Let's pretend I'm brand new to this campaign and people talk about Obama's "rationale for his campaign", please do not repeat it's about a "new kind of politics". This makes absolutely no sense to me and I am serious about having someone please explain. If someone can please give it a try, I'm open to new visions, but they must be based on more than "magical thinking". Thanks. Don't just blow me off, I'm serious.

Adele,
Can we please not fall for this again? There is literally nothing a democrat can do, and remain an honest, thoughtful, democratic politician, that will please the modo's of this world. Because the very definition of manliness is the willingness to kill someone innocent just to please the bloodthirsty rubes on the republican side. If you can't demonstrate a willingness *not to care* about the facts, the law, humanity, diplomacy, or our standing internationally you *can't ever be manly enough*.

Repeat over and over again: modo's attack on Obama v. clinton are really generic attacks on all dems v. all republicans.

aimai

"she has a point about Obama's high-road strategy"

No, she doesn't.

"Obama sounded whiny after his losses, chastising reporters on his plane for asking him hard questions about Goolsbee and Antonin Rezko."

I assume she's talking about him telling the press they "fell for" Clinton's whining about the press.

This kind of stretches the definition of "whining" to include legitimate questioning of the press's motives and methods, IMO.

Plus, like aimai said, every columns of hers boils down to the following: Republicans are manly men, if, like typical lunkheaded males, often wrongheaded. Democrats are always girls, unless they are actually female, in which case they are men.

For the person who left the question about rationales for Obama that do not rest on "magical thinking":

That is a reasonable question. The reason I am voting for Obama is that he has shown good judgment on both "small" issues (supporting a ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas and opposing recent bankruptcy legislation are two examples) and "big" issues (a massive reforming of the tax code, a willingness to talk face-to-face with foreign enemies, and, of course, opposition to the Iraq War). Clinton has not shown the same judgment. If her defense is that she needed to appear "moderate", then this just shows her weakness in addition to her poor judgment: Obama did not need to appear moderate, because he has the strength to explain his positions, not only to his party but to the general public.

More generally, I think there should be some accountability in American politics. Not every vote a senator makes will be perfect, but supporting the greatest foreign policy mistake of our generation HAS to count against someone or there's no point in elections at all.

Finally, Obama's movement---driven by over a million small donors---makes him more accountable to the rest of us than Clinton.

Is he perfect? No, but he will give the rest of us space to get stuff done.

Isn't there an editor who can say, "Maureen, if you use the word 'Obambi' again, you're fired. It's just too stupid, it's embarrassing for you and the paper."?

"Let's pretend I'm brand new to this campaign and people talk about Obama's "rationale for his campaign", please do not repeat it's about a "new kind of politics""

I'll give it a try. In Obama-world you try to win by presenting a positive vision of the future, not just by cutting your opponent off at the knees and winning by being the last one left standing, if barely so. In the process you also try to attract support from the center by maintaining a respectful dialogue and not ridiculing and demonizing the other side. And also support from people who have not previously been interested in politics - especially the young.

In short, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

In style and rhetoric, this is roughly how Reagan worked. But Obama has plenty of intellect and policy detail behind the "shiny new politics" facade. The policies are solidly liberal (not a dirty word to me), but they're wrapped up in a style and tone that aims to get a supermajority consensus rather than the %50+1 of GWB.

Before Iowa, it was easy to dismiss this as mere talk: but with over 1M donors, vast turnout in primaries and especially caucuses, and many big wins, it does seem that Obama's approach has been strikingly effective.

I am one of the 25% of Hillary's supporters (according to Pew research) who could never vote for Obama. I have researched his background, and he definitely does not represent the "new" kind of politics which he implies is one of his strong points. Just a few examples: The way he obtained his first elective office by forcing his mentor and friend, Alice Palmer, off the ballot; his connections to Rezko and his unwillingness to provide full disclosure; his deception regarding the recent contacts between his chief economic advisor and the Canadian embassy; and now his changing stories about how he will get us out of Iraq. I also feel that he has been deceptive in the debates and in his characterization of himself and Hillary Clinton. He has also misled the country regarding his alleged "continual opposition" to the Iraq war as a method of countering Hillary's greater level of experience, and when Bill Clinton pointed this out, the Obama campaign played the race card and falsely accused him of calling Obama (or his candidacy) a "fairy tale." I am also concerned about his unbridled ambition which led to his failure to have even one hearing in 14 months regarding Afghanistan or Pakistan on the committee which he chairs, because he was too busy campaigning. At such a critical juncture, I believe we need someone with the experience to tackle the many problems which this country is now facing. To me, his lack of experience coupled with the vagueness with which he sets forth his positions, makes him an unknown quantity with respect to his suitability for the Presidency. In addition, until just recently, he has receive a free pass from the press, and has not had to field the kinds of attacks that the Democratic nominee will most certainly face in the general election. Regarding Hillary's ability to govern, as opposed to Obama, who has only held national elective office for approximately 3 years (much of which has been consumed by his quest for the presidency), Hillary has been in the Senate since 2001. Senators on both sides of the aisle have grown to respect her ability to reach across the aisle to get things done. In the debates, I believe she showed a much more mature and intelligent command of all of the issues presented to her. And, I do believe that it is counterintuitive to think that someone as intelligent as Hillary who was a witness to history every day for 8 years in the White House, would not have learned valuable lessons from both the successes and failures of the Clinton administration, which will help her integrate into the job of President much more quickly.

Am much as I despise Dowd, she's right this time. Politics is a fight, and if the gentle combat that he's expereinced so far has thrown him for a loss, how's he going to respond when the Republican Slime Machine turns on him full force?

Maureen has a soft spot for Barack even if she calls him Obambi. That is why she constantly chastises him for not taking them out when he can. The Clintons are like a movie zombie that just can't be killed.

Mo MoDo: I am a Hillary supporter in this election, but I have to admit that your comparison of her to the movie Zombie is funny :)

Dowd is fluff, meant for entertainment, and entertainment purposes only. just keep in mind, when you read her column, no matter what she may claim to the contrary, that this is someone who wants very badly for John McCain to be our next president.

LEADERSHIP IS NOT GIVEN. ITS TAKEN

Sometimes leadership is all about asserting your status. Hillary is very good at it. This is the weakness of Barack. If he cannot asset that he is the front runner in delegate count, in popular vote, in number of states - what can he assert on?

He has to shut her out of the narrative as well as media messaging. He cannot let her in.

If one were to hold a nation wide primary on the same day, he sure will win hands down as many of the caucus votes will turn in more popular votes - why does he not make that claim?

Why does he not make the claim that all democratic states will vote democrat and he will get more?

Why does he not make the claim, had Edwards not been there, he would have taken New Hampshire.

He should have had Edwards endorse him by March 4th - which would have helped him on March 4th.

The message is - he does not have to go negative - but he has to assert he is the leader.

Obama is "maintaining a respectful dialogue and not ridiculing and demonizing the other side" -- really?

Obama has a temper. As witness his "dust up" with Lindsay Graham when Obama accused him of "histrionics" -- this is part of the senate record for June 6th, 2007.

Obama didn't let it go, he even asked Graham into the Senate cloakroom and proceeded to argue -- loudly -- it could be heard on the senate floor.

BTW, Obama had verbal run-ins as an IL State Senator also.

I've read the transcripts of June 6th, Graham was not disrespectful of Obama. I don't like Graham, but Obama needs to show a willingness to negotiate in a respectful manner with the minority!

Liberal Policy
Yes we can.
Far Left Fantasy
Yes we can.
Co-opted Clinton policies
Yes we can.
Far Left Fantasy
Yes we can.
You’re being hypnotized,
Yes we can.
By a sixteen year media smear campaign,
Yes we can.
Run by corporations that hate the Clintons,
Yes we can.
For raising taxes slightly on the very rich,
Yes we can.
And daring to pass laws on behalf of minorities,
Yes we can.
And to help the middle class,
Yes we can.
Instead of just stockholders.
Yes we can.
We’re loosing the greatest policy experts of our time.
Yes we can.
If they can’t have another puppet,
Yes we can.
The corporations will settle for someone weak and naïve,
Yes we can.
Which is why they endorse Obama.
Yes we can.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

Wow, alot of Obama hate on this thread. For those of you that actaully offered specifics: if that's the best you got, then he's gonna do fine.

For those of you that merely engaged in ad hominems and name calling, well, this weak, naive babe in the woods is going to be the Dem nominee, not your seasoned "fighter."

In fact, after her "threshold" and "vice president" idiocy of the last weak, I'd sat she looks so seasoned that she's punch drunk.

No Fred, Obama's campaign never played the so-called race card in that instance. Listeners who heard that interview on the radio began complaining on their own about Bill's characterization and Hillary's seeming-dismissiveness of proponents of the Civil Rights movement. Yet - instead of issuing a brief statement of apology for any misunderstanding to the people while in South Carolina? (saying perhaps: hey, sorry for whoever misunderstood where we were coming from...we were only trying to connect with you guys and let you know we were there for all Americans from the beginning, and will continue to be supportive of AA constituents.) No they didn't -- and it cost them scores of votes.

They instead told horrible lies, blaming the constituents' concerns and hurt on the Obama campaign and faking victim in face of their screw-up, (1) as if those who spoke up couldn't have possibly been offended on their own--condescending and hurtful and (2) when Obama was asked about Hillary's comments, he said they were NOT racist however misunderstood. But people like you had fell for her lies already, since there remain some people--some not all, who still believe the white person first if they're accusing a non-white guy of anything. No facts required.

And meanwhile--not just American blacks--but a diverse mix of citizens in SC were like, what is she doing? Why is Bill talking to us like this and hammering away all weird as if HE's THE CANDIDATE? WHO'S RUNNING HERE? Why is Hillary misquoting Barack about comments on Republicans/Reagan on this 3-person debate when half of us probably just saw his interview on YouTube? Why is she harping on Rezco when she just had criminal Norman Hsu in her backpocket? And when her Whitewater deal blows any other politician's real estate transactions out the water? She was full-on LYING like no one would notice. Incredible hypocrite, Hillary is.

So no race card for you here. She and Bill worked very hard to alienate an entire social group on merit alone. Had they made a run-of-the-mill political gesture statement of apology for any AA's in SC who misunderstood them? Hill would've split the black vote more evenly like Kerry against his black opponent -- and KERRY WON. That's correct: American blacks are far from racist voters.

Hillary, on the other hand, ran a whole lot more than blacks away with her breathtakingly bad judgment, lies, hypocrisy and condescending manner. You know, the same way she's been writing off whole states when she loses them.

So drop the race-card accusation against Obama, and hold Hillary accountable for her own misjudgments and disrespect to constituents.