Obama Hires A Rapid Responder

"Much needed" and "long-awaited," Barack Obama's presidential campaign has hired veteran Democratic strategist John Del Cecato to handle a newly created rapid response portfolio.

A memo sent to campaign staff this morning by senior aide Dan Pfeiffer says that Del Cecato will work with press secretary Bill Burton and research director Devorah Adler to "help push back on attacks from the media and our friends in rival campaigns."

The memo calls Del Cecato's addition "much needed" and "long awaited," which will undermine any attempt by the Obama campaign to portray his hire as routine.

When Obama began his campaign last winter, aides engaged in rapid response selectively, deliberately trying to draw a constrast between their big picture approach and the trench warfare that's become a trademark of Clinton campaigns.

But the volume of "attacks" and the degree to which they often bumped parts of the campaign off-message convinced the campaign to hire a single senior staffer devoted solely to rapid response.

"It is much needed is because the pace of the campaign has picked up dramatically in recent weeks," an Obama aide said. Still, while staffers work around the clock, Obama's Chicago headquarters lacks an official warroom, a staple of modern campaigns. Researchers and press aides sit together around large desks in an open area.

The campaign's quest to find a rapid response guru began in August; ultimately, they found him in house. Del Cecato is a named partner at the consulting firm founded by Obama's senior strategist David Axelrod.

Del Cecato is a 15-year veteran of Democratic politics. He's worked on campaigns in New York, Iowa and Pennsylvania is a former DCCC spokesman.

A copy of the e-mail was provided to this column by a Democrat who does not work for Obama.

Comments

It's a damn shame with all the money he has raised that he didn't have a competent campaign manager to use it to his advantage. How could they not have hired a rapid responder until now and no war room???? He still has my support, but it's disappointing that his astounding war chest, which includes $2,300 of my money, couldn't buy him competency! Better late than never however!

Posted by Dawn | October 18, 2007 3:07 PM

Dawn, the media attacks have not stuck so a rapid responder would not have been use of your money.

Obama faces two challenges but they are more strategic than tactical:

1) to convince people that this is his time not after he has more DC experience

2) to convince those skeptical of Clinton that he can REALLY beat her.

If he does that we win.

Posted by yiannis | October 18, 2007 3:18 PM

In today's dangerous world, if your president, late may be no better than never. That's why Obama can't be allowed to occupy the oval office.

Posted by Joe B | October 18, 2007 3:18 PM

In today's dangerous world, if your president, late may be no better than never. That's why Obama can't be allowed to occupy the oval office.

This is, of course, unadulterated, ungrammatical horseshit.

Posted by ethan salto | October 18, 2007 3:21 PM

So much for his judgment.

He was so busy trying to look above the fray he forgot to be effective. Not needed in a President.

Posted by Jane | October 18, 2007 3:22 PM

I think he has handled the "rapid response" just fine himself.

Posted by phillydog | October 18, 2007 3:23 PM

Doesn't mean a damn thing. When the chance to do the right thing today came up in the Senate it was Chris Dodd who stood up and acted, while Obama hung out and thought of how to "bring us all together" or some such crap.

Posted by Dave in ME | October 18, 2007 3:23 PM

Jane -

You obviously miss the Obama message and would be much better off voting for one of the republican 9/12 fear mongering candidates.

Posted by phillydog | October 18, 2007 3:25 PM

Obama is exactly what we need as a president. He is honest, direct and to the point. He will not lie to us. He will not pander to the lobbyist.

Posted by Joe B | October 18, 2007 3:26 PM

"In today's dangerous world, if your president, late may be no better than never. That's why Obama can't be allowed to occupy the oval office."

That sounds like propaganda even Giuliani would be proud of.

Posted by bakum | October 18, 2007 3:26 PM

Ironic that the candidate that is doing all the attacking of other candidates is now hiring someone to handle attacks from other candidates.

Posted by Pete | October 18, 2007 3:28 PM

Dave:

Kudos for Dodd. I'm sure you gave similary kudos to Obama for putting a hold on a loathsome deal supported by Harry Reid to put Hans Van Spakovsky on the Federal Election Committee.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/16/91544/024

Dodd will make a terrific majority leader (I'm serious).

Posted by Keith | October 18, 2007 3:29 PM

Pete:

It's to handle disinformation from other candidates and their supporters. Like your comment that he's "attacking" the other candidates.

Posted by Keith | October 18, 2007 3:31 PM

Obama is going to surprise alot of people in the primaries. He is pacing this thing brilliantly.

Posted by Matthew | October 18, 2007 3:32 PM

Dave

Where was Chris Dodd when he needed to stop read last Week. Where was Chris Dodd when it came to stopping the Iraq war vote in 2002.

Posted by Ethel | October 18, 2007 3:33 PM

Keith,

I absolutely agree with your comment. It's not for attacking other campaigns, but for correcting misinformation!!!

"It's to handle disinformation from other candidates and their supporters. Like your comment that he's "attacking" the other candidates."

Posted by GoGoGo | October 18, 2007 3:36 PM

Here's the problem, Barack. I love ya and think you are great, but I don't want someone above the fray. I want to drag the republiscum through the gutter and kick them in teeth every second of the campaign to pay them back from what they have done to our country. That is why I won't vote for you. That is all.

-

Posted by Hank Essay | October 18, 2007 3:36 PM

I'm sorry Hank that instead of thinking into the future well being of our country, you are only seeking revenge.

Obama in '08

Posted by Bethany | October 18, 2007 3:49 PM

Hank,

While I understand the wish for "payback," why not pay the Republicans back by showing the voters how much better-off America is when Democrats are in charge? Obama would be far better at unifying the country and inspiring a generation of Democrats. Hillary would amplify and extend the culture wars for another eight years. Which would be better for the country? Let's not put partisanship ahead of patriotism.

Posted by Doug | October 18, 2007 3:51 PM

Senator Obama seems to always know exactly when to add just the right staff. The pace of the campaign quickens and he responds.

The writer seemed dismayed that Senator Obama didn't have a 'war room' - the 'staple' of any modern campaign.

He noted Obama staffers sit in an open room to discuss strategy.

If I remember correctly 'openness' is the 'staple' of the Obama campaign.

Posted by Laurie M. | October 18, 2007 3:55 PM

Hank- revenge is sweet, but it's not effective. Sure, we all hate the Republicans, but why on EARTH would that be a reason to elect a candidate who is so devisive? Aren't you sick of a government that can't get anything accomplished? If Hillary is elected, NOTHING will get done, and NO Republicans will ever vote for -anything- she has to offer.

You may want to curse the Republican party, but don't play games with America's future.

Posted by Ron | October 18, 2007 3:56 PM

Hank Essay -- The error I find in your reasoning is that tit-for-tat will not necessarily solve the problem. "Getting them back" for what they've done to our country will just mobilize their support base more, and when the tables once again turn (as they always do), they will be even worse than they are now.

Moreover, the Republicans in Congress will be even more stubborn in resisting good policy, which they have been doing since the beginning of this year (and the Dems have been more than willing to let them, it seems).

A lot of times, staying above the fray is the perfect response to horrible crap (like the GOP's time in executive and legislative power). Obama (or any Dem prez) would just polarize more people, more so, by trying to "get them back". In the short and long run, that's more damaging.

I think so, anyway.

Posted by the nothers | October 18, 2007 3:59 PM

The kind of misinformation that needs to be countered is not out in the light of day, at least not where Democrats or liberals will see it. It's in the comments about "Barack Hussein Obama" and how he went to a madrassa and is a stealth Muslim trying to get the presidency. The whole Christian thing is just a red herring! We'd be electing a terrorist! Seriously, you'd be amazed how much of this kind of thing is stated and taken for granted on right-wing sites and by commentators on weblogs.

Posted by dnfree | October 18, 2007 4:08 PM

It's not just people that oppose Barack that are misinformed. I was talking to a guy last night who supports him, but said it's going to be very hard to get a Muslim elected. I corrected him, but it got me thinking about how many other people think the same thing.

Posted by chrisam | October 18, 2007 4:30 PM

Obama is an empty suit. After watching the Dems get stomped 8, 12, 20 years, he wants to heal the division blah blah blah. I want someone who know how to throw a punch.

Posted by unite this | October 18, 2007 4:31 PM

Its a good thing that having a rapid responder is the leading edge in what makes a good President.Those people in Iowa who were undecided now have to look at this hiring and say to themselves Boy hiring that responder is all the proof i needed.People relax its our grassroots thats gonna win us the election. So have faith and Go Obama 08

Posted by Alex J, Atlanta,GA | October 18, 2007 4:38 PM

Unite This,

That means we do not get anything done in the Senate and the House. That is the very reason why Kids are without insurance. We have out of control spending, crime increasing and Soldiers dying. I have had enough of this type of Politics. We need to get the troops out of Iraq, control sending, insure children, improve education and sure up social security.

Posted by Ethel | October 18, 2007 4:48 PM

Dnfree you are so misinformed. People like you should not be able to vote. All you try to do is smear people with misinformation on blogs. I realize you are a repug. But People are smarter than you and realize that is his a christian. That is the very reason why he has a lot of support in the Christian community.

Posted by Cheryl | October 18, 2007 4:51 PM

oh please, some of these comments are just childish and silly. first of all, Obama's campaign never stated that they were going to sit back and take false attacks out of some 'politics of hope' bullshit. people keep interpreting Obama as saying he'll only say nice things, and say them nicely. that's not what he's been talking about this whole time, he's been talking about being 'reality based'. remember that, anyone? reality?

Obama quite obviously had some staff devoted to rapid response, because there were some great rebuttals coming from his campaign early on. especially when PM Howard of Aust. went out and said that the Dems are allies with Al Qaeda or some such idiotic right wing horseshit, within minutes the Obama camp shot back at him that 'perhaps he'd like to put more than just a handful of troops on the ground if he cares so much' or words to that effect. it also seems quite obvious that some of those staffers were pulled and used in other ways, as the 'rapid responses' were becoming more infrequent and less rapid.

hopefully this will set that course back on track. now if he could only realize that he should absolutely be pledging to have our military out, in every meaningful way, of Iraq within a year, just like his own Senate bill called for! why would he propose that in legislation, and then in the debate balk at saying we'd be out by 2013? incomprehensible. and secondly, someone should tell him not to leave any poor Americans behind there to be slaughtered in small numbers to protect our imperial embassy - a great symbol of our viciousness and immorality to the Iraqi people - we should give it up, let them have it, and build a new embassy when they invite us back in one day. third, LEAD for christ's sake!!! LEAD. a good point was made upthread about Dodd's role in helping to block the Dems' FISA sellout. Obama should know better than to play it safe on an issue like this where there is zero public support for the program, and the violations of the rights of hundreds of Americans at stake. how can he possibly think its a good idea to be blending into the background so much on these issues?

at least he'll be debunking some of Hillary's nonsensical criticisms faster than before, i hope anyways.

Posted by onceler | October 18, 2007 4:54 PM

I think adding someone to combat the misinformation is a good move. It's unfortunate that some people are confusing the politics of hope and Barack's steady temperament and civility for a lack of toughness or that he's somehow not able to "throw a punch." He is plenty tough and principled, just not an "in your face" kind of guy.

I believe the main reason for his demeanor is that Barack tries to act in ways that will lead to positive results. While it might be a great deal of fun if Obama started calling Bush and the Republicans nasty names and viciously attacked everyone who disagrees with him, what ends would that serve?

Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying for certain segments of the electorate, but would it be likely to lead to a change in behavior on the part of the opposition? Or would it be more likely that they would dig in their heels and oppose pretty much everything just to be spiteful, thereby preventing the opponent from having an accomplishment and, therefore, increase their chances of returning to power. Remember the Clinton years and how, instead of turning Bill's popularity into tangible accomplishments, instead we got a GOP takeover of Congress, Newt Gingrich and the Contract on America. We got game-playing and name calling and it didn't help our country. The fighting took its toll and weakened Al Gore's candidacy to the point that we ended up with GW Bush. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, so wouldn't it be better to change the game if we can?

Seriously, if you want more Rovian politics and punch throwing, fighting over even the most trivial issues and no progress on major issues, go right ahead and don't vote for Obama. If, on the other hand, you actually want to have a shot at solving the big problems, then we simply cannot pass up the chance to elect Barack Obama.

Barack has the experience, leadership skills, character and integrity needed to get the job done and be a great President. We need President Obama this election, not in 4 or 8+ years and we certainly don't need a return to the Clinton era.

Vote Obama!!!

Posted by Michael James | October 18, 2007 5:05 PM

My god, the delusion here from Obama supporters is frightening. They have no idea the guy is pretty much completely empty. There is no there there. He's a cynical, manipulative, narcissistic punk and it is going to be huge fun watching him gets his entitled ass whooped.

Posted by lorelynn | October 18, 2007 5:15 PM

wow lorelynn, lots of hate there. it would be interesting to see whom you support at this point. who is it?

Posted by trevor | October 18, 2007 5:27 PM

I think the only person who really, trully views the Presidency as an entitlement is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by RKA | October 18, 2007 5:30 PM

Cheryl, you did not read my post very carefully. I said that is the kind of MISINFORMATION that is out there that needs to be countered. I did not say it was what I believed. Thanks for calling me a "repug", though. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, and all the reflexive name-calling is part of the reason why. You didn't even understand my post, and yet you want to slam me personally by calling names.

Posted by dnfree | October 18, 2007 5:45 PM

lorelynn, New Rule: If you're going to call a candidate a "cynical, manipulative, narcissistic punk, back it up with real examples of why you think that. Otherwise, you're just being a school yard bully.

Posted by Virginia | October 18, 2007 5:45 PM

lorelynn, you are spewing all those adjectives at the wrong candidate. seems to me you just describe HRC! OH AND GO SIP ON SOME CO-CO OR SOMETHING, DAMN YOURE HATEFUL!

Posted by S4WATSON | October 18, 2007 5:46 PM

Go Adlai!!!!

Stevenson in '08... oops Obama in '08

Hope is just what we need to beat the Republicans

Posted by joe | October 18, 2007 5:47 PM

lolerynn...Did your Mama not love you enough?

Posted by Jim | October 18, 2007 5:58 PM

Man...WAY too much hate going around here. What is with this addiction to hate anyway? Why are we stepping into the big old pile-o-hate that the Bush administration has laid out for us anyway? Unfortunately some of us have become addicted to the Hannitys and O'Reillys of the world with their fear and hate spewing. THINK FOR YOURSELVES HERE PEOPLE!!! Obama '08.

Posted by John | October 18, 2007 6:06 PM

Sorry. I like Obama and he talks a good game. Unfortunately that's the problem. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk very well. For me he has has shown no leadership at all in the Senate. Frankly, when both he and Hilary waited so long to vote on the no-timelines Iraq funding after it was already decided instead of leading on the issue, showed they were both just more of the same old same old.

On the other hand Chris Dodd did cast his vote before the issue was decided, and his hold on this new bill shows me he's willing to take a decisive stand and to lead.

Posted by Joe | October 18, 2007 6:09 PM

Dnfree is right on in sharing the misinformation circulating about Obama on the right. I read just a little from those type blogs and have seen the belief that Obama is secretly a muslim, along with very anti muslim views in general. If Obama is able to make a strong challenge to HRC (which I'm hoping) his religion (and even his name) will be an issue.

Posted by laurie | October 18, 2007 6:11 PM

I'll back up lorrelyn. Obama acts like he came to the Senate and agitated loudly the entire time to end the war. correct me if I'm wrong, but he was joememtum's protege and didn't make a peep against the war. I've listened to feingold rail against the war. And murtha. even kucinich. obama, not so much.

you want cynical empty suit? I just watched a clip from obama's appearance on the loathesome jay leno show from last night and he yucked it up when leno made a nasty crack about bill clinton and did obama trust bill to be left alone in a room with michelle. ha-ha. obama laughed right along with the nasty insult. lovely repuke framing. he should have told leno to shut his pie hole. instead, he sucked up to a media whore the way he wants to suck up to repukes. tweety mathews had a field day with the clip today.

unite the country? it's the most foolish idea ever. repukes are against everything democratic. and if anybody is naive and inexperienced enough to believe the repukes won't try to destroy any dem candidate, he isn't worthy of being the democratic nominee.

I'm for hillary because she fights back and doesn't attack other democrats. obama is an empty suit and a huge disappointment to this hyper partisan DEMOCRAT.

Posted by joker | October 18, 2007 6:15 PM

I wish we had more hyper partisan patriots who would put the country's need above trying to slam the Republicans. We need an uniter and not divider. Clinton isn't that girl. And as for the empty suit rhetoric about Obama, then tell Clinton stop copying his ideas.

Posted by sonya | October 18, 2007 6:25 PM

What has our country come to? I am a registered Independent and have been since I was eighteen years of age. I voted for a Clinton both times that surname ran for the Presidency. This time? I will not. Obama has my full support and I do what I can to inform folks of his platforms and yes, for the first time in my life - I donated to a Presidential campaign. I have Republican friends on the mainland that are changing parties and this election will throw their votes to Barack Obama and that is impressive in my books. Also in my book? The chapter that tells me Obama has what Bill Clinton had in his first campaign - a reality of the world. Bill and Hillary Clinton have lost that reality and that is why Barack Obama gets my vote. And? Clinton and Edwards got caught up in the post 9/11 hysteria and gave that man named Bush an open check with no balance check and folks? I can not forgive Edwards and Clinton for that most serious misstep. People are dying in Iraq for what? So that Haliburton and Cheney can line their pockets more? Sorry to get off on a tangent, but just a few of my thoughts. Obama doesn't have enough experience to lead this nation? What experience did Bush have? Seriously, give that some thought. Real thought.

Posted by Bernie Moore-Knowles | October 18, 2007 6:39 PM

"What experience did Bush have? Seriously, give that some thought. Real thought."

Please give that some thought, real thought. And don't put another Bush type named Obama in the White House!

Posted by Ralph | October 18, 2007 8:05 PM

It is silly for Obama's campaign to announce that they now have a rapid response person. This is not because they didn't already have a rapid response person. Of course they did. They responded in the same news cycle to the silly Cheney eighth cousin story just yesterday. Rather Obama announces a new hire rather than admit the old hire has been shuffled or reorganized and that they are trying to jump start and have a do-over. They announce they have this new guy (who's done this for 15 years and thus is not a new way of doing things and not an outsider, or an outsider's outsider)and so its to say to the press and the opposition that they should be warned, that they aren't kidding around anymore, that they are with it now, that they are ready. And that realistically was the message of Bill's original war room with carville and george: that they reserved the right to hit back and hard.
So its all posing and press relations and posturing which means its a new layer of phoniness by a guy and a campaign that want to pretend they are new and different. The old way is a slur when he accuses Hillary of it and yet its a new stratedgy when holier than thou Barack does it.
Can you say mixed message?
Obama is not above lying and exxagerating: he lies about Hillary's position all the time: He says he's against the war and Hillary isn't. Either that indicates he is dumb or that he lies.
I want to like the guy but pretending he's Thomas Beckett is wearing thin.

Posted by Michael | October 18, 2007 8:10 PM

Actually, if you want to put another Bush type in the White house, vote for Hillary. The similarities are striking. Both got to where they are through their names and family relations, not from any exceptional innate talent. Both the Clintons and the Bushes lost congress on their watches. Both are deeply polarizing to the other side. Neither like to answer questions directly. Both take spin to a high art form. Both are rather corrupt financially. Karl Rove and Mark Penn might as well be evil twins. Both are highly cynical and beholden to monied interests. Both support wars disingenuously. Both use 9/11 to attack their opponents. Both care more about themselves than the well-being of the this country. Hillary and Bush, two peas in a bi-dynastic pod.

Posted by RKA | October 18, 2007 8:18 PM

Michael,

The Obama campaign didn't make an announcement. Someone outside his office gave the press a copy of the mail. Take note that the light in which the information is delivered: "The memo calls Del Cecato's addition "much needed" and "long awaited," which will undermine any attempt by the Obama campaign to portray his hire as routine." The reporter tries to convey that Obama will try to lie about this new hire. Obviously, it is not Obama or his camp who have provided it. Please real carefully.

Posted by MO | October 18, 2007 8:28 PM

If they want the same old devide an connger then vote for Hillary if you want real change then Obama is the one wake up america Bill Clinton was an ok president but remember Hillary is not Bill an the only reason why hillary up in the polls is because the republican help to push her numbers up because they feel they can beat Hillary an they are affraid of Obama .

Posted by Audrey | October 18, 2007 8:32 PM

Joker:
I will correct you because you ARE wrong. Obama was not Lieberman's protege. Incoming senators are ASSIGNED mentors. The person closer to Lieberman is Hillary who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran.
As for "Hillary doesn't attack other Dems", you've got to be kidding me. She had no problem calling Obama "naive and frankly irresponsible" when he said he would be willing to meet with leaders with whom we disagree without precondition. She then said the exact same thing in answer to a questioner about meeting with no preconditions.

Posted by lilme | October 18, 2007 10:05 PM

lorelynn:
..."he's a...punk...it is going to be huge fun watching him gets his entitled ass whooped."

Your post has a disgusting racist undertone.

Posted by lilme | October 18, 2007 10:13 PM

Obama is definitely not an empty suit. Perhaps you should read one of his books ,before you make such a ridiculous statement. Obama has a very positive message. The reason he has raised more money , and has more donors ,than any other candidate, is because he really does walk his talk. The books are very inspiring. He is the kind of person that makes you want to be a better person. Some of you could probably use a good dose of positive energy and wisdom.

Posted by Tina | October 18, 2007 10:23 PM

>

Look, I want the fellah out of office tomorrow, if possible, but Bush had as much experience as any president in recent times: being a two term governor of a border state the size of Texas is real, quantifiable experience, even if his Dad's connections bought him the ballot. He had more executive experience than Hillary, Giuliani, Mitt Romney... anyone except Biden, McCain, Gore, Richardson or Dodd.

I can't honestly say, and I don't think any one here can honestly say what the value of experience is to a presidential administration. As citizens, how many of us really understand the demands and challenges of the presidency? We don't have access to the information required to make that judgment.

Meanwhile, those of you who want to "drag republicanism through the gutter"...

What gives you the idea that electing Hillary Clinton, of all people, will achieve that end? Reagan dragged Liberalism through the gutter by wining over democrats and moderates with a half-B.S. big tent message-- and a big-tent, half-B.S. message is exactly what Obama is selling. That is why Obama is best suited to create long-standing, effective democratic majority.

Posted by DRE dre dre | October 19, 2007 12:53 AM

So Obama has been out in the corn fields of Iowa and elsewhere spreading all kinds of "misinformation" about Hillary Clinton, and now he needs someone to handle any "misinformation" that might be spewed about him.

Uh huh.

I hope Hillary hands him his *ss.

Posted by Wayne Durst | October 19, 2007 12:55 AM

Hello from the cornfields of Iowan/Illinois, we already know Hillary stinks, and we did not hear it from Obama. It has been, don't quote me, that Obama has entered this race as a Democrat and has remained courteous to the Democratic candidates, remember all the acknowledging Hillary does to other candidates at debates???, he has wanted a clean fight, WHY NOT??. Okay so you say he says it behind her back in the cornfields??, I think he told her to her face on the WAR vote, to her face on lobbyist money and their influence, and pretty much told her to her face America wants change and Obama is the man to do the job.
It is Obama or a worse America.
Listen to the wide variety of people that believe in this campaign taking D.C. back from the WEALTHY and join them, it really can happen.
Obama O

Posted by Mark | October 19, 2007 1:08 AM

To those of us who worry and fret that Hillary is a divider: So were the rooseveldts, so was Lincoln, so was Washington. People who don't stand for anything who don't work or change anything don't rile any waters and don't divide anyone. The duality of modern life is that someone can be divisive and a uniter at the same time. People and states cleaved off from Lincoln and the Union and the rest of us got off our duffs and united behind him. The founding fathers took a stand that many found divisive and some fortunately united behind them...
A lot of very fine Americans have in some way been divisive. Elections require we peel off and support one side over another. The right has a lot of fun hating the Clintons and Liberals and Healthcare and iraqi children, but are we supposed to be so afraid that someone might have fun hating Clinton for being resoundingly different than the Current bunch in office that we support Obama who it can be argued hasn't done enough to let anyone dislike him? The roosevelts were mocked and scorned and hunted by the haters and America first bunch: Are we claiming now that they were not a good choice by the electerate?
Don't be afraid to have the other side be afraid of your candidate: don't pretend that Obama is going to make the republicans and democrats get along. He can't. The differences are real. Can he outflank them? Not yet. Wet behind those cute flapping ears.

Posted by Michael | October 19, 2007 8:05 AM

Obama doesn't need rapid response. He needs a record of some accomplishments. Sorry to say that with a Harvard JD he has really accomplished very little. Community organizer? What's that? Someone who organizes midnight basketball games. Organizes teen dances at the rec center and says "Fellas on the left side, girls on the right" Part time legislator. Part time law teacher. Something just does not add up. If Obama had set up a clinic or internship program or anything I might be impressed. But he just doesn't cut it. NGE. Same for Senate. No leadership. There is a subtle racism to Obama supporters - they only see his skin color and do not judge him as they would any other man or woman.

Posted by Puccinella | October 19, 2007 8:13 AM

Puccinella,

Obama has a record. He has 8 years in Illinois state Senate. He has passed more laws Since he has been in the Senate than Hillary Clinton. He has a longer and better political record than Hillary. I am sick of everyone always talking about Obama lacks experience. He has more experience than Hillary or Edwards. Hillary's experience amounts to Barbara Bush and Laura Bush having enough experience to run for the White House. What laws have Hillary passed. Put the up against the Laws Obama has passed. They will not be equal to his. Yes, this comes from a Woman (I am a woman). Therefore you can not say I am a man saying this.

Posted by Ethel | October 19, 2007 8:29 AM

Wayne,

Obama has not been handing out misinformation. He has been telling people what Hillary stances are. All they have to do is Google and they will see what Obama is saying is a fact. He does not need to say anything different. They should go to Youtube.com and search. Google some of her speeches. She sometimes forget what she states and then try to think the American people are stupid enough to believe her. Flips then Flops

Posted by Cheryl | October 19, 2007 8:33 AM

This is about HRC, she has repeatedly twisted information and released it to put Obama in a negative light, and it can't be allowed to continue. I had hoped that Obama could avoid it, but alas the Clinton machine is good at it, almost as good as Rove was. You fire enough bullets, some will hit the target, and slowly opinion starts to shift if you don't counterattack. It is sad, it is not based on the facts, and it is the way it works now.

Posted by Daniel Huff | October 19, 2007 8:53 AM

Now, that is an interesting argument. Vote for Hillary because she will be divisive in a good way like George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and FDR. Ignoring the historical revisionism, I think that if Hillary measuring her drapes for the white house is a bit premature, measuring her space on Mount Rushmore leans toward the absurd.

Saying Obama can't make all Dems and Republicans love each other is a straw man, very easy to knock down. It's a question of degrees. How much of the other side can you get to support you. I think Hillary will be polarizing in the same way as Bush - a very narrowly divided country in which little gets done. I see Obama being able to get a similar number of Republicans to support him as Ronald Reagan got democrats to support him. Just as there were substanial Reagan democrats, there will be sustantial numbers of Obama Republicans. I think after the Bush years, this is the right moment for this type of president, very similar to how things were after the malaise of the carter years.

Some democrats seem to think that the harder and more partisan the fighter, the more likely they are to get their way. Yeah, guys, the red meat tastes good but if you actually want to see a progressive agenda enacted, having the other side hate you stops it from happening. We don't live in a dictatorship...41 senate votes can stop almost anything. If you want to win, pick someone who holds your values and doesn't drive the other side into an irrational rage.

Posted by RKA | October 19, 2007 9:01 AM

Ethel, Hillary has years of law practice experience and was a first rate first lady, not like Laura Bush, who has basically been a potted plant with a plastic smile.

Edwards has fought courageously for middle class and low income people in the court room against powerful interests.

Obama has litigated nothing and won nothing for no one. Sorry you are just plain wrong. Take off the rose colored glasses.

Posted by Puccinella | October 19, 2007 9:11 AM

Just curious...

Anyone know if this 'John Del Cecato' attended Northwestern U in the early 90s?

I'm thinking we lived on the same floor my freshman year (if it's the same guy, he was a year or 2 ahead of me). We weren't especially close, but hung out occasionally... good guy.

Posted by SDJ | October 19, 2007 9:29 AM

AN OPEN LETTER TO CLINTON SUPPORTERS:

Where is Clinton on telcom immunity?

Love, Obama-Clinton '08

Posted by Obama-Clinton '08 | October 19, 2007 10:50 AM

Where is the evidence that Hillary is over confident? That she thinks she has won already? That she is measuring drapes (by the way that's a quote from Bush/Rove last year and a bit sexist, no? Or is that precisely your point?) She came into race saying I am in it to win it. That assertion denotes intention not certainty: all candidates say that. Where are the things she has said that twist or lie about Obama's record or lack of record? Where did she assert fact that wasn't true? I don't know of any as such things make me wince. Republicans and people who hate strong women and the far irrational left seem to hate that she even entered the race, that free speech exists that she dare run? Are we living in the same country?
I would love to read a list of the lies you think she's told about obama or about anything?
You haters sound crazy to me but maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by Michael | October 19, 2007 11:54 AM

Just so we are all clear here: This animosity between factions on the Left is very BAD for the left. You don't see Romney and Thompson supporters eviscerating each other like this, and it gives the right a chance to steal this next election out from under us.

Which gets to the key point: This division on the Left is not (can not) be due to Obama, a relative unknown who has pissed off few people. It is because a good, solid 30% of the Democratic base has a LOATHING for Hillary Clinton. We (and I am one of these) can not forgive her. Not ever. Not for her Iraq vote. Not for the way she provided cover for Bush during the '04 campaign on the war issue. Not for the way her underlings subtly undercut Howard Dean in 2004 to clear a path for her '08 run. Not for the failure of Universal Healthcare in '93-4 under her leadership. And not for dragging our party's good name through the mud in the '90s with various personal scandels (and don't tell me that all the various Rose Law Firm billing improprieties, the commodities futures scandel, and the Travel Office fiasco, etc., were all a right wing conspiracy).

I don't care how much you like Hillary yourself. As a lefty, you have to ask yourself this question:

"Are you really willing to place a permanent wedge in your coalition over her? Are you willing to unite the Rupugnant-cans against her? Are you willing to give them their best shot at the White House in '08 by nominating her? Are you willing to cause your left wing to feel totally disenfranchised for the next 2 or 3 decades by denying us a suitable nominee AGAIN and giving us someone we cannot STAND? Are you REALLY willing to go into the '08 general election with the left this divided?

Is it worth it?

Ask yourself.

Posted by greggie | October 19, 2007 2:16 PM