I have to admit to being skeptical based on both of their records (not) fighting for us when it counted.

Where were these fighters from 2001 until 2006?

Win or lose, Bill has ONCE AGAIN set back the cause of progressivism--a cause which assumes that honesty in government is a goal worth pursuing.

And you wonder why some of us have called Clinton the best Republican president of the 20th century!!

Just what we need, Bush without the incompetence.

Running like Republicans (with no respect for the truth) is not a valid way of doing politics.

Edwards can be criticized for not fighting hard enough during the period from 2001 to 2003. But he cannot be criticized for not fighting hard enough from 2004 onward. He has been put himself more out front in his opposition to the Bush administration during those years than any political figure in America.

Personally, I love it when Dems fight tough and dirty . . . when they are running against Republicans. The amazing thing about the Clintons is how they have convinced so many people that it is good political strategy to campaign in a way that threatens to implode the party they want to represent in the general election.

What is it about the Obama campaign that turns nominal progressives into pearl clutching newspaper editorialists?

I agree, tib!

To the extent that Hillary distorts Obama's record to score political points, I agree that this is par for the course. Slimy, but par for the course.

What bothers me is that the ex-president of the united states is lying about a candidate in his own party in order to tear him down in the eyes of voters.

Is this statesmanlike? Is this good for the American people? Even if you are charitable and say that he is "distorting" Obama's record in order to portray him in a poor light, I don't think this is healthy for our party.

There are thousands of us who supported Clinton in the 90s who are incredibly disappointed at his conduct, and saddened at what our party is becoming.

Where was Bill the Attack Dog when we needed him on the war in Iraq, FISA, and the 2004 election?

Obama has opened himself up to all of these attacks because of his own problems with honesty. In order to appeal to moderates, independents, and even Republicans he has not presented himself as the unabashed liberal and progressive that many of us are hoping he truly is. This is why the criticisms of him, even if untrue, are not unfair. They may distort his record, but he can't respond forcefully to them without his own distortions being brought to light. He cannot be the poster boy for unity and bringing people together if he is going to present himself as a hard core liberal, especially on divisive issues like abortion. He is reaching out to religious voters and republicans in a big way and by doing so he opens the door for there to be attacks on him from the left. The ambigious language he has used is being turned against him, but it was ambigious on the first place to allow him to appeal to the moderates and independents. His defenders paint him as an innocent victim in all this, but the truth is real that he has played with fire and now he is getting burned. The most honest defense of Obama would be simply to say to the left- don't worry he is taking the moderates and republicans for a ride not you. They are the ones he is lying to for political gain, not you. They would be fine, but this poor Barack is the victim of unfair political attacks is just a flat out lie and represents the utter hyprocrisy of his candidacy that turns off so many.

Where were these fighters from 2001 until 2006?

An eminently fair criticism, I think. Personally, I don't worry too much about Edwards's past transgressions; it's a little odd that we expect candidates to have remained politically static over the course of their careers. I, for one, have different opinions about various matters than I did in 1998 (the year Edwards first entered politics). I imagine a lot of people will witness the end of the Bush administration with substantially different views than when it began.

But still: both Edwards and Hillary have a number of shameful decisions to account for. I just don't see Obama as being substantially different in this regard. Other than his opposition to the war (which he opposed not on moral grounds, but because he thought it a strategic error), which in my personal judgment isn't worth much because he wasn't in the Senate at the time and thus had no consequences attached, Obama's been just as feckless as the other two.

And for all the complaining done by Obama supporters about the tactics used by Hillary, most of them seem to spend most of their effort arguing that Hillary is evil incarnate, and don't have very much to say about why we should vote for Obama, instead of against Hillary. Their candidate preaches unity and civility, but a lot of his devotees practice neither.

And for all the complaining done by Obama supporters about the tactics used by Hillary, most of them seem to spend most of their effort arguing that Hillary is evil incarnate, and don't have very much to say about why we should vote for Obama, instead of against Hillary. Their candidate preaches unity and civility, but a lot of his devotees practice neither.

That's fair, Jason C. The "Shrillary" stuff and all the rest of it (all the general nastiness against Clinton) is depressing to me as a feminist. The fact that it comes from supporters of Obama is depressing to me too (since I feel like I should have some overlap).

I'll be honest here - I'd rather have someone better than Obama. I live in Wisconsin, and was excited when it looked like Feingold would run. He hasn't been perfect, either, but he's been really good on an awful lot of stuff. Until recently, I was on the fence between voting for Dennis K and Obama in our primary.

I disagree with the idea that Obama being against the war (for any reason) didn't count because he wasn't in the Senate at the time. While I realize that the stakes are much higher in the Senate, being against the war in Iraq wasn't an easy stance to take at that time, no matter who you were. That counts for something in my book.

I'll post separately about why I'm voting for Obama if you're interested.

"The prediction again: The power of the Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even though you do not want to. The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now in your DNA, especially if you are low-income (or low-education) white woman."

You know, I don't think it's "low eductaion," that uneducated women are just automatically suckers for gender appeals. If anything, I think it's your college educated women that automatically suck that shit up.

Rather, I think it's *low information.* Pink collar workers think that the Democratic Party really, automatically looks after their interests as vs Republicans, that the 90s economy was better and that had something to do with Bill Clinton (which is debatable), and that Hillary/ the Clintons actually made things better for their constituency. Also debatable, but these are people who *don't* have time to pay attention to the nitty gritty details of any given administration.

I'm not sure that Obama will take on the Clinton record, which is what he should do. It might help him in the primaries, and with this group of people, but then the Republicans can attack him on it in the general because he will be effectively attacking their 1990s agenda.

I kind of think he should go for it, if we think the country has gotten more "progressive." He may squeak out SC, but after that, you have one big "low information" vote, it seems to me. Once Clinton wins that, our renewed "progressivism" will be history.

That's why running these two was so brilliant. The DLC and Wall Street win again. Tighten your belts.

I actually would be interested in hearing someone make the case for Obama, instead of the increasingly irrational and downright paranoid diatribes against Clinton. I'm not the biggest Hillary fan in the world, but I don't think she's an evil witch who has cast a magical spell over poor white women, which is what eorse above comes close to literally arguing.

Obama's initial opposition to the war is an advantage but not a huge one to me. He hasn't done anything to actually stop the war after being elected. Going forward, there's no real difference here; I doubt any Democratic president will be invading any countries in the next 4 years. But even if that's naive, Obama, who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, made it clear that he's no pacifist, nor, really, a foe of American imperialism - if he'd taken on the concept of the "War on Terror" as Edwards has, he'd be more compelling.

On domestic issues, I don't see Obama's advantage. Paul Krugman notes that Obama has the least progressive agenda of the three candidates. This, coupled with an obvious inclination for bipartisanship for the sake of 'unity' (which I couldn't care less about), makes domestic policy a Clinton advantage, or at the very best a wash.

The only thing left, really, is 'electability', a notoriously slippery and subjective concept. Suffice to say that I see no evidence of Obama's superiority in this regard. The approach he has taken to his campaign leaves me with serious doubts about his ability to win the general election. I also think the 'Muslim' and Farrakhan stuff will end up being a much bigger deal than most people think.

Soullite and others will tell you all about the harm that the Clinton administration did to the progressive movement. And they're right. What I don't see is any reason to suspect that Obama doesn't represent the very same danger, when so many of the signals he's sending indicate otherwise. People can denounce DLCism all they want, and I agree with every word of it. But I don't think Obama's any different.

Since when does 'getting real' mean allowing a family to damage a political party? Every year I hear how we need a change in politics in America and every year we get to vote, the person who actually might possibly change things is always booed off the stage for being 'unrealistic' or 'naive'. Well fuck realism for once, if this is the kind of America we get out of it. Voting for Obama is about the only way anything might change. A vote for Clinton is a vote for nothing, a vote that says, "I don't care about America or it's policies, I just care about having my party in office, even if they don't do anything." If I'm wrong about this then please explain to me how Sen. Clinton would actually change things? And don't use the previous Clinton administration as an example. That's the past, this is the future we're talking about.

In that case, here are the main reasons I'm looking at Obama:

One of my big concerns with the Bush administration is the overstepping of the executive office. The rhetoric about fighting from both the Clinton and Edwards camps makes me worry that they wouldn't drop the executive power that has come together in this administration. It would, after all, be tempting to get major progressive reforms in first, and then look at the balance of power. I can imagine Obama shifting the balance back. Even if progressives go nuts about it.

His time living abroad. I know, he was a kid. But I spent about a year living abroad myself, along with some families, and can say that kids that I met who had lived abroad have a real understanding of the big world that I don't. I think it counts for more than gov't sponsored short trips where you spend most of your time in places that look a heck of a lot like home.

He's talking about this as a movement. It's fair for you to say that it's all about him right now -- and that isn't a good thing. But at the very least, the "we" language is inspiring to an awful lot of folks. I think that he is able to talk about the gov't doing good things, which we haven't heard in a while.

That's it. It isn't perfect, but that's what I've got right now.

Look, if people have such serious objections to Clinton, they should have ensured that there was a more useful bevy of candidates available to run for president rather than Obama and Edwards.

Clinton and Obama both seem to have come into the race with the mindset that they would just waltz to the nomination-- Hillary on the backs of institutional support and low-information voters and Obama on the back of high-minded "inspirational" rhetoric which would allow voters to magically flock to him. The difference is that Hillary Clinton switched gears to deal with a tangible threat to her campaign while Obama seemed befuddled about what to do when voters didn't magically leave their opponents in favor of him for being such a wonderful person.

Honestly, I think that the "Obama/Obama supporters are making his candidacy all about Obama the personality" meme is mostly being pushed by his opponents and detractors. As Rob mentions above, the main thrust of Obama's appeal is that he dares to suggest that the people might actually have a voice in the future of the country. That this message can resonate in a country where a lame duck president with a 28% approval rating, belonging to the unpopular minority party in both houses, can nonetheless reduce the people's representative branch of government to a quivering mass of cowardly goo, seemingly at will, isn't really that surprising, is it?

And I think that calling Obama's response to the Clinton sludge factory "befuddled" is really dishonest. As many of us have argued, he really doesn't have the same options available to him that he would if he was willing to run a more cynical campaign.

First, Obama has the support of the MSM and many of the blogs…there is a steady Anti-Hillary/Clinton line daily – MSNBC is a perfect example, they start at 6 am with Morning Joe, reinforce daily anti-Hillary line all day, continue the attack and ridicule on Tucker and then go full throttle on Hardball…this goes on every day, from morning to night with all the invited guests agreeing with the anti-Hillary line…then there is FOX and CNN all adoring and protective of Obama and spinning and putting the Clintons on defense every day…all the questions are framed to put the Clintons on the defense…so spare me if Obama has to explain his record and be cornered to tell the American people what he actually stands for and intends to do…if as a one term Senator he is fortunate enough to fast forward to becoming the most powerful person in the free world…some of us would like some specifics beyond a couple of ‘inspiring’ speeches and words…
Check out…http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,4287705.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
…the MSM and Obama supporters continue to repeat that Hillary is hated and unlikeable and that Bill is hurting the party (irony, of course, since he is the only Democrat that knew how to take back the power from the Republicans) however there is that funny little nagging thing, the Democratic base still LOVES them both…to the base, the Clintons are fighters who represent winning…survival…hope and family…some of you that are new to politics just don’t have that connection…yet…
Obama tries to act as if he’s above it all however now that we are getting a closer look at him…he is turning out to be a very ambitious politician and not the second coming of MLK, JFK, RJK…in fact at a closer look Obama’s style and oratory skills remind me more of television evangelist Creflo Dollar…check it out…
Obama has already said himself that he comes from the rough and tough of Chicago politics…don’t kid yourself…Obama and his campaign manager, Axelrod and Chicago group know how to play really rough and tough…they did not have any problem calling Hillary shameless and saying she did not care for the Latino workers…Whoopi Goldberg herself stated that Michelle Obama was the first person to raise the whole ‘race’ issue…but no one would dare go after Michelle…and she is no shrinking violet…she is one dominating woman herself…
Most of the appeal for Obama is based on the strength of his personality and his two concepts of hope and change as Jason C mentioned…but very little specifics…that is why when the debates are happening he speaks in these generalities while Hillary has a superior command of the issues and a detailed and explicit plan for her policies…she is ready for day one…and Obama is just ‘feeling it’…most of his supporters are ‘feeling it’ and they are for the Obama phenomena, not an allegiance to the Democratic party…many of his supporters are loyal to Obama and not what the Democratic Party can achieve as a party if the power of the White House is recaptured…it is more complicated than what kind of a personality will be in charge…there is the supreme court, judge appointments, cabinet members, foreign policy, etc…the party in charge runs the show…this is more than a personality contest…
Finally Obama- does preach unity and civility however just read the posts and comments of many of his supporters all over the net…their comments are filled with name calling and insults, they are the most angry, nasty and divisive …many do not represent unity, hope or civility…they sound like George Bush…”their way or the highway”
I read a comment that said “the Obama supporters scared her/him more than the neocons because of their vitriol…how has Obama inspired his supporters if this is how they communicate? And why does he condone and allow this, especially in the young and impressionable followers that believe in his hope and unity?? They are the ones booing and showing disrespect…that is not unity and civility…there is a big disconnect from what Obama says and what he does…

S: I think the reason there are Obama supporters who sling the mud around so much is because they don't really get what Obama is talking about. They're playing the same game as the Clinton camp and every other candidate's camp. I also think the reason why Clinton's supporters don't get Obama is because he isn't playing at the same level as they are. He's up above, looking down, and trying to get people to climb up and join him. But not everyone has done that yet, including some of his own supporters. If Obama is serious about his 'new politics' then, while he himself is walking the walk, he needs to do a better job of convincing his own people to do the same. People generally run on inertia and getting them to change direction is a lot hard than what Clinton is trying to do. Don't knock a man carrying a heavier load just because he's not running as fast as everyone else.

Ezra, your post has some merit, but I have two beefs. First, Obama is fighting back, or at least has been pretty effectively since this post was made. And second, the problem with the Clintons is not that they're playing hardball, but that they're using slime and lies to try and permanently destroy one of the Democratic Party's best hopes, all for their own satisfaction. They're tearing the party apart and don't seem to give a sh-t.
Oh yeah, they're lying to their fellow Democrats about Obama, something many of us don't appreciate. Hit him on his actual record, not one that the Clintons invented.

He's up above, looking down, and trying to get people to climb up and join him.

That is one of the most ridiculously patronizing things I have ever heard about a political candidate. When I say I want a president to "lead", I mean I want him to lead congress, the military, and the government to fulfilling his vision. I don't mean that I have a desire to follow some politician. The president comes to office on the strength of the voters. The voters. We lead, he follows, not the other way around.

You know, I don't like "politics." I don't like deal making, I don't like bare-knuckled negotiation in which participants bluff and bluster. I don't like social manipulation. That's why I've chosen careers where that stuff is kept to a minimum and why I don't have any desire to run for political office myself. I do however, expect the people who are in these careers to be good at what they do. If a politician can't negotiate the best deal for his constituents and if a politician can't run a campaign necessary to win for the people who support him, then he's not a good politician. If a politician is "too good for politics," then he shouldn't be a politician.

More popcorn, please...

For once, I agree with El Viajero.

As Rob mentions above, the main thrust of Obama's appeal is that he dares to suggest that the people might actually have a voice in the future of the country.

There's a difference between showing and telling. The way to get people involved in the political process is to tell them: "This is what I'm going to do in office, and you will make it happen by voting for me." Not by saying to them: "I am really committed to getting you involved and giving you the power to make things happen."

We lead, he follows, not the other way around

You seem to be confusing the role of the executive with the role of the legislative here. And the fact is, never in the history of modern American politics has the presidency been more remote and detached from the will of the people. This is entirely by design of the current occupants of the executive branch. IMO, the question of which candidate is likely to bring the people closer to the process is the critical issue of this election.

If a politician can't negotiate the best deal for his constituents and if a politician can't run a campaign necessary to win for the people who support him, then he's not a good politician

I'm curious, in your view, does the converse apply? If a politician is adept at running a campaign necessary to win, is s/he a good politician?

Personally, I don't vote for candidates, and I don't vote for politicians - rather, I vote for the holder of the office for which s/he is running.

People get so caught up in the competition aspect of elections that they tend to forget that, after the election, there's the little matter of actually holding the office and governing. It's not like football, where everyone goes home and gets ready for the next season (well, OK, maybe it is a little like that, but it shouldn't be, dammit - that's a big part of what sucks about American bipartite politics). The founders didn't all get together and argue for so long about the best way to win an election.

There's a difference between showing and telling. The way to get people involved in the political process is to tell them: "This is what I'm going to do in office, and you will make it happen by voting for me." Not by saying to them: "I am really committed to getting you involved and giving you the power to make things happen."

Not sure that I see why this is necessarily so. In both cases, it's a matter of "telling", isn't it? Ultimately, it comes down to who you believe and trust to deliver. Maybe you respond better to the former, but maybe I don't.

Look, it's not like Obama doesn't have legislative accomplishments and fully articulated positions and policies (they are not hard to find, either). It's not like it's not possible to have both substantive ideas and lofty rhetoric - they really aren't exclusive, despite what cynics would have you believe.

People can denounce DLCism all they want, and I agree with every word of it. But I don't think Obama's any different.

It should be noted that Paul Krugman was more moderate during the Clinton administration than he is now, and part of his rage at Obama is for the same reason Bill Clinton is so enraged at Obama's "party of ideas" remark--Obama's attacking the DLC "Third way" movement that people like Clinton and Krugman were sympathetic to back in the day.

Obama is the opposite of DLC-ism. Bill Clinton won elections through image consultants and focus groups, image, being the dude you want to have a beer with, triangulation, etc. He never tried to inspire hope or dispel fear--he just took a poll and said whatever the median voter already thought.

And that's basically what Hillary is doing now--except now it's starting to look a touch Rovian.

Clinton:GWB::Obama:Reagan

Oh, and Edwards:Goldwater

One thing is for certain--it's the Clinton's who running a personality based campaign--or at least, a "friendship" driven campaign. Obama tries to be your hero, the Clintons try to be your friend. She hasn't really given any reason to prefer her beyond that.

Not to mention that her foreign policy advisors are way more hawkish than Obama's.

Also,

Obama says that change happens from the bottom-up, but then invokes Reagan's model, which whatever its tactical advantages was a paradigm case of a top-down approach.

In terms of the politics, relative to the Clinton strategy, no, Reagan was bottom-up. Reagan rallied a popular change in the way people see their government, so powerful that Bill Clinton was forced to ape his language --"the era of big government is over". It ain't top-down if you're still getting your agenda pushed through after you've been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. While the actual policies were top-down, the politics were bottom-up.

Jordan Lawrence...even if that were not amazing condescending to Americans...this leading from 'above' as Tyro says...

the problem is many of us do not believe Obama (some of us find him very arrogant, unprepared and vain) and under scrutiny he is beginning to appear just as human as everyone else and an AMBITIOUS POLITICIAN at that...

not even one term in the Senate to becoming the most powerful person in the world…that’s like going from an administrative assistant to the CEO…he’s skipping a few steps that he can use at a later time…it is called experience…

As I stated earlier, the more I hear Obama speak the more he reminds me of the television evangelist, Creflo Dollar…do a google…so much of his appeal is based on emotion…that’s how we got George Bush…we cannot afford on-the-job training at this crucial time…
…the bottom line is explained in a comment I saw on the net…the comment said:
Obama: Vote for me because you hate Hillary, but if she stills win don't vote for her in the GE.

This is the future of the Democratic Party?

And just read a lot of what the Obama supporters say…they would rather go down in flames and take the Democratic Party with them, than have a smart, strong, incredibly prepared and experienced woman beat the Republicans.

no, Reagan was bottom-up. Reagan rallied a popular change in the way people see their government

How is that bottom up? That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Reagan was top-down. He led people where he wanted to go (sort of - Reagan also heavily compromised his ideology). People became 'conservatives' because Reagan was president, not the other way around.

What made Clinton objectionable wasn't the polling and whatnot; it was his willingness to concede vast swaths of the battlefield to the conservatives for the sake of his own political fortunes. But at least he had the excuse of going up against a GOP congress. I don't understand why Obama, who would take office with a Democratic congress, thinks now is the time to be thinking bipartisan.

If there's going to be a Democratic president, in a way I'd rather it not be someone that progressives have feelings of great affection for. This is what happened with Clinton; too many people who should have been calling him on his bullshit were instead running interference for him. But if Hillary takes office with progressives already skeptical about her, they'll be more likely to hold her feet to the fire on important issues.

Whereas, if Obama takes office riding a wave of good will, there's going to be a strong inclination on the left to cut him slack or rationalize any betrayals.

I think it's dangerous when people like their elected officials too much; they get away with things they otherwise wouldn't. See, e.g., the JFK myth.

It occurs to me if Mr. Nice Guy is picked by Clinton to be her vice presient, it could bring an entirely new twist to the role that veep nominees have traditionally played in the campaign. While many veeps have played the attack dog role, Obama could break new territory by being a sort of Unity Ambassador -- heading to the heart of the GOP country to prove that he can win independents and Republicans over. Bill seems to be doing a pretty good job as the attack dog.

I have nothing much to add to this thread other than if many of you who support Obama want to really understand why non-Obama supporters don't support him you need to read and understand what Jason C is saying. It's stunning that many of you seem to miss his points entirely. I can only go with my own experience, so here's how I see it: I am a black guy.

In the black community for a very long time people kept looking for the messiah who would takes off into the promise land so that we would be saved. So of us have gotten over that. We aren't looking for someone to save us. Whatever the nature of the president is now, the central tenet is are we hiring the next one to be more of the same or different. This isn't merely a policy discussion.

What bothers some of us-- is your very definition of what leadership is. It doesn't substantively seem to be about them outwardly leading according to the values that we agree are important.

This is ultimately therefore a discussion about accountability. Holding their feet to the fire. Ultimately this is why I agree with Jason C that I would prefer someone you don't trust rather than assume you should trust them. No- as citizens of the country your job isn't to trust implicitedly. It's to hold them accountable. If you want to reach those of us with questions about the nature of Obama's campaign you need to realize this is our core issue. Some of us are beyond leadership that isn't accountable to us. This is why some of us, including myself supported Edwards, and continue to do so- not because I don't see all his flaws, but precisely because he's imperfect and admited to his mistake and is running a campaign that's diffrent from any that any leading Democrat is running. If Obama or CLinton win, which is likely, we will have validated despite what you think in parsing phrases like his discussion of Reagan-- triangulation.

(sorry for the long post)

Jason C and akaison:

I am sympathetic to both of your points -- the thing that has slowed me the most in supporting Obama was the idea that he would be the second coming of (Bill) Clinton. I didn't want to be fooled.

And I agree that folks on the left like their heroes. We like to put folks up on a pedastal, refuse to critique when it counts, and then get angry at the individual when things go wrong. It's not a mature approach.

Here's the difference for me, though. Your argument seems to be that it's better to pick someone who we don't trust, because at least we'll hold them accountable from the beginning. That seems like a cynical strategy, but I can understand where it's coming from.

At the same time, after the loss in 2004, everyone was running around saying that the Dems needed to make a strong case to the public about our values. Obama's appeal to me is that I think he can do that the best. We don't need better policies nearly as much as we need to convince people that the Dems represent the exact things they believe in.

One extra thing for akaison: I'm white, so I'm not as familiar with the messiah thing as you're talking about. But I lived in Venezuela for about five months (part of that during a recall referendum for Chavez), so I am aware of the hazards of building a party on one person's charisma. It's a danger, but I've decided that the potential good that could come is worth the risk. I can understand it when others don't.

Your argument seems to be that it's better to pick someone who we don't trust, because at least we'll hold them accountable from the beginning.

I don't think anyone's saying you should look for someone whom you actively distrust. It's just that you should be wary of politicians who win with too much personal charisma and not enough promises.

Edwards is not an uncharismatic fellow, but to the extent he's earned any support in this election, he's done it by staking himself to certain identifiable interests, policies, and constituencies. Obama's campaign is fundamentally different. Yes he's a smart guy who's knowledgeable about policy and has posted some good proposals on his website, but that's beside the point because that isn't the reason why his supporters support him.

Now obviously, it isn't unheard of for politicians to welch on campaign promises. George Bush, for instance, promised in 2000 to have a humble foreign policy. Too many people, however, get the incorrect takeaway lesson from all this: that we should spend less time caring about candidates' promises and more time trying to divine their inner tendencies and philosophies. Wrong.

The right takeaway lesson is specific promises should be discounted in comparison to constituencies, which are what really matters. Who or what does the candidate owe his success to? Who or what made him? Whose debt will he be in? With Bush - with any Republican, really - public promises are especially meaningless because that isn't the source of their support. Everyone knows that winning in the GOP means winning the support of the leaders of a small handful of core constituencies, who then mobilize their foot soldiers. In the Democratic Party, the core constituencies are so much more fragmented and disorganized that the interests you publicly declare fealty to really do make a difference. Edwards could certainly alter the specific details of this or that policy proposal once in office, but we know this: There's no way he could ever take the other side in a fight against unions. There's no way he could go against universal health care as a broad concept. He would owe way too much to those things.

If Obama wins, who would he owe? Does anyone have a clue?Perhaps one could say he'd owe something to highly educated young idealists yearning for inspiration, but that's a demographic, not an interest group - what would that really commit him to do as a practical matter?