But unlike W, Obama has already started to change things. I've pointed to examples of change that has already taken place as a result of Obama and his campaign. Previously debates were frequently attack oriented and the audience didn't blink an eye. However Obama has come in and talked about real change, and while many other candidates in the past have done the same, people are actually buying into it this time. When Hillary went on the attack in a previous debate about his "Just Words" speech, the audience actually booed her. When she spoke about uniting with Obama, and working together she got a standing ovation. Before this year that wouldn't have happened. People might have been sick of the attacks before, but nobody believed in change enough to believe something different was possible. In PA when Hillary started chiming in on the bitter comments the audience shouted her down. The change has already started and Obama isn't even the nominee yet. When he was given a chance to pound Hillary about her sniper fire falsehoods he passed. He encouraged moving on to other things that really mattered. When the Clintons, Ferraro, and other surogates tried to drag the campaign into the mud with race baiting, not only did Obama not fall for it, he elevated the discourse on race, in one of the most thoughtful speeches on the topic in recent times. For people to sit there and claim that Obama's talk about change is just talk and won't happen because it isn't realistic is like someone standing out in the rain claiming that water won't come. It's already started happening.
Not really, Obama has always engaged in debate on issues. When Hillary talked about Health Care Obama responded, and it wasn't seen as someone just being negative. They really discussed the issue. You can talk about judgements, but that isn't what those issues are about. They are being framed as Obama being an elitist, or being divisive on race and actually not liking America. When people harp on those issues in that way it is negative, and isn't substantive, and that's why people are being booed and shouted down when they harp on it. Aside from the issues people are voting for Obama because he's already starting to deliver on the promise of change. We've seen the proof, and it's cool. We are long over due for that kind of change.
cut in capital gains tax increase in tax revenue? One of the most cherished beliefs of supply-side zealots is that cuts in capital gains tax rates always increase revenue. To be sure, there are often dramatic upward revenue swings right after the cap gains rate is cut. But that is in part because people can choose when to enter into the transactions that result in capital gains--and they'd be idiots not to hold off a few months if they know the tax rate is about to drop.
And Hillary is clearly more well versed on issues then him, I don't agree with her policies, but she does know her subjects for the most part. It is about judgments. When you do business with a scumbag like Rezko, when you sit and listen to hateful speeches for 20 years and not walk out, when you allow your children to be baptized by the same man, and especially when you build your campaign on the message of "better judgment". Change to what? I can tell you Deval Patrick had the exact same message of change, and so far he has delivered ZERO to my state other than a bunch of scandals.
No, I am pointing out his strategy of "if you talk about my negatives, you are slinging mud". Which is great for him, because nothing negative will stick. One thing though, the "above the fray" plan might not work as well when he is no longer the fresh face in Washington. If he doesn't win this time, I can see it be tougher for him 4 years later.
if your negatives have nothing to do with policy, its slinging mud. its always slinging mud, when the republicans floated rumors that mccain fathered an illegitimate black child it was slinging mud. how is this stuff any different, sure the wright issue is more truthful, but it still has no bearing on his ability. and if the "above the fray" tatic works while people keep slinging mud, then maybe they need to stop slinging mud if they want to win. that's not his fault.
Except he built his campaign on better judgment, and his negatives are windows to his past judgments. If you can't tell the difference between "rumor about illegitimate black child" and listen to Wright for 20 years, then you have some judgment problems as well. You know Hillary and Obama are not all that far apart on their policies, she does appear to grasp the subjects better than him during the debates though. So the big thing Obama supporters harp on Hillary is her high negative number, she is unelectable etc. Yet when his negatives are brought out, the same people are screaming "mud slinging, we need to talk about policies".
um, hillary's negative have directly to do with her ability. SHE brought up Bosinia as her experience. She talks about here time in the White House as experience, when she tried to run over elected officials working with her to get health care reform. what examples do you have of people mud slinging against her other than saying she's unelectable.
Anyone else noticed the pattern over the last few debates? Seems the morning after the debates super delegates that backed Clinton seem to switch to Obama. Happened again this morning Breaking News: Thomas Backs Obama You heard it here first. Council member and newly elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama. Thomas will make the announcement at 10 p.m. at a debate watch party. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/04/breaking_news_thomas_backs_oba.html Also three more super delegates broke for Obama yesterday. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/three-more-superdelegates-for-obama/
I will agree with you on some topics, but the difference isn't large. On health care she didn't seem to know her position any more or less than he did his. Rezko is the one issue I've always had with Obama and I've always said so. The other issues aren't being framed as a judgement call, instead they are being twisted to try and attach a label, and lower the debate to name calling. Again WRight didn't deliver 20 years of hateful speeches. He delivered a few minutes of them during the course of 20 years. But once again that issue isn't being framed as judgement is being framed to doubt Obama's patriotism, and suggest that he might have some loyalty to extremist black movements. The Wright controversy is another moment when rather than lower the level of discourse that was taking place, Obama raised the level. He talked about issues nobody had mentioned before and addressed them in thoughtful way. Rather than slink into the slime that was being thrown around, he used to opportunity to elevate the level of discussion. Maybe Patrick isn't the leader to deliver the change. So far Obama has been, and he isn't even the nominee yet. I've shown you concrete examples of changes between politics now and they were in past political seasons. They have been out there and anyone can see them. Go back and watch the debates and incidents I spoke of if you would like to see the changes that are taking place. The change is to a more positive substantive way of doing politics, and it's already working.
You are talking about two different things. One is the voters and individuals talking about Hillary's negatives, and the other is a campaign making things negative. Individuals can say what they will, but it is another matter coming from a candidate who wants to lead the party and the country.
...and here is what Stephanopoulos was referring to when he was asking obama about whether he thinks he'll be hammered in the General... GET YOUR T-SHIRTS NOW!!! bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha BURP
So you are accepting the fact that Obama will be the nominee, nice. Anyway, yeah, I can’t wait for Mr. I own 8 houses McCain to call Obama an elitist. Or should we refer to McCain as Heinz Kerry McCain since it’s his wife that has the bucks? LOL~
<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=32449072">Dramatic Obama</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=32449072&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed>
So...Obama was above the fray when he twisted McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment? I don't see any change in politics there....
Man, it must really suck to be a supporter of the Republican party these days. The slow torturous march to the inevitable result on November 7th must be similar to awaiting execution on death row. In the meantime, you get to watch Hillary and Obama dominate the headlines while voters forget the name of the Republican nominee. A little salt for the wound: http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/04-17-2008/20080417033503_03.html
