« The Daily Five: How Do You Figuratively March? | Main | Pathways To The Nomination »

Jabbing At Hillary

21 Dec 2007 07:26 am

First, Barack Obama, speaking last night in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (per CBS News's Maria Gavrilovic)...

This argument that somehow well, you know, Obama, for whatever reason I keep on defying this notion that somehow the American people are not ready for me. That just is not borne out. And right now among all Democratic nominees or Democratic candidates I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates. And this argument is being pushed by the way by a candidate who starts off with a 47% disapproval ratings. You know, so, I’m not going to mention names but I mean the notion that a viability or an electability argument is being made by somebody who starts off with almost half the country not being able to vote for (pause and laughter) them doesn’t make sense. (someone in the audience yells, welcome to American) But you know in the end don’t vote your fears, I’m stealing this line from my buddy Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe. (applause)

Obama's aides have been making this argument privately for eight months, but it's the first time I've ever heard Obama say it himself. The wrote Clinton campaign response -- and having asked Mark Penn this question many times, I can recite it my heart is that "by the time of the convention, both the Republican and Democratic nominees will be equally as polarizing." History bears that out, but the premise of Obama's campaign is that he would be different. As he told an audience of independent voters in Exeter, New Hampshire today, "there will not be a litmus test in my administration." He meant that his approach to problem solving would be collaborative and he would select experts and policy-makers without regard to policy. In Congress, though, Clinton has plenty of bipartisan credentials on her own.

And Bill Richardson called the New York Times unprompted to accuse Hillary Clinton of flip-flopping on how fast she'd be able to withdraw troops from Iraq.


“Senator Clinton’s comments are a stunning flip-flop — she’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround,” Mr. Richardson said.

As the Times notes, these are not the comments of a vice presidential wannabe. A Richardson aide points out to me that Richardson is the only candidate on the air now with an Iraq war ad, although he would not say how big the buy was.

Comments (38)

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. his parents divorced, father returned to Kenya, mother married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is no longer Muslim. Obama attended a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Recently free ride for Obama from political press and it feels besieged it has to bat away incessant questions with Obama's significant shifts/ flip flopping on issues such as Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, Fast Track trade authority and benefits for same-sex couples. Given how little experience, campaign doesnt want any focus on his record, clearly raise questions about his electability and serves reminder about how little the public knows about his positions. Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, Obama said he would vote to repeal the Patriot Act. In 06 Obama voted for the redrafted version of the Patriot Act that made only minor changes. On Defense of Marriage Act Obama answered No, to the question: "Do you support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. On Fast Track authority, which requires Congress to vote yes or no and without amendments on pending trade deals, Obama opposes Fast Track authority. Benefits for same-sex couples, Obama said he would need to evaluate the fiscal impact before extending Social Security benefits to same-sex couples. Obama is involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Tony Rezko. Obama also linked to an alleged influence peddling scandal and was nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law. In addition three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s payroll are registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents. The Oprah Winfrey endorsement might have generated a lot of press for Barack Obama, but not a lot of impress, particularly among younger women, a poll released wednesday shows a third said they were less likely to support the Illinois senator because of the Oprah support. Older women, over 65, also showed they were ruffled by Ms. Winfrey stepping "out of her pew," as the daytime diva herself described it. About 17 percent of older women said the endorsement made them less likely to support Mr. Obama.

This man has no real experience. Yet he's hoping to rule the most powerful nation on the planet.

What is it that Barack Obama has to get where he is? Nothing but flimflam.

Oprah Winfrey has fallen for his looks and charm. It's so evident that Oprah is taken in so easily by good looking men — white and otherwise. Her show has highlighted these handsome creatures over months. Every time she swoons over them, flirting with them, sometimes even making quite suggestive remarks. Her audiences love it.

Now she's turned her romantic overtures into stadium sideshows starring none other than a first-class political fake. The crowds are so taken with the entertainment that they relate all that to political genius.

Obama has no experience worth typing on a resume to sit in the Oval Office let alone rule anything for anyone from that space.

He's glib. He's smooth. He's excellent with crafting phrases. But when listening to his mini-speeches, does he not sound like a high school student running for the student council? or senior class president?

His sentences, his phrasing, is so sophomoric that I sit listening to him wondering how his listeners are so awe-struck. All ages are simply enamored by him.


There is no substance to this man. He gives forth the typical liberal litany — including support for killing womb babies and sodomy. The nation takes it in stride.

What in the name of common sense let alone intelligence has happened to the populace that they are so sucked in by this horrific joke?

Even the media quotes him as if he were providing genuine wisdom for our times. He is not speaking anything worth noting let alone translating into legislation. His sentences are laden with sweet sounding worn cliches — over and over.

We need to unite. We need to be liked around the world. We need to renew. We need to look to the future for this great nation. We need to forget our differences and hold hands. We need to envision tomorrows shining with God's sunshine.

These speeches go on forever and ever and ever. America listens and scores fall for this tripe as if it were material for the US presidency.

It's not. It's failure personified.

"The wrote Clinton campaign response"? Not to be too critical - but who edits these pieces? Anyone?

I don't need favorable-unfavorable ratings to know that there are legions of people who will NEVER, EVER vote for HRC for a variety of good reasons.
Obama is an intelligent, capable, compassionate political candidate who actually tells the truth and does not resort to ruthless and manipulative tactics to get what he wants. If the Democrats don't want that, they don't deserve him.

Thank you Joe for sharing the Clinton talking points again. You help illuminate exactly what this country will get if we are foolish enough to hand power to the Clintons.

Get a copy editor. At least try to write well.

I am a Republican who will be voting for Obama in the general election.

Marc, what is your evidence that history bears out that by the time of a convention, all candidates are equally polarizing? The point is either wrong or overly simplistic. Penn repeatedly ignores the concept of INTENSITY of dislike in considering who is polarizing. If 30 percent of the population intensely dislikes Hillary and 17 only dislike her a little, that's a 47% disapproval in Penn's analysis, just as would 10 percent strongly disliking and 37 percent mildly disliking. What creates polarization? Intensity. It's intensity of dislike that might drive a normally Democratic-leaning independent who does not like, say, Romney to hold his nose and vote for him anyways if he really detests Hillary. So the candidates who elicit a disproportionate amount of strongly negative feelings are much more troubling than those who elicit mildly negative feelings.

Take a gander, for example, at the recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, which helpfully publishes the breakdown of the various approval ratings. There are FIVE categories, "Very Positive, Somewhat Positive, Neutral, Somewhat Negative, Very Negative." Not a single candidate in either party comes close to Hillary in those who say "Very Negative" in response to the question as to their view of her. Hillary registers more "Very Negatives" and fewer "Neutrals" than the others in both parties. She also registers the highest number of "Very Positives" (with Obama within the margin of error). That's the definition of polarizing. McCain, who has been on the national scene as long as Hillary, registers a lot of mild negatives and neutrals, but remarkably few "Very Negatives." And don't we all know in our bones that he would be the toughest to defeat because independents like him and certainly do not detest him? Obama's net positives are higher than any other candidates, and his polarization is lesser. Yes, that could change by the time of the convention, but one other noteworthy point about the recent WSJ/ NBC poll is that it tracks the numbers over time. And guess what, Hillary's "Very Negative" numbers always rapidly climb as an election comes closer and people are reminded of her arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness. Other candidates' very negatives rise, but not nearly as fast as Hillary's.

THis is all a long way of echoing the commenter who says that all you have to do -- especially if you are part of an extended family like mine that is interested in politics and has liberals and conservatives in it -- is listen to people and talk to people.

You are denying reality and your own experience if you dispute the proposition that Hillary is intensely polarizing. A substantial number absolutely love her and would walk off a cliff for her. But more intensely, intensely despite her. As George Will noted the other day, she will motivate and unify a fractured Republican party like no one else can.

With Obama we have a chance of keeping the divided Republican party divided and dispirited.


P.S. I forgive your typo on "wrote" instead of "rote." Those who are dogging you for it must not know one of the many pitfalls of lonely late night blogging.

The 800 pound gorilla in the discussion of this electability argument in Michael Bloomberg. If polarizing Hillary gets the nomination on the basis of the politics of personal destruction against the eminently likable Obama, Michael Bloomberg will not only run, but he will steal a good part of the Democratic base. With Republicans in shambles, he will steal a lot of independent and republican votes too. By nominating Hillary, you are looking at a 3 way race in which the outcome would be very difficult to predict, but that would be a far riskier proposition than the unifying Obama who would really leave no room for a Bloomberg to get any traction.

Iowa is a swing state (won by gore in 00, Bush in 04) in which the campaign is engaged and in which head to heads are far more predictive of Noov '08 than national head to heads or non-early state head to heads. And in Iowa, where dems, independents, and republicans have gotten a chance to see Obama up close, Obama does much better against the republicans than does Hillary.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=cbb37b64-f1d0-4b86-9995-a50378ed3919

AS you can see, Obama beats McCain in Iowa, but Hillary loses to him.

And it's not like Iowa republicans are like New York Republicans (as the Clintons would try to point out for her supposed crossover appeal): Iowa republicans have just vaulted "Christian Leader" Mike Huckabee to the top of the republclican field.

In all the plethora of national and state polls, this one hold the most prescience to determine Nov '08 electability - a head to head in a swing state in which the campaign is engaged and name ID discrepancies are not confounding the results.

You can go over to New Hampshire, another swing state, and see Obama's clear superiority among independents in another engaged state. Unlike Hillary, and Obama nomination will unify the democrats, and pick off many independents and republicans. Hillary will fracture the democratic base, alienate independents, and gin up turnout amongs conservatives who otherwise would be despirited and divided.

Seriously, folks, the Clintons are on shaky ground when they try to say they are more electable. They've thrown the kitchen sink at Obama in the last few weeks and he is still very strong. Nominate Obama and not only will he be elected, but he will have a mandate.

PS: this is the electability flier the Obama camp is sending out to Iowa voters. I think this is a wise closing argument for Obama.

http://obama.3cdn.net/d166b721fb6816fbd3_1nm6i214e.pdf

I am a staunch conservative. I find Obama to be a fairly conventional liberal.

That said, for the sake of my multi-racial 20 year old daughter and in the hope of FINALLY beginning to move the nation past the ugliness of racial and ethnic politics, I would vote for him.

We are at war (and not just Iraq). and that gives me great pause.

But I believe I could vote for him, the first Democrat presidential candidate of my life.

At some point people are going to recognize that Obama is ahistorical. The typical models or historical examples just don't apply to him well. My guess is that, while his negatives will go up if he makes the general, the basic nature of his campaign (and lack of real political enemies (save the Clinton's)) will mean that the racor won't reach Clintonian-levels.

In Foreign Affairs, Bill Richardson writes:

The next president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. To do this, the new president must first end the Iraq war. We need to withdraw all our troops and embrace a decisive new political strategy that engages all the nations of the region, as well as the international donor community. Only when we have done this can we begin the hard work of rebuilding our military and our alliances and restoring our tarnished reputation -- so that we can move forward and lead the world in addressing urgent global problems.

What has Richardson received for his repeated calls during the campaign to bring home all troops from Iraq?  

The media seeks to marginalize Richardson, labeling him as a candidate for Vice President. Candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that decline to pledge to bring our troops home are praised as acting responsible. Now Clinton is seeking to blur the clear distinction Richardson has has created with her on Iraq throughout the campaign and weaken support for Richardson in Iowa by all of a sudden telling the anti-war voters want they want to hear. Read more at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/21/41533/364#7

Actually Keith the only thing ahistorical here is argument. The 'this time it's different' argument is one of the oldest in the world. In truth, Obama's 'New Politics' wouldn't survive the first contact. Democrats would wake up after the convention if Obama got the nod feeling like they just invested in Pets.com in 1999 or bought a Florida Condo, no money down, in 2005.

It's not different, Obama's negatives have been steadily rising all year, and will no doubt continue too. Hopefully Iowa voters will realize that first.

These comments are just full of lies about Senator Obama. Must be Hillary clones. First of all, his father was not a practicing Muslim and his step-father was not a RADICAL Muslim. Both men had drinking problems and Muslims do not drink. Senator Obama is a Christian.

According to recent polls, Obama does much better against the republicans than Hillary does, so her electability point is out the window. Independents and republicans will not vote for her and a lot of democrats won't either. She can not bring this country together. She is way to polarizing. Senator Obama is the true leader.

AJ:

It seems that you are letting your dislike of him color reality. At every turn everyone has said what and see, he'll get his comeuppance. That history will repeat itself. So far it hasn't. Not because of anything unique about him, but because there is no historical model for him or his campaign. When was the last time a candidate had almost 500,000 individual donors? I'll answer . . . never. When has a person of African descent run competitively in Iowa and New Hampshire? I'll answer . . . never. And if you asked anyone about his chances before this race started, most of them would have said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell against the Clinton machine. So far, he's holding his own (and even out raised the Machine).

I'm suggesting that it's not helpful to view his candidacy through historical models, since so much of who he is or what his campaign has done has never been seen or done before.

Obama is not a muslim and if you actually believe he is, I feel sad because it shows how willing the American people are to buying into these false claims as long as it promotes their own candidate in the process. I didn't even bother reading the second paragraph.

Good arguments, and good observations. Bill Clinton says, "The reason [Hillary] ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proven in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people's lives." We're talking measurable performance, right?

"But if you know how to do things,” says Bill, “and you prove it over a long time that you can make change in other people's lives, I think that is a pretty strong recommendation." I think the strongest endorsement of any such claim, is witness testimonial. So, I’d like to talk about the “world-class institute of teaching and learning,” these geniuses founded. Its changed “other peoples” lives. This Christmas, here’s a little stocking stuffer. Merry Christmas, pass it on: http://theseedsof9-11.com

For the uninitiated, “world-class” is a worn-out Clinton catchphrase, used to describe everything from education to catsup. Again, Bill defended himself before praising Hillary, calling it an oversimplification to say that in 1992, he was the change candidate.

I'm sure Clinton supporters will play this as a huge, ugly personal attack. Its not, in my view.

Her saying that nominating Obama would be risky because of the experience factor is in bounds (though odd coming from an equally inexperienced candidate).

And Obama responding that nominating Clinton because of her high negatives and polarizing effect would be risky is also in bounds.

The bottom line, in terms of electability, is that the nation has elected "inexperience" (accepting for a second that only Washington experience as opposed to life experience counts). But I can't think of any election in which such high negatives won. It would be an experiment, and a risky one that defies common sense.

[quoting Penn] "by the time of the convention, both the Republican and Democratic nominees will be equally as polarizing." History bears that out, but the premise of Obama's campaign is that he would be different.

The general election will be polarized because the country is polarized. The question isn't what happens to the candidate, it's how the candidate takes it. Penn's argument almost sounds like he thinks the candidate has no control over how the election will go.

We know Clinton or Edwards would fight the good fight in the partisan war, turn out the base and hope for 51%.

Obama would remain calm in the face of it, continue to appeal to moderates and those who have given up on the system, and aim for a real mandate. My pick is Obama.

It's so interesting that the people who want to push the "Obama is a Muslim" LIE are relying on the fact that his father (who left when he was 2 - had no bearing on his upbringing) and his stepfather were Muslims. What about his mom? Obama's mother was an atheist and she's the one who raised him. Doesn't the mother's religion (or lack thereof) influence the child? She was his only real parent. And he was also raised for part of his early life by his mother's parents (who were Christians). How convenient of you religious xenophobes to only rely on the part of his history that you can twist to make your prejudiced point. Despite the fact that his absent father was a Muslim, his mom was an atheist, and his maternal grandparents were Christians, Obama grew up in a non-religious home (mom's an atheist – he refers to it as an “un-churched” upbringing) and eventually chose Christianity as his chosen faith DECADES ago. It's not like he decided to become a Christian 2 months before deciding to run for president. Obama is a Christian man, who comes from a multi-racial family, which includes people from a number of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Get over it.

Richardson sees the handwriting on the wall. He made a deal with the clinton's in the spring '07 for the v.p. slot but they are doing a nosedive. He knows the game has changed ...he will butter his bread with the winner.
He wasn't in the diplomatic core for nothing.

The Iowa polls show that as people get a closer look, her negatives go up and his go down. In particular, he starts with a substantial edge in perceived honesty and extends it.

Nobody knows what the general election campaign will be like, thought we can be sure it will be dirtier than the primaries. My sense from 40 years' observing is that HRC could eke out a narrow win with or without a 3rd party challenge, but Obama gives Democrats a shot at a landslide. The difference from 4 and 8 years ago is that part of the Republican base has come unstuck and is ready to at least listen to a Democrat. He's better situated to talk to those folks.

He's also a *much* better politician. HRC is hard-working and competent and smart, but really no more talented (and certainly no more charismatic) than your average senior partner in your average law firm. She wouldn't be where she is without a famous husband and the famous husband's fundraising connections. Obama has gotten to the U.S. Senate despite the handicap of a weird name and zero family connections (though admittedly with a little luck). Though the comparison makes me cringe a little, he has something in common with the current governor of California: a self-made man with a foreign name and message of hope. This stuff can work.

It's funny for any democrat to give the Clintons lectures on electability. That lady with the 'high negatives' won our only Democratic victories in 40 years (other than one-term Jimmy Carter, who only won because of Watergate). Conservatives 'hate Hillary' because she beats them!

"She wouldn't be where she is without a famous husband."

Her famous husband wouldn't be where he is without her extraordinary abilities. They are a winning team.

"HRC is ... no more talented (and certainly no more charismatic) than your average senior partner in your average law firm."

Can't agree. When HRC's Yale Law classmates were just vying to make partner in corporate firms, HRC was already running the $300 million Legal Services Corporation (legal services for the poor). Reagan tried to wipe out legal services and move its funding into defense spending. Clinton stopped him. Beating Reagan in a cage match bespeaks extraordinary skills. Give me a comparable example for Obama. Did he ever win a head-to-head battle with a sitting President with a landslide conservative mandate, or anything equivalent?

And I don't agree about charisma either. Remember the '1984' ad? That ad was a sensation because it exploited Hillary's mystique. Put Giuliani or Bush in the same ad and it'd be boring. Rodham has a mystique that has captivated the nation for 15 years. She may be the most provocative personality in the world.

Obama would remain calm in the face of it, continue to appeal to moderates and those who have given up on the system, and aim for a real mandate. My pick is Obama.

Yeah, 'cause that worked really well in the last several elections.

When the hell are the Democrats going to learn that playing nice with the Republicans is going to continue to get their clocks cleaned? Didn't anybody learn anything from 2006?

And right now among all Democratic nominees or Democratic candidates I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates.

This borders on downright dishonesty.

"That lady with the 'high negatives' won our only Democratic victories in 40 years (other than one-term Jimmy Carter..."

Huh? I'm sure she was a great help and comfort to Bill, but you have to drink a lot of bongwater to attribute his victories to her.

Re the LSC, I think you'll find that in the end Reagan got his way. But I'm happy to give her credit for mounting a fierce defense under difficult circumstances.

"Rodham has a mystique that has captivated the nation for 15 years. She may be the most provocative personality in the world."

Whatever works for you.

I'll be the first to agree that the Hillary-hating in some quarters is so bizarrely excessive that it needs psychological explanation. (Obama is now attracting equivalently-hysterical opposition.) But it's only in comic books that the people with the most deranged enemies are the superheroes.

Assuming whoframedrudy is not a chain-yanking parodist, I'd just point out that this shows how far you have to reach to make a case for HRC on non-dynastic grounds ... or how difficult it is for her supporters to avoid arguing for the re-election of Bill.

Yo, Justinb:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_obama_more_electable_than_hillary_and_edwards.php#comments

Let's be more careful before we make charges of dishonesty.

I am not an English-speaking person, but with all due respect, does this guy sound literate to you?
"This argument that somehow well, you know, Obama, for whatever reason I keep on defying this notion that somehow the American people are not ready for me."

The Republicans want Obama to win the nomination

c: "I'll be the first to agree that the Hillary-hating in some quarters is so bizarrely excessive that it needs psychological explanation. (Obama is now attracting equivalently-hysterical opposition.) But it's only in comic books that the people with the most deranged enemies are the superheroes.

"Assuming whoframedrudy is not a chain-yanking parodist, I'd just point out that this shows how far you have to reach to make a case for HRC on non-dynastic grounds ... or how difficult it is for her supporters to avoid arguing for the re-election of Bill."

----

Whoever is behind that single lowercase letter, you're surprisingly sane for a political blog. What are you doing here?

WhoframedRudy - "That lady with the 'high negatives' won our only Democratic victories in 40 years (other than one-term Jimmy Carter..."

The only thing I have to add to c's response is that primarily her negatives are high because of how she ran the White House "war room" in Bill's second term, when defending his impeachment. Sure, there were some hardcare haters stemming back from Hillary care, and some hardcare haters from before, though mostly confined to local Arkansas stuff, like her efforts to erase traces of any bimbo threats.

As has been noted, its really pretty silly to attribute his wins to her. He's got candidate talents to spare; she doesn't. And if the news reporting this time has been accurate (granted, a big if) he's the better strategist, too.

Also, you do realize in the 40-year time period you referenced, there's only been 10 presidential elections. Bill won two and Jimmy won one for the Democrats. That's 3/10, only two shy of breaking even. If you go back two more elections, its 5/12. Then there's Eisenhower's two preceded by five straight for Democrats.

Fun with statistics, but not really as one-sided as your 40-year comment might lead one to believe.

Also, the Legal Service Corporation thing is more myth than reality. No reason getting into those details (my posts ramble on long enough as it is) but if anyone wants to see the kinds of things Clinton supporters are using as a foundation for her experience and effectiveness, I'd suggest going back on your own and looking at some of that.

A black pastor says although there is a leadership vacuum in the African-American community, Illinois Senator Barack Obama does not fit the bill to fill the void. The New Jersey minister hopes his new website, ObamaNation.com, will expose Obama's voting history and prove to black voters that the much-touted Democratic presidential hopeful does not represent their values. Pastor Clenard Childress heads the group Christians for Social Justice and is assistant to the national director of the pro-life group called Life Education and Resource Network, or LEARN. Also, he has recently launched the new ObamaNation.com website and its "Obama Blog," to educate the black community regarding what he calls the "horrific" voting record of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Childress says "winds of change" are blowing in the black community, but he believes the election of Obama as America's next president would be "a step back" at best. "All polling shows that African Americans are pro-life," the pro-family advocate notes, and "all polling shows that they are not in agreement with same-sex 'marriage. Childress says his organization's goal is to get these facts about black America to translate into action at the voting booth. And one way of making that happen is to make Obama's own voting record known, the Christians for Social Justice official explains. With regard to abortion that record is disheartening, he notes; "even on the Born-Alive [Infants Protection] Act, I was appalled that he would deny medical assistance to a child that survived an abortion.expose the Illinois senator's liberal stances on several key issues affecting the black community. Senator Obama's support for abortion garnered him a 100 percent rating from Illinois Planned Parenthood, an organization whose founder called blacks "human weeds." But according to Childress, the Illinois lawmaker and Democratic presidential candidate does not represent the views of the African-American community on abortion or any number of other important issues, including homosexuality.
Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with "intuition" or expertise in the conduct of my nation's foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions. After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.Senator Clinton for President, because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.

Lakeisha, sounds like this guy is going after Obama because he's pro-choice? Um, so, he's advocating that the African-American community vote Republican?

Re Obama's claim that "among all Democratic nominees or Democratic candidates I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates", Justinb wrote,

This borders on downright dishonesty.

Linking in the result of one poll that did show Obama doing better than the others, c responded,

Yo, Justinb ... Let's be more careful before we make charges of dishonesty

Who is right? Justin is. C, you should never just go on one poll. That's irresponsible. And Obama did speak of doing better in "general election match ups," plural.

Obama is wrong - just simply flat-out wrong. Misinformed or deceitful? I'll leave that up to you. But he's wrong.

I track these things for a hobby (yes, nerd). I might have missed a few, but as far as I know, since 1 November there have been 15 polls matching up Hillary against Giuliani, and 11 matching up Obama with Giuliani. On average, Hillary led by 3.7%; Obama by 3.4%. Hillary wins.

In the same period, there have been 10 polls matching up Hillary against Romney, and 9 matching up Obama with Romney. On average, Hillary led by 8.5%; Obama by 11.9%. Obama wins.

In the same period, there have been 8 polls matching up Hillary against Fred Thompson, and 6 matching up Obama with Fred. On average, Hillary led by 9.1%; Obama by 8.5%. Hillary wins.

Still in the same time frame, there have also been 8 polls matching up Hillary against McCain, and 6 matching up Obama with him. On average, Hillary led by 0.5%; Obama by 1.0%. Obama wins.

There is just one trend here, and that's both do pretty much equally well in these match-up polls. Obama used to have a clear advantage over Hillary in these polls, back in the summer, but his advantage had melted by September.

Oh, and who really does best? John Edwards. He's the one who could be making Obama's claim. There have been far fewer polls matching him up against the Republicans, but his average lead against McCain, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee is all substantially higher than what either Obama or Hillary is getting.

N.B. I looked at the wrong column in my file for the numbers vs. Fred Thompson; that should be an average 9.5% lead for Hillary and 9.2% for Obama; Hillary still wins.

Obama is right. The latest Zogby poll has him clearly outperforming Clinton and Edwards in general election match-ups with each of the top 5 GOP contenders. Obama beats all 5 by anywhere from 4-18%, whereas Clinton loses to 3 and beats the other 2 by 2% and 6%. Edwards loses to 2 and barely beats Giuliani.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404

RCP's average of numerous polls ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html ) also shows Obama has a decisive edge over Clinton in the general match-ups - and they haven't even included this latest Zogby poll.

Mercan - read my post directly above.

Re Zogby, it's irresponsible to go on just the one poll. As for the Real Clear Politics running average, it actually shows Obama to be in the wrong.

Obama said "among all Democratic nominees or Democratic candidates I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates". Note: all, not just Hillary.

Well, the RCP average shows Obama currently leading Giuliani and Romney by 5.0% and 10.6%, and trailing McCain by 1.3%. Edwards on the other hand leads Giuliani and Romney by 4.0% and 18.0%, and McCain by 5.0%.

Problem with the RCP running average is that some candidates, like Obama, are polled more often than others, like Edwards, so some averages are just of the last week or two, and others go back a month. So if you want to compare how the candidates do within the same timeframe, again, just look at my post above. Hillary did no worse than Obama, in the timeframe since Nov 1 in any case, and Edwards actually did better. (To add the data for Edwards: his average lead in this timeframe was 2.8% against Giuliani, 5.0% against McCain, 15.0% against Thompson, and 16.5% against Romney).

This is no surprise because, although there are great variations from poll to poll, on average Edwards has run the best in these polls pretty much throughout the year. And although Obama enjoyed a clear advantage over Hillary in these polls up through around September, that was neutralised in October and November, when Hillary on average did just as well as him or better.

In December so far Obama seems to be doing somewhat better than Hillary again in these polls - but still not as good as Edwards. (I tried to post an overview of the average of these match-up polls for December so far for each of the three Democratic frontrunners against the main Republicans, but it didnt go through apparently.)

Whichever way you look at it if you go beyond just the random individual poll you pock up, Obama's claim simply was wrong, whether it was just misinformed or actually deceitful.

No, Obama's statement is correct. I did not just go one on poll. I cited the Zogby poll and RCP's average of numerous polls, as you well know.

You are holding Obama to your own special standard, running a polling average since Nov. 1 (which you haven't even sourced), when the reality is he never said he was basing his statement on polls from that timeframe. He didn't cite a timeframe beyond saying it's a current reality. In recent polls, he's trouncing Clinton in these general election matchups, and in the last two series of matchups (run by CNN and Zogby) that included both him and Edwards, he beats Edwards as well, though only narrowly. Combining the averages of both polls, he beats Romney/McCain/Giuliani by 8.5% to Edwards' 7.7%.

I do not have a lot to say. I only wonder how it could be possible for the "Greatest Nation" to have the most blatantly, morally bankrupt leaders. We don't have any candidates who possess real convictions. They all seem to have the convenient answer meant to appease the current situation, or they completely dance around the issues all together. Will a real candidate please stand up? We need a man, or woman who is not only good with their words, but who represents a moral standard that transcends selfish ambitions. Barrack is not that man, and neither is Hillary.