The new Primary Thread

[Admiral]

Originally posted by GePap
I agree with imran that Obama does not really talk about issues, because his campaign has not been about any particular program or project, but "hope" and "inspiration" and "change." Hell, if you listen to Obama supporters, its not Obama's policies that they bring up, its how great and inspirational of a speaker, or how motivating and uplifting he is, so forth and so on.

I think that will be his great problem next week- inspirational speeches don't translate well into a 30 second spot. I mean, I just saw my very first campaign add of the year today from Obama (here in NYS) and it was not very good - very little about what he would do as president, mostly attempts to capture his performances and distill it into a TV spot. And it does not work that well.

I don't know. Last night, I saw both a Clinton ad and an Obama ad (in upstate NY). The Obama ad tried and I thought succeeded in capturing his appeal as a candidate. The Clinton ad basically just said "Clinton was endorsed by the Times," and the presentation felt week. To me, this represented the differences between how Obama and Clinton would compete in the general. Clinton would run a relatively safe, traditional democratic campaign, and would try to assemble a coalition based around her issue positions. The problem is that this is what the Dems always do, and it rarely works. Obama, while not ignoring issues as much as some people in the thread claim, is and would run his campaign around a feeling. This, I believe, would just be a stronger electoral strategy. The GOP often run more toward this kind of campaign, and as we have seen, Obama has been able to mobilize many more activists/volunteers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clinton would run a relatively safe, traditional democratic campaign, and would try to assemble a coalition based around her issue positions. The problem is that this is what the Dems always do, and it rarely works.

Bush did the same thing, as did Bill Clinton in his two campaigns. The trick is being better at it than your opponent. Don't kid yourself into thinking the Republicans don't form coalitions around issue positions. They are just different issue positions than the Dems (mostly abortion and taxes instead of the Dems traditional issues... then again is a DLC candidate really running 'traditional' Dem issues).

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Alexander I

I even heard this catchphrase: "If you're a Republican and McCain don't fit, it's your responsibility to vote for Mitt."

Only a stiff like Romney could have a catchphrase that clunky.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Hillary: voted for authorization, therefore stupid.
Edwards: voted for authorization, therefore stupid.
Obama: spoke out against authorization and clearly laid out the exact reasons why Iraq became such a cluster****, therefore a hell of a lot smarter than Hillary or Edwards.

Hillary: US Senator
Edwards: US Senator
Obama: Illinois State Senator

It is easy to be consistant on the issue when you don't have to vote on it. Especially in the wake of 9/11 it was seen as politically shaky to vote no.

Indeed, it is possible that Hillary and Edwards had an inkling of how stupid the Iraq war was but were too spineless to vote against it because doing so would be "politically shaky." Such gutless (and couter-productive) opportunism is, if anything, worse than stupidity.

As far as Obama being a State Senator that doesn't change his being right at all and he had as much of a reason to care about what was "politically shaky" since he was clearly planning a run for higher office at that point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Such gutless (and couter-productive) opportunism is, if anything, worse than stupidity.

No evidence at all that Obama wouldn't have voted for it either. It seems he's willing to vote for extensions to the PATRIOT Act after all.

[Jon Miller]

I view the patriot act as far worse then the Iraq war.

I don't care much about the Iraq war (except that it has been a monumental ****up, and the people who caused it to be a ****up should lose power).

JM

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Such gutless (and couter-productive) opportunism is, if anything, worse than stupidity.

No evidence at all that Obama wouldn't have voted for it either. It seems he's willing to vote for extensions to the PATRIOT Act after all.

He certainly hasn't been shy about funding the Iraq War either. He also even refused to vote on the resolution declaring the Republican Guard in Iran a terrorist organization.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He certainly hasn't been shy about funding the Iraq War either. He also even refused to vote on the resolution declaring the Republican Guard in Iran a terrorist organization.

Indeed. Those who want to canonize Obama should realize he's just as much a politician as the rest of them... fearful of voting against bills that may hurt future electability.

[BeBMan]

What's wth all those endorsements. Isn't it just some form of attention whoring?

[Ramo]

He certainly hasn't been shy about funding the Iraq War either.

Umm... no. He has consistently voted against funding ever since he came out for withdrawal. He voted for funding earlier, but that's because the war was still viable in most peoples' eyes. That changed towards the end of '06. To be fair, Clinton has voted exactly the same way on funding and authorization issues.

He also even refused to vote on the resolution declaring the Republican Guard in Iran a terrorist organization.

Senators tend to miss lots of votes when running for the President (Clinton, incidentally, is somewhat better than both Obama and McCain). He released a statement opposing Kyl-Lieberman the same day. His vote wasn't pivotal, and it passed by a huge margin.

No evidence at all that Obama wouldn't have voted for it either. It seems he's willing to vote for extensions to the PATRIOT Act after all.

Not initially. Feingold helped to scuttle the first reauthorization, with Obama's help. He voted for the second compromise, something that about 90 other Senators did as well (many of whom voted against the IWR). A wrong decision IMO, but certainly not evidence of being squishy on war authorization.

[Dinner]

It seems Nader wants to run, yet again. Will he once again hand the Presidency to the Republicans?

http://www.naderexplore08.org/index.html

I see Clinton winning the nomination and losing the election since her strong areas are union hacks, soccer moms, and grandmothers. All of whom already vote so no new votes to be won there. Obama would pick up the typical Democratic bases but would likely result in a lot more turn out of young people, independents, and black voters. All of whom normally have low turn outs so an extra 20% turn out in those catagories could really pull things hard in the Democrats' direction.

Of course at the end of the day the party elites are likely to get Hillary the nomination so either Hillary wins on a razer thin margin of 51% or she goes down like the last two Democrats at 49%. Obama is really the only option if Democrats want a solid win.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems Nader wants to run, yet again. Will he once again hand the Presidency to the Republicans?

I challenged you on this nonsense before and you chose not to respond.

The Dems do not "own" anyone's vote - they must earn it. If they fail to do so this is their fault not Nader's.

[snoopy369]

[obligatorydemwhine]Or she'll lose at 51%...[/lol]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Umm... no. He has consistently voted against funding ever since he came out for withdrawal.

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war,...

... he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

He released a statement opposing Kyl-Lieberman the same day.

Yet couldn't be bothered to put his words into action?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No evidence at all that Obama wouldn't have voted for it either.

As a lawyer, surely you see the problem with this argument.