Where Clinton does townhalls, Obama holds rallies.

Why wouldn't you do more of your best format in a campaign? I've seen plenty of Obama sit downs with editorial boards and seen him do Q&As on the stump. It's not that he can't do it, it's that he's trying to win a contest with a finite amount of time available and is doing more of what is effective, not less.

…And reporters like McCain because of McCain Feingold which gives more power to the existing legitimate news organizations that at least pretend to be objective.

…and BTW McCain Feingold is why the idiot Limbaugh hates McCain. If McCain Feingold where interpreted properly Limbaugh could be told that he could not explicitly use candidates names 60 days before elections. We all know the Limbaugh show is just a republican infomercial anyway.

What? Obama does do town halls, does take questions from the public. He stopped doing it in New Hampshire when time was short and the rallies so huge, but he did it before then and has done it since.

Yes, Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate let's remember -- he can certainly handle questions. No doubt his handlers have convinced him that he's at his best as an orator rather than a schmoozer, but he can do it when the time comes, and I'm sure he will.

And McCain is just not up to the rigors of this campaign. That will become clear soon enough.

What skeptica said. He drastically cut short the Q&A between SC and Super Tuesday because he needed to cram in more events in an effort to introduce himself to as many voters as possible (no instant name recognition, remember?), but now that the calendar has expanded a little, he's been giving longer question times.

That said, Ezra's right right to be troubled about his aloofness from reporters in-between events. Seems to me this would be the perfect chance for him to increase his media positives.

Why do we continue to believe that the Republicans won't fight the same way against Obama that they fight against Hillary? Because of the bogey-man theory of Hillary hatred? Come on, the Republicans do it to everyone. Might as well get used to it now while the press is still behind you, but then he is fond of hitting the ground and running on Day 1. I'd rather have the members of the press that I know I can trust be the ones that I respond to when the shit hits the fan.

You were on vacation in Dec. He held town hall after town hall after town hall. Clinton, in fact, was the one criticized early on for not taking many questions from voters. He stopped taking a lot of questions, except for certain events, after Iowa. (Ironically, NH was when Clinton started taking them.) In some cases that might have been bad, but for the most part it was because his strategy was to bring thousands into his rallies and make them feel part of a movement. Not a forum for town hall-type questions, esp when you have three rallies like that a day across the entire country. With more time before Ohio and Texas, word is he'll be campaigning more like he did in Iowa. Lots of questions from voters.

joejoejoe hit the nail on the head.

- People say he doesn't do specifics. Go look at articles written about him last summer criticizing him for being too wonkish.

- People say he doesn't have enough time in front of the voters. So he does stadium crowds instead of town halls.

This situation is certainly a nice blog-post generator. Time and space constraints in a campaign are easy to ignore if you're a pundit.

"Where Clinton does townhalls, Obama holds rallies."

Ummmmmm...didn't Obama just hold a town hall meeting in Alexandria, Va???

"ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., argued that Hillary Clinton would not create a working majority for change if she were elected president, at a town hall in Alexandria, Virginia today."

Julene, I agree that cultivating a rapport with the press would be an advantage for Obama, but I'm not so sure the R machine would attack him the exact same way they attacked Gore/Kerry, or how they expect to attack Clinton.

They painted Gore & Kerry as inauthentic and poll-driven robots, and they'll try to do the same to Clinton if she's the nominee.

But Obama has always conveyed the strong impression that he's comfortable in his own skin. He's even comfortable speaking about his religion, so that's another door closed. Sure, the 'secret muslim' emails will continue beneath the surface, but how do they attack him openly? Seems the only thing they've got is scandals, the 'empty suit' frame, and the cult thing. all of which has started already, of course.

It just all seems a bit of a reach.

Ezra,

Since I complimented you twice today, so now I think can criticize you. Did you Google "Obama Townhall" before you wrote this? I kind of doubt it.

Corrects typo:

Ezra,

I complimented you twice today, so now I think can criticize you. Did you Google "Obama Townhall" before you wrote this? I kind of doubt it.

Don't you think the press will start looking at McCain more closely? He can't stay their friend forever. His conservatism and (recent) fealty to Bush will surface.

A quick google of "Barack Obama town hall" will of course point to the weekend town hall in Alexandria, plus mentions of Town Halls held in Los Angeles, Carson City, Las Vegas, Council Bluffs (IA), Le Mars (IA), Kansas City, Mountain View (CA), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc.

Apparently Ezra doesn't know how to use the Google.

""What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal.""

His IL law requiring police to videotape the questioning of suspects, which faced bipartisan opposition.

Do your homework, Ezra.

[Sob!] Leave Ezra ALONE!!!

The problem Ezra is that Obama has the potential to also lose big. In spite of all his bold talk, he is a fairly traditional left-wing liberal. The media hasn't pointed that out because the traditional media and the blogs are lefty too and they are in love with him.

Right now even his ardent supporters don't know much about him. All they know is that he is a good speaker and they believe see all this fawning coverage. In a lot of ways, he is like a hot internet stock, no fundamentals, extremely overvalued, and full of hy(o)pe.

When the Republicans are done with him there won't be much valuation left. He has the potential to lose big and take down a lot of Democrats with him. He is a very risky, glamor stock.

I thin the media is not doing any favors to the Democratic party by pushing him down the throat of unsuspecting Democrats. You can see the Republicans are happy by the way Bill Kristol, Peggy Noonan and David Brooks are singing his praise. They want the Democrats to choose him. Why would that be?

Actually, political courage is one of Obama's strength's see his oppostion to torture; or the war; or Drivers License's; or his attempts (unsure of the outcome) in the Senate to restore Habeas Corpus; or his Push for the Disclosure of Earmarks; or his work with Coburn on Sunshine Laws (tied to the Earmark legislation but I believe distinct from it). If you're willing to include his Illinois Senate Record, there's even more to like; his work on Health Care and the push for Videotaping police interrogations (against both Police and Prosecutors' unions); etc. The problem is that a lot of the things that Obama did that were initially unpopular, and thus politically courageuous, were reframed by Obama himself in order and thus passed with bipartisan support thus making them retroactively appear to be obvious palatable to the general public.

Ezra:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.

According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.

"DeMint's version is considerably tougher," Holman told me, noting that both Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who co-sponsored the bill, are "on the appropriations committee and haven't really believed in strong earmark reform propoals in the first place."

[snip]

But Democrats sought to block DeMint's amendment, with an effort led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They failed, due mostly to nine Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and freshmen Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA), who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Here's the roll call tally.

But instead of then passing DeMint's amendment, as would normally occur in the Senate, the Democratic leadership held the vote open, a move that Senate Republicans called unprecedented, and reminiscent of tactics used by the GOP-controlled House that voters just booted.

read here

The guy who pointed me to this article, at DKos, notes:

Among those voting no were Webb, Tester, Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.

Among those who agreed with Reid that most earmarks should be kept secret as to who sponsored them: Clinton, and even Obama's senior colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin. There are even more disappointing names in the roll call which you can find at the link.

dkos diary, with a link to the roll call vote in there if you'd like to read it in full.

Also more stuff in that diary about times Obama bucked the party elders (and Clinton) to get stronger ethics reform passed. Kerry with him too. I definitely recommend reading the whole thing.

I know others have already mentioned this, but.....

I was at Obama's town hall meeting in Alexandria 2 days ago, and he most surely DID take questions. And in my opinion, it was the best part of the event!

Right, because Hillary Clinton is really unscripted when it comes to the press, in the grand tradition of the Clinton Administration.

OK, now that we've all stopped laughing now, Ezra, I've seen Obama at Q&A, townhall style events. He's fine at them. The reason why Clinton doesn't do inspirational rallies, on the other hand, is she isn't as good at them as Obama is- not in his class. Hillary is Bill's ability to wonk out on command, without his "Ah feel yore pain" ability to connect. She's basically Michael Dukakis in drag- a technocratically competent, earnest, smart, liberal from a blue state. THAT is why the Republicans are licking their chops at a general election campaign against her, because they won this contest in 1984, 1988, 2000 (sort of, if you figure Gore was more from DC/the "Beltway" than Tennessee at that point), and 2004. All they need to do is do the usual Madison Avenue story on Saint John McCain ("Maverick! War Hero! Principled Conservative! Can Work With Democrats!"), say "liberal" a lot about Hillary, mutter about Whitewater/etc. dog whistle style, use the antipathy the press has for the Clintons, and voila, they win.

Obama, on the other hand... well, the last time the D's had a skilled and charismatic stump speaker without a "zipper problem" on the November ballot was JFK (yes, I know- but there was no COVERAGE of his "zipper problem"). How many political operatives are around from 1960? And before THAT was FDR. No wonder they are shitting their pants on this one- appeals to racism aren't going to work, because the Southern Strategy means 90% of that vote is going R, anyway. And the guy is genuinely good at getting good press coverage and charming conservatives rhetorically.

Rush has already gone on the record as saying the Rs are DOOOOMED if we nominate Obama. Now, granted, he hates McCain, but still...

This is anecdotal, of course, but Obama requested questions, from undecided voters only, at the Carson City town hall meeting. He answered probably ten questions, very effectively. But that was a small venue, about 1200 people. Lots of his events are attended by tens of thousands. Kind of hard to take questions, I would think.

well, the last time the D's had a skilled and charismatic stump speaker without a "zipper problem" on the November ballot was JFK

I am unpersuaded that being a "skilled and charismatic stump speaker" is all that much of an asset. How many such people become president? In my lifetime, only Clinton and Kennedy. Reagan was a very effective speaker (okay, brilliant) one-on-one with the TV camera, but really not that great a stump speaker. Carter? Nixon? George H. W. Bush? George W. Bush?

Tom- I agree that Obama could lose big (his flor is far lower than Hillary's), but at the same time he also has the potential to get a Reagan in '84 style landslide, something Hillary has no chance of achieving (Her ceiling seems to be 51% at best and is probably more around 48%, his is at this point incalcuable but could be 60%, seriously).

What scares me about Hillary is that she comes off as a wonk, and the only time we've had a wonk win was Bill Clinton, and he had the sort of Charisma and ability to explain idea's that Hillary could only dream of, let's face it Hillary is far more comparable to Gore than she is to her husband (Both had experience and knowledge, both were in the eyes of swing voters tied to Bill, both had a hard time opening up on the Campaign Trail, etc) and I'm not sure how she's going to be able to evoke the good times of the CLinton years if he couldn't 8 years earlier (the only thing I can think of is that the contrast with the Bush years helps, and that people will beleive that Bill can shadow president).

Oh, and for my money the best stump speaker to come along in a generation in either party is John Edwards, and look where it got him.

Let's say that Obama was really bad at town hall meetings. So what? What is it about succeeding in the format that indicates you'll be a good President?

Mike

eagan was a very effective speaker (okay, brilliant) one-on-one with the TV camera, but really not that great a stump speaker.

I wouldn't say that. He was good making a speech, period.

Oh, and for my money the best stump speaker to come along in a generation in either party is John Edwards, and look where it got him.

Nope. Edwards as a stump speaker is a trial lawyer- a very GOOD trial lawyer, but a trial lawyer. Obama, well, isn't. He has the FDR/JFK things down pat rhetorically (in terms of the relentless optimism and effective framing of Democratic ideals in a non-threatening "Well, sure, why WOULDN'T we?" sense), with a touch of Jesse thrown in.

He's just better. I mean, really- the guy got picked to do the DNC keynote in 2004 as a fricking STATE SENATOR, and blew the crowd and pundits away. Even Bill Clinton couldn't do that in 1988. The last guy to own a DNC like THAT was FDR in the "Happy Warrior" speech (and look at where THAT took him, by the way).

Plus, show ME where 20,000 people showed up for Edwards during the primaries...

How can they defeat Obama? The usual way they defeat "liberals" -- by positioning him as "elitist," "holier than thou," not "authentic" and "not one of us." As well as inexperienced.

One of the great liberal campaign themes, which Obama personifies better than anyone who has run for the Presidency since (Irish Catholic, generational change candidate) Kennedy, is that of the Outsider who finds his way In. The talented man who triumphs over small minds, naysayers and the status quo.
This theme holds great inspirational appeal for meritocratic elites, racial and religious minorities, artists, and the young who feel oppressed and thwarted by their more powerful elders.

It worked for Kennedy, despite his wealth, because as the grandson of Irish immigrants he personified the rise from outsider to insider status of a meritocratic new generation; the sons and grandsons of the huge wave of immigrants who arrived in America earlier in the century. Kennedy didn't inspire change, he embodied it.

It didn't work at all for McGovern.

The problem with this campaign theme, especially absent the kind of broad demographic change that Kennedy represented, is that it inspires some by naturally denigrating others. You are either one of the enlightened "new" forces of good on the bandwagon of change and reform, or one of all those "small minded" others. That means that despite appeals to unity, such a campaign is essentially divisive. And much more vulnerable to being perceived as divisive, dismissive of others, and smug, than its adherents realize.

Another great American campaign story, one that appeals strongly to insider groups and the white and assimilated ethnic working and middle class, across the political spectrum (and one that conservatives have consistently made better use of than liberals) is that of the principled man who endures. The candidate whose life story demonstrates that he has worked hard, conquered obstacles to achievement, stood up to harsh attacks, shown courage under fire, and emerged with both principles and dignity intact. This is not a divisive storyline, but, it is one that demands a lot from a candidate; people have to be convinced that the candidate does have consistent principles, competence and courage.

In a Democratic primary, the first myth, especially when so perfectly embodied by a candidate, is likely to trump the second -- especially when many doubt the principled consistency of his opponent. It is also likely to leave a divisive legacy.

In the general election, absent the forces of large demographic or economic change at his back, whether Obama's attacks on the status quo succeed or not may depend, more than anything else, on whether or not a sufficient number of Americans are convinced that he is "one of them" and can be trusted.

The Republicans will do everything in their power to undermine his credibility and authenticity, and to convince voters that he is not someone who "shares their values."

"What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal"

Bill on interrogations in Illinois. Immigration. "Material support to a terrorist organization" refugee ban. Cluster bomb ban. Iraq war opposition (not actually unpopular in Illinois Senate race--but hey, not actually unpopular in NY Senate race either).

Obama's started taking press questions far more often since Super Tuesday. He holds town halls often enough, but when there are 27 caucuses & primaries in a week he tends to do big rallies bec. you reach the largest crowds in the shortest time. Sue him. He's doing town halls in Wisconsin.

This was off the top of my head, by the way, which is why it's focused on issues of special concern to me. His actual campaign researchers should be able to do a whole lot better. What's your problem with him lately? I don't mind skepticism but storyline-repeating is irritating.

C'mon Ezra.... This is just silly.

Remember back in the second half of 2007? All Obama did was hold town hall meetings. And when he did, he got hammered for lacking inspiration. What happened to the guy who could fire up crowds, the pundits wondered? Then came Iowa and NH, and with Super Tuesday on the horizon, there just wasn't any time for town halls. But now that things have slowed up a bit the town hall meetings and Q+As are back.

Normally you work is quite insightful, but this was just lazy. C'mon!

Of course Obama does town halls! He's doing one today in Wisconsin, as a matter of fact. I might seem like Obama doesn't do town halls because his amazing rallies suck up all the media oxygen, but he in fact does do them, as well as hold press conferences.
This is some seriously sloppy reporting, Ezra, and I do hope you'll correct the record.

Jon Meacham has already endorsed the McCain Bullshit Express as the place to be. Obviously, the soma sandwiches are fantastic.

Still, this is the period where Obama has more time between primaries and the journos get antsy for something to report. So there's a need to counter McCain in the buttering-up department.

As for Nooner, Kristol and BoBo: they're thinking that by trying to Reaganise Obama now, they can control the narrative in the general campaign or squeeze his agenda should he win.

Ezra raises a good point. McCain at least have the record of appearing bi-partisan. This is not true with Obama. Obama in several ways is an orthodox liberal although his rhetoric doesn't reflect this. I think that McCain co-opt Obama's rhetoric by saying that he is the real deal. I admit that Obama could turn it around by saying that McCain has allied himself with Bush and therefore the problem. Moreover, McCain is war hero. Obama's record can't stand up to that. I like Obama but we are now in a new phase,and we need to think about the consequences.

In Ezra's defense, the Obama townhalls I attended in Iowa were pretty skimpy on the questions, even though they were billed as townhalls. Where Edwards would talk for 15 minutes and spend 45 answering questions, Obama tended to precisely the reverse -- 45 minutes of talking, and then 15 minutes answering 3 or 4 questions, often from people with pretty obvious questions. (You had a pretty good idea what the kids wearing the PIRG T-shirt or the ladies in the bright yellow Sensible Iowan shirts would ask.) But as others have said, what's wrong with Obama's playing to his strengths?

"This is part of what made Frank Rich's column this week so weird. He was attacking Clinton for a somewhat cheesy, rather scripted "townhall" where, at the least, she answered questions. Obama, by contrast, doesn't even offer those."

I think it an unmitigated positive that he doesn't do these bullshit, phony, plant filled "townhall meetings." They are exercises in propoganda, Ezra. Since when did Democrats give extra credit for that?

It seems again that those who want to discount Obama get it wrong again. We have disproved that he doesn't do townhalls and never goes into specifics. Time and time again people say things about Obama without a care that a reasonable person can google and find out the truth. It is weird.

Mccain is not a total pushover, but his "100 Year War" speeches will seriously call into question his judgment. Despite his infrequent jaunts across the aisle he is not as moderate as he likes to project, but his party doesn't believe him that he is conservative enough. Maine voted for Romney and Paul got almost the same votes as Mccain broadcasting that as a front-runner he is objectionable. He alone cannot unite his own party, he needs help. He needs Hillary. He still may lose against Hillary, but it will be a lot closer as polls are saying.

I think for once conservatives are right about Obama. It will be hard to attack him -- not impossible and they will give it all they can muster. It is hard to fight the vision thing Obama has. I read somewhere that Obama's liberalism seems to have been informed by the criticisms of liberalism by our opponents. It is liberalism that empowers from the bottom up rather than from top down.

Obama wants to be president of all the people and that is what Americans from both sides of the political divide have been missing for the past 20-30 years.

So do we want Obama who has a small record? or Hillary who has an extensive records of failure?

"What has Obama done?"

Taking this outside of the narrow question of legislation (where he seems to have done quite a bit in a relatively short career), what he's done is what you're seeing. Though he clearly has some capable help, he's running this campaign. He thought it up, he's managing it at a high level, and he's starring in it.

He's come from nowhere (he was, after all, a state senator until 4 short years ago) to dead-even with the insiders' insider. They've simply outmaneuvered and outworked everybody, to the extent that Clinton is reduced to re-explaining conventional wisdom on all fronts. Remember it was not so long ago that HRC was presumed to be unassailable in caucuses due to all the insider help, now she's maintaining that the caucus is fundamentally undemocratic. And reduced to a dizzying spin of why various states don't count, from 'too black' to 'too red' to ... fill in the blank.

All the while Obama gains momentum, with the subsequent post-Super Tuesday run of, not just victories, but utter runaways, in a variety of states and formats.

All the while building a campaign warchest which is apparently damn near bottomless compared to others (not just HRC, but McCain as well) due to the number of contributors, and the relatively low number of those maxed. Which, oh by the way, is not only the largest warchest ever, but the cleanest, as it is PAC-free, and as the $100-$200 giver wants, and can expect, nothing more than good government.

These are not only excellent signs for Obama momentum, they represent a signal achievement, and he pulled it off. He's running it.

What has Obama done? Try that.

While Obama's speech at the 2004 convention was a very good speech indeed, it cannot hold a candle to the electrifying, mesmerizing brilliance of Mario Cuomo's speech in 1984. Not even remotely close.

John Edwards is a far better stump speaker than Obama. What Obama has is this personal magic, which I don't deny. Someone on some blog, I forget who or which, described Obama as having just stepped out of a Wordsworth poem trailing clouds of glory; I admit John Edwards doesn't have that quality, but he gives a much better speech.

His IL law requiring police to videotape the questioning of suspects, which faced bipartisan opposition.

Bipartisan opposition because the Democrats were hoping to end the death penalty while Republicans did not want to tape any confessions. It was a good law but it was a compromise that passed 35-0.
(Obama won over the police by being persuasive and pushing a few other bills they wanted)

What has Obama done? Well apparently he planned and executed a brilliant campaign that is systematically destroying the unbeatable Hillary coronation.

Another Clinton campaign manager jump ship tonight, the long knives are coming out...thank God its almost over...

What have the Clintons actually accomplished in their career:

Well they managed to win Arkansas which was 90% Democrat, and then lose it, then turn it into a Republican leaning state.

Then they won the Presidency with 43% of the vote thanks to Ross Perot; then managed to lose the Congress for the first time in 30 years, and reduced the parties numbers in Governorships and state houses.

Her healthcare plan was a complete failure; she ran for Senate in a state where a Democrat wins and she was a shoe in.

And now she's managed to completely foul up a campaign which spent over 100 million with no real competition and which was supposed to be wrapped up on Super Tuesday.

Wow! What a career!

I love your blog Ferris, but come the fuck on: "Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal."

IRAQ.

I am a blogger in Iowa and attended many events from each candidate. My experience has been that Clinton rarely took questions and when she did there was the whole planted question situation. Obama took questions at about half of his events.

Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd would give an 5 min opening and then take questions for an hour or so. Biden tried this, but he had trouble of keeping his opening short.

Two things.

First, the irony is that the pieces of legislation that McCain is attached to are, off the of my head, either going to be an anchor on with conservatives, like McCain-Feingold, or with everyone else, like President Bush's Iraq policy. Obama doesn't have those disadvantages, at least none that automtically spring to mind.

Second, Obama's biggest disadvantages that you identify above can be easily fixed. If he's not meeting enough with reporters, have him give greater access to the press. Have him attach his name to some legislation in the mean time, if need be.

I think this comment list is a good illustration of the difficulty Rs will have for fighting against Obama. The cynics and nay sayers here are often as harsh on anybody as the best the Rs bring to bear, for whatever reason they choose to do so.

So far hes a common liberal, an elitist, or a great speaker (the attempt was made to call this a weakness.. *laugh* ), has too few town halls when b4 it was too many, was too wonkish, is now too inspirational (again, a weakness?), hes not-bipartisan, he gets the votes of too many republicans...

focus people!

No mention of Obama's last seven overwhelming victories on this blog, I take it that the American Prospect has gotten behind Hillary Clinton fully now that they believe Obama is a real threat to the nomination, and they're no longer making a pretense at being subjective, and the word has gone down to Ezra and everyone else at this publication, to tow the party line, as it were. The American prospect has joined the ranks of Talkleft and the other purveyors of Pro Clinton, Pro establishment propaganda.

Remember what I told you about those compromises you were going to have to make Mr. Klein, well that day is here, obviously you can live with it, I wonder if it'll make a difference, I wonder if you and others here have enough influence to swing an election. Setting up your readers for the election election to be handed to Hillary Clinton by the superdelegates after she gets fewer votes and fewer elected delegates. You think that'll break the Democratic Party all to pieces? You better believe it will, regardless of your efforts.

I love this election cycle, because I'm getting to see who people really are, and where they really stand.

Cheers y'all :-)

Anyone with half a brain can see that Ezra was not implying that Obama has never done town halls – obviously he has. His argument is that the general trend is that Obama prefers rallies where he can energize voters, while Hillary generally prefers open forums. This is evidenced by the fact that Hillary urged for more debates, while Obama refused, so that he could hold more rallies. So it really doesn’t discredit Ezra’s argument when you just crank out a list of 5 town halls Obama has had. You’re missing his point.

I also agree with Ezra that Obama has an “allergy” for questions, but I would argue that this could be politically advantageous for him. Hillary is quite blunt in the way she presents her advocacy, so the republican noise machine knows exactly how to attack her. Obama, on the other hand, always finds a way to masterfully dodge these labels. It’s beyond me how you can think she’s a polarizing liberal while he is a “uniter”, given that their policy differences are minute, at least in comparison with the average conservative voter. Whatever the reason, it is certainly playing to Obama’s advantage.

I still strongly agree with the posters above that Obama HAS taken political risks and spearheaded attempts at real change – regardless of the political ramifications. Perhaps not to the same extent as Hillary, but he’s still done it. This is probably masked by the fact that his campaign is fueled by his rhetoric, another reason why he is such a hard target for conservatives.

A quick google of "Barack Obama town hall" will of course point to the weekend town hall in Alexandria, plus mentions of Town Halls held in Los Angeles, Carson City, Las Vegas, Council Bluffs (IA), Le Mars (IA), Kansas City, Mountain View (CA), Birmingham (AL), etc, etc.

Apparently while Mama may have said to "wonk you out", she left no instructions regarding the need to do any actual research.

I also agree with Ezra that Obama has an “allergy” for questions

Based on what? Ezra based this on Obama's nonexistent reluctance to do town halls, and little else. When a long list of Obama town halls is produced, you sniff that this "isn't the point." What, then, is the point, exactly? Obama doesn't like questions because he secretly doesn't like the town halls he does all the time, and Ezra Klein knows this because Ezra Klein can secretly tell that Obama doesn't like town halls? There's more substance in the average Maureen Down column.

Clinton for a somewhat cheesy, rather scripted "townhall" where, at the least, she answered questions.

Rather scripted??? How about completely scripted. Sure she answered questions, it was an infomercial on the Hallmark Channel that she paid $500,000 to do. It's the same kind of sham town halls that everyone rightly howled about Bush having. Does anyone really think that the Clinton campaign would risk not vetting and rehearsing those questions?

Ummm, on second thought having seen lately the way that campaign has been run I maybe take that last question back.

You're right; Obama is afraid of answering questions. He's afraid of the meme that was going around a few months ago that he was too professorial because he answered questions in too great a detail.

That's actually what he said when he, ironically, answered a question in the 60 minutes interview

The issue really is that Hillary supporters are graspiong at straws trying to find some way to attack Obama who just keeps beating the by more than 20%.

Hillary is done, she's not going to win Texas and Ohio will be real close and she may lose it as well.

Even if she beats Obama 52 - 48, he's trouncing her by upto 30% and racking up delegates.

Hillary is just a bad candidate who has run a bad campaign. She tried to run on competence, when the voters want change. She's been tone deaf since the beggining.

She should suspend her campaign before she is completely embarrassed.

Republicans probably fear him because they do not know how to deal with a cult-like, celebrity-driven mania.

If Obama should lose the big states left, he might still have a pledged delegate lead, but the superdelegates could reasonably deny him the nomination because of grave defects in his coalition.

Um, just to reiterate the above: I was at the townhall meeting in Alexandria and he did answer questions, quite specifically in fact. Check yo facts, son!

bob h, Republicans fear him because they *cannot* deal with a universally popular man who has "cult-like", celebrity-driven maniacs behind him.

Obama could self-destruct, (so could any man), but the GOP can't touch him. The "cult members" will eat them alive.

Anyone with half a brain knows why Republicans want to see Obama win. They know they have almost no shot this cycle and the ultimate horror for them would be for their sworn enemy Hillary Clinton to be elected President. They know Hillary could very well win after the disaster was Bush-Cheney and they know that would be the ultimate humiliation of the conservative movement. Bill Clinton's eight years showed that America does not have to embrace their ridiculous dogma and agenda to prosper. They would rather have Obama and his play nice, pander to the middle approach because they have a better chance to sucessfully obstruct and constrain him using the very approach he has run on to limit his ability to shift politically to the left once elected. The far right is holding out their support of McCain because they know they are going to lose and they want to be able to attribute that loss to a failure to be conservative enough and draw enough contrasts with the Democrats. Every Republican in a Obama adminstration will have massive pressure to move far to the right or risk political backlash. An Obama win will be a mandate for unity and working together, not an unequivocal rejection of the evil and excesses of the conservative movement. That is what the right had coming, that is what they deserved- the ultimate slap in the face. They will do anything to avoid that and ultimately that is what an Obama win gets them. They still control our politics. Even when they lose they come out better then they should, and even when we win we don't ever come out as good as we should. Obama is not going to change that, his whole strategy simply reinforces those terms. This may be good for his personal political ambitions, but anyone who thinks it is good for a progressive agenda is kidding themselves.

"So do we want Obama who has a small record? or Hillary who has an extensive records of failure?"

Amadeo Sogni in his article A Light in the Darkness" actually takes a look at both legislative histories of both Clinton and Obama. It is quite an eye opener and I welcome anyone to debunk it.

According to the Library of Congress Clinton has managed to author and pass 20 pieces of legislation:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
Sogni goes on quoting from the Senate record.
Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

OK, Cuomo is in Obama's class, I'll give you that. (Better? Worse? I'm not so sure- that seems more a matter of personal preference... but note that Cuomo WAS a governor at the time, not a state senator and US Senate candidate who had won his primary.)

The difference is Cuomo played Hamlet on the steps of the throne for too long to be able to take advantage of his rhetorical skills to achieve higher office, and Obama hasn't.

Well, today Obama's doing three town halls in Wisconsin. Five more are scheduled before Tuesday.

How many town halls is Hillary doing in Wisconsin??? To my knowledge, ZERO.

Now, tell me why a Wisconsin voter should vote for her???

For Ohio voters, I give you this fabulous video:
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/which_ohio_nbc_affiliate_did_hillary_lie_to_could_it_all_be_about_black_turnout
She manages to say two completely different things to separate Ohio reporters.

The superdelegates could reasonably deny him the nomination because of grave defects in his coalition.

And those are...what? Scary black people? A lack of DNC-approved voters? Independent voters, who last I knew we needed to, you know, win elections? I've heard some crazy rhetoric in the last few days but I think this one takes the cake.

Obama's strategy against McCain is solid and he should stick with it: a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. That's enough to convince some people to vote for Obama or stay away from the polls entirely.

Considering that Obama is holding two town halls today in Wisconsin...and he's done real well in that medium. In fact, it's what pushed him in Iowa. Remember when all of you pundits were talking about how much of a professor he was there?

And really let's be honest Obama just throws a better rally than Hillary does. In high school, he was the guy whose party everyone wanted to be invited to. But the difference is he's also the guy who you would have paid to write you an essay.

A vote for McCain is a vote for war. Hilary won't say that. Obama might just manage it.

"Obama HAS taken political risks and spearheaded attempts at real change – regardless of the political ramifications. Perhaps not to the same extent as Hillary"

When has Hillary ever taken political risks and/or spearheaded attempts at real change?

And how did this idea that she was a risk taker ever get started in the first place?

and lets not overlook the fact that most of hillary's townhalls (like the one on the hallmark channel) consisted of such tough questions as : "why are you so awesome?" and "why do you think you'd be a great president".

And the one on the hallmark channel was really bad. it reminded me of a George W Bush "townhall".

mothermaven,

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Er, got any links to support this? What exactly does it mean to "write" a bill, anyway?

Obama has been in the Senate since January 2005. So according to you, he's written 890 bills in 37 months. That's almost ONE A DAY. When does he find the time to eat and sleep, let alone do any of his other duties as Senator?

Your statistics sound like bullshit to me.

Mothermaven: Which of the bills Sen. Obama authored and co-sponsored would fit the category you designate for Sen. Clinton: "author and pass"? How many bills has Sen. Clinton co-sponsored? Can the two sets of terms equivalent? I'm confused as to the point of comparisons.

Where Clinton does townhalls, Obama holds rallies.

Well Clinton's townhalls are full of plants, so I don't think that really counts.

In high school, he was the guy whose party everyone wanted to be invited to. But the difference is he's also the guy who you would have paid to write you an essay.

I don't want to jinx it, but his inaugeration party would be awesome.

"Well Clinton's townhalls are full of plants, so I don't think that really counts."

Really? Where is the proof of this?

riiiight.

and what exactly has Hilary Clinton "done" or "accomplished"?

her biggest claim to fame is her disaster of a health care reform when First Lady (maybe she had the right idea, but the execution was horrid, she even admits it now)

if you're going to talk about "accomplishments" and "experience", why didn't you nominate Biden or Richardson?

HRC's "experience" consists of being involved in policy debates and wonking it out when in the White House under Willy.

that's certainly worth something, but to call it real life "experience" is a stretch.

besides.. Rumsfeld was very experienced. With long record of accomplishment in both govt and private sector (HRC's record (or anyone else's would PALE in comparison)

what did that get us?

of course Obama is't a lock.
McCain is a lock.

the markets are telling is 75-25 Obama.

Which isn't a lock, merely a strong favorite.

Ezra, I hate say this, but liberals are way too quick to buy into criticims of their own. "Obama townhall" on google would have showed you that this attack isn't true, it simply seems that way because people just sort of lazily parrot it.

Don't just mouth these baseless attacks without at least checking first to see if they're true.

No wonder we lose so much.