How Obama fell to earth

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html

How Obama Fell to Earth

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn't on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates' words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the "bitter" comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards's haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of "Yes We Can!" deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He'll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I've asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that's going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody's miserable.

[Hometown]

Obama talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

[pmcalk]

Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama?  Should we expect to see some quotes from Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh in the near future?

David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.  Of course he thinks the "symbols" are more important than actual substance, because he knows that is the only way republicans will win this year.

quote:I would love it - love it! - if by November, the most pressing issues facing the Republic were some preacher in Chicago I'd never heard of until this year, a trip some politician's wife took a decade ago, and the way we accessorize our lapels. That would be, like the Pope's speech yesterday, awesome. Because that would mean we'd no longer be at war in Iraq, no longer be facing a terrorist threat out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, no longer be in the midst of about ten separate economic crises, New Orleans would be fully rebuilt, and the New York Times wouldn't be falling into an ad revenue abyss. But somehow I think this is not going to be the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/david-brooks-praises-abc_n_97216.html

If you think that the politics of distraction is going to get Clinton anywhere, I would think twice.  It's one thing to say they are bitter, quite another to say sc*** 'em.

[FOTD]

RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.

POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4658063&page=1

It is not about whether or not Obama is a "saint"; it is about Clinton taking responsibility for her campaign and her proclaimed key issues.

No one is under any illusion that a President Obama will not disappoint us at times; but Hillary Clinton has betrayed the most fundamental core values that she espouses by allowing her staff and her husband to first "play the race card" and now to feebly play "the radical card."

[RecycleMichael]

I guess we will know about Obama and the effect of his bad week next Tuesday when Pennsylvania votes.

He has outspent her on ads and staff by a three or four to one ratio.

If he wins Pennsylvania, I promise to shut up about Hillary, but only if all you Obama folks agree that if he loses by double digits that he has real problems in his campaign.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.

POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)

Really!  I don't think the "rest of our country" was polled.   It looks like they polled democrats.   It would help you actually read the headlines of these stories.

[rwarn17588]

You shutting up, RM?

And pigs will fly ...

[}:)]

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

RM and Homey and all you other repugnicans, apparently, the rest of our country feels quite different.

POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
Poll Shows Obama Ahead as Candidate Dems See as Most Likely to Win in November (from that conflict of interest news bureau....)

Really!  I don't think the "rest of our country" was polled.   It looks like they polled democrats.   It would help you actually read the headlines of these stories.

I'll stand by my comment. McShame has turned his back on our troops, failed to recommend any changes from our current Bushevik Empire, and mischaracterized the players in the war in Iraq. Just the beginning of exposing the man for what he is: a pawn in their game.

[TheArtist]

Sounds like he fell to earth and landed his house right on Hillary.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

You shutting up, RM?

And pigs will fly ...

[}:)]

Don't look up!

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

I'll stand by my comment.

Of course you do.  What does accuracy, reading comprehension and fairness have to do with anything in FOTD's world?

No one reads the crap you link to anyways so I suppose that it doesn't hurt that you don't either?

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama?  David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.  

Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html

He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.

[cannon_fodder]

quote: but only if all you Obama folks agree that if he loses by double digits that he has real problems in his campaign.

No deal.   Simply because I don't think it is a problem if Obama loses by 10 or 15 points.  The cold hard fact is Clinton NEEDS to win by 15 points in every state to eliminate the advantage has and take it to the convention with a straight face.  If she wins PA, SC, IN, OR, KY, WV, MT, and SD... actually if she can rack up double digit wins in even half of the remaining states I'd say she could at least try to make a case.  

However, a single win in PA, even by a 15 point margin, doesn't even get her back in the race statistically.  Don't forget they went into PA with Clinton up by as much as 30.  CLINTON +30.    She's expected to win by +10 and has been for months now...

But with her lead in PA down to ~5% and Obama with +15 in Indiana, the prospect of a Clinton sweep to bring it to the convention floor seems remote.

math
I have trouble trying to figure out how much of your Clinton post is hyperbole and optimism, and how much is what you really think.  This case in point:

158 Delegates.  Clinton wins by 10 points = about 53% of the delegates.  Round up, Clinton takes 84 delegates to Obama's 74.  At the end of the day we still have Obama up by 132 Total delegates, 154 pledged, ahead in the popular vote, and with good prospects going forward.

Giving Clinton the bennefit of the doubt in many instances:

PA (Clinton + 15%) = -12 delegates for Obama
NC splits the other way = +7 Obama
Indiana (Clinton +5) = -2 Obama
West Virginia  (Clinton +10) = -2 Obama
Oregon (Obama +10) = +3    
Kentucky (Clinton +15) = - 5   
Puerto Rico (Clinton  +15) = -5
Montana   (+5 Obama) = +1
South Dakota (evenish) = 0   
Guam = 0 (hard to get a 3/4 split)

Given those likely scenarios, Clinton gains 15 delegates by the convention.  Walking in down by about 115 total delegates.  Even if she won all the primaries by 10%, and we rounded everything up... she gains 34 delegates (a 10% win general equals a 6% victory in delegates under the democratic rules).

Man, I just don't see it.  I admire your optimism, but I just don't see it.

[rwarn17588]

Nothing like cf's cold, hard facts to temper RM's optimism.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama?  David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.  

Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html

He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.

Landslide coming. Mark my words. Obama tamed his rhetoric for the democrats. For the repugnicans, he'll have plenty of fodder for his cannon.