The Brokers -- Will They Step In?

Like a lot of people, I go back and forth - go negative, stay positive. Well, David Brooks in the NYT today argued for positive, and I agree with him, for the reasons he gave - Obama's raison d'etre - but also for another more important reason.

If Obama must win by going negative, then who needs the Democrats? The whole point is to change the game, fundamentally, unalterably. If the Democrats don't want that, then I for one don't want the Democrats.

So I say to Obama, have courage (he obviously does), stay positive, and give us a chance to change. If 50.1% of the voters don't want that, then c'est la vie, and good bye Democrats.

Posted by Ken From Katonah NY | March 7, 2008 5:34 PM

What do you think?

I think if Hillary fell into a massive Pennsylvania sinkhole and was never heard from again I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Posted by Jeremy | March 7, 2008 5:36 PM

Catch-22 for Obama.

He's a hypocritical, self-righteous, arrogant, fraud anyways - so he'll get in the mud while pretending not to be. So will Clinton.

What a spectacle. Like cats chasing their tails.

Posted by slick | March 7, 2008 5:36 PM

What do you think?

I think Michael Kinsley called, and he wants his insight back.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 7, 2008 5:38 PM

Samantha Power has dedicated her life to fighting genocide

She is on the side of right - exactly the type of person you wish would be in government

She was an unpaid advisor to the campaign and took a leave of absence from teaching at Harvard

She is 38 years old, has already won a pulitzer prize and was in Europe promoting her brilliant new book on the UN diplomat who was killed in Bagdad a few years ago
--
Now why would we think we deserve someone like that in out government when we could have say --
Howard Wolfson? Mark Penn? Terry McAuliffe? and so many others
--
brought to you by the nation who re-electing George W Bush in 2004

hope dims--

Posted by alison | March 7, 2008 5:38 PM

Yep, excellent call. Clinton's knife-fighting strategy goes something like this:

Such an honor to be here with Barack Obama!
*jabs shiv towards Obama's throat, aims kicks repeatedly towards groin*

So unprofessional! Look, he hit me! Ouch! I am a woman in distress!
*repeatedly tries stabbing in ribs, twists blade*

My NAFTA problem? Hey, look over there!!!
*attempts roundhouse kick to throat*

We really really need to pull together here - maybe he can be my VP candidate!
*drapes right arm around Obama's shoulder, administers blade with left hand*

Obama's sin, I guess, is that he isn't good at fratricide.

Posted by Tungsten | March 7, 2008 5:38 PM

Oh, and I know better than to waste my time, but:

1. I thought just today you wrote a post about how Power's remark was an unfortunately side-effect of a hard-fought campaign, and not a "genuine convinction." A little consistency? Please? Pretty please?

2. What of the reports that Clinton's campaign took the lead in reaching out to Canada? I guess it's just Obama's campaign, huh?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 7, 2008 5:41 PM

I support Obama because he vows to raise the level of political discourse in the country. I believe McCain would do the same to a lesser extent.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and Hillary Clinton twice as my senator. I am now ashamed of those votes. The Clinton's blatant use of race to influence this election is disgusting. I watched the 60 minutes interview wherein she could not categorically say that Obama was not a muslim along with allowing the distribution of the photos of Obama in African dress.

I want a President who can live be the moral standards and decency we claim to espouse as American people.

If somehow the Clintons steal this election after Obama has a legitimate claim on both popular vote and delegates, I will vote for and make a substantial contribution to John McCain.

Posted by Tmlk | March 7, 2008 5:41 PM

I think Obama should counterpunch, but on his terms. The tax return attack fits in with his goo-goo meme of transparency and accountability. He should respond to further Power questions by saying she's resigned from the campaign because he doesn't want the campaign to be distracted by the day-to-day back and forth. The "pattern" is easily refuted since the follow-up story has been that the Clinton campaign was telling the Canadian government something as well, and Clinton has advisors who have tempered her Iraq statements (Keane, and there's another general who's called her "pro-war" [I can't find the quote because it's buried by google]).

The C-in-C thing is easy; he should point to his experience working with Dick Lugar on securing loose nuclear weapons.

Continuing the analogy: Obama doesn't need to keep diving, but he shouldn't pull up either. Stay at low altitude for precision bombings.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 7, 2008 5:41 PM

I think the way it's headed is horrible. Hillary may win the knife fight, but I think she will lose the war:
there will be many disenfranchised long-term Democrats who won't support her -- myself included.
there will be many new Democrats who give up on the party.
there will be many fund-raising opportunities that will be lost.

If Hillary continues the knife fight, it will be a terrible, sad day for the country. She is a ruthless cut-throat fighter, who might get what she wants, but will find out that it might not be worth it in the end.

Posted by John C | March 7, 2008 5:42 PM

I think Obama composes himself.

Takes some time to put a speech together.

Delivers it after winning Mississippi and finds an inspiring way to rise above.

Bickering all the way to the PA primary won't help.

A different message than he used in Ohio might.

Posted by Mike in MS | March 7, 2008 5:43 PM

Obama needs to learn how new politics is done by its creator - John McCain.

The original version of new politics, as done in 2000 by McCain was killed by Bush in South Carolina.

In this cycle McCain has improved upon it. Stay positive, sure. But stand your ground! Being tough isn't the same as being negative. Obama comes off as wishy washy sometimes when he brushes off Clinton's attacks. He needs to take his opponent seriously and be more forceful.

He needs to stop acting like he's already the general election candidate. Ignore McCain and refocus on the primary.

And if push really does come to shove then pull an ace (the Romney favoured withdrawal meme) out of your sleeve like McCain did in Florida when he needed to crush Romney.

Posted by Jesse | March 7, 2008 5:43 PM

I think he should stay not so much positive, but cool. Let Clinton win a few news cycles, as long as you can back it up with double digit wins in the next couple primaries. If he can do that, I don't think the party bosses are going to be so happy if Clinton dips once again into the negativity well.

The media is gearing up for a PA showdown, but the party knows that the most likely scenario is that Obama would be ahead on points, but damaged by losses in OH, FL, and PA. Expect them to step in soon, especially if he winds big next week.

Posted by enozinho | March 7, 2008 5:43 PM

David Brooks?
yes, must listen to neo centrist war apologists for what is the high road in politics. Presumably, the high road includes invading small foreign countries run by people our leaders do not like at the expense of lives, blood , traumatic brain injuries, and one hell of a lot of money.
yes, must listen to war cheerleaders.
yes, in my heart I do love big brother.

Posted by virginia cynic | March 7, 2008 5:45 PM

Maybe it's just me, but this is as far from a knife fight as it could possibly be.

A couple of candidates pointing to the other's weaknesses? Have we become so prone to fainting spells that we can't handle someone being examined for their actual views on NAFTA or being criticized for the transparency (or lack of it) in tax records?

I'm an Obama supporter because he is the only candidate of either party that is talking about rethinking politics. Clinton and McCain are saying that politics is fine the way it is, and to say otherwise is "eloquent but empty."

But we really do need to rethink politics. To rethink government. To rethink state-provided education. To rethink intellectual property. To rethink war and peace. To rethink consumerism. To rethink church and state.

To turn our backs on the situation where one team has a blue flag and one has a red flag and the goal is to get the other team's flag, and to look towards some yet-to-be-defined approach that addresses the issues of a country.

As far as I can tell, Obama is the only candidate bringing this up. And to me, it's the most important issue of all.

Posted by Daryl Kulak | March 7, 2008 5:45 PM

I think he needs to wrap Hillary tightly to McCain.

Posted by Lauren | March 7, 2008 5:46 PM

If austan goolsbee is "refreshingly honest" then obama is surprisingly dishonest when it comes to his economic rehtoric. You can't bill yourself as a champion of american workers when your top advisor is a well known advocate of free trade agreements including NAFTA. You can't say you're for lowering the cost of health care and achieving universal coverage when your economic advisors claim that rising health care costs are actually good for the economy. And you can't lie to seniors and our future generations when your economic advisors would consider privatizing social security. Senator obama needs to stand up for democratic values and stop drifting further and further to the right.

Posted by bm | March 7, 2008 5:47 PM

"Issue two is the gutter-level of the presidential campaign, with the Obama team raising questions about the Clintononian allergy to transparency and the Clinton campaign comparing the tactic to Ken Starr's Whitewater fishing expedition."

Do you really see these as being equivalent? Calling Obama Kenneth Starr seems clearly gutter. The transparency issue seems legit--it's a pillar of Obama's candidacy, a more ethical, transparent government?

Clinton is all over the place with her attacks (i.e., kitchen sink), and I think the key for Obama is to remain thematically consistent in his contrasts. It's not like he's going around saying "as far as I know" she's not a lesbian.

Posted by dsb | March 7, 2008 5:47 PM

Inside the Clinton Campaign Video Lab

Technician: We have that new attack ad you asked about, Mr. Penn.

Penn (rubbing hands): Let's see it.

(Technician plays video)

Penn: Hussein's face isn't dark enough.

Technician (surprised): We got that shot of Obama right from the MSNBC feed, sir.

Penn: It isn't black enough.

Technician: Sir?

Penn: Make it blacker, as black as you can get away with. We want people to think "darkie" when they see this ad.

Technician (fiddling): Like this?

Penn: Go even darker. And make his shirt and teeth whiter.

Technician (diligently): How's this?

Penn (smiles): Perfect. (Pausing) Can you widen his face, so the nose looks flatter?

Technician: I guess so. (Moving computer mouse) Like this?

Penn: That’s fine. Just fine. And the funny thing (chuckles), the funny thing is no one will even notice.

Technician: Are you sure?

Penn: Sure I'm sure. It's all subconscious. This will play on the racists who watch it -- play with their minds. It’ll also play on people who don't know any black people.

Technician: But, isn't that, you know . . . isn’t that race-baiting?

Penn (bristling): I don't think I just heard you.

Technician (nervously): I said . . . I said, what should we call the ad?

Penn (majestically): Call it . . . call it “True.”

. . . . .

(Apologies for reposting, but this seemed more appropriate to the theme of this thread.)

Posted by Trilby | March 7, 2008 5:48 PM

Stay positive. I'm afraid Obama's approach will be a sort-of "We've already technically won, we just have to wait it out" thing. He needs to treat the situation as if he's back at square one and he needs to work win over these voters just like he has others. His argument shouldn't be "the math is on my side no matter what happens" but "we're winning the math because of what we stand for - now help us win the nomination."

Posted by Chris | March 7, 2008 5:48 PM

Thank you Alison, I was scrolling down to write that myself.

If we can't get people like Power in Gov we're done.

Posted by Dirk | March 7, 2008 5:51 PM

You're right except for the first part. No one is going to tell them to simmer down. If she can defend her tactics politically, she'll do it. If she can't, she'll let the voters tell her. She'd be crazy to take her foot off of Obama's neck until it stops working for her.

To think that there's some third party that can or would weigh in and actually change things at this point is pretty silly. The candidates already have a bunch of advocates defending their attacks, so a few more voices the other way wouldn't really change anything.

Posted by some guy | March 7, 2008 5:53 PM

Marc, I believe Samantha Power has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a law degree from Harvard, not a Ph.D. Although a JD is technically a doctorate, it's not typical to refer to the holder of a JD as "doctor."

I think most of the recent "attacks" from both Clinton (Rezko, readiness) and Obama (tax returns, readiness) are well within the bounds of legitimate. However, I'd argue that a senior foreign policy adviser calling the opposing candidate a "monster" and making some of Power's other comments are well outside those bounds. It offers the appearance of demonizing a strong woman and raises a real issue of sexism or even misogyny. The fact that it came from a woman makes no difference. If Clinton's female supporters perceive these comments as reflective of Obama's own attitude, it will be a problem for him. I find it very problematic.

I think Brooks' column today is right on. I'd encourage Obama to pull up too. It would help me believe that he is who he says he is. His hard-core supporters turn me off more than the candidate himself.

Posted by ezr | March 7, 2008 5:53 PM

Hey Ken, I have a sincere question for you.

"The whole point is to change the game, fundamentally, unalterably."

How does Obama go about changing the "game" (by which you mean the system and/or the political process, I assume)? By making pretty speeches? Even if I was to believe he is sincere in wanting change (which I do, btw) - isn't just a combination of either BS and/or naivete?

It is one thing to hope for and work towards better things, it's quite another to be ridiculously naive about what the situation is. The over-the-top rhetoric is pure fantasty. would like to see the Obama people come back down to Earth and instead of idolizing the man, inject some reality into the process and their outlook.

It makes perfect sense to argue that Obama would be a much different POTUS than Hillary, because she has so much baggage, she is divisive, etc. Legit argument. But it's quiet a stretch from that... to Obama walking on water.

The only thing he can change is how HE conducts HIMSELF! *HE* can be different, if he so chooses. Lead by example! There were many times int eh debates when Hillary was nasty where Obama could have struck back, but chose to calmly and cooly articulate his views. I was very impressed with that. Let's see if he fails or passes this current test. Hillary would love nothing more than to drag him into the mud. That's HER homefield. ;)

But c'mon, the idea that this man would magically change Washington is laughable. Do you really think he believes his own rhetoric? I don't. He's far too smart for that. Congress is not going to change. Full of very sick and evil people. How can that change? By the voters - not by Obama. SO at best, if elected POTUS, maybe - just maybe - he would be able to incrementally change some things. That would be wonderful. But please, let's keep it in perspective.

Also, the way I see it, McCain (the old fart) is the true candidate of change. He is a proven moderate who has achieved much by frequently reaching out to the other side of the aisle. Obama has not. Someone who is so "liberal" could not effect the changes he speaks of unless he would moderate his positions (i.e. compromise). Obama might be young and give stirring speeches, but his positions (teh few you can actually flesh out) are very old school.

How do you know that a candidate is a moderate? Simple. See how much he p.o.'s his "own" side. McCain has a lot of people on teh right angry, because they say he's not conservative enough, etc. They b!tch about the fact tthat McCain has worked with liberals. If you're looking for a moderate, those are telling signs that you've got one. COntrast that with Obama. He TALKS a good game, but he says everything that the far left in the nomination process want to hear. SO either he's lying to them or he's lying about being able to work things differently/compromise/moderate. You can't have it both ways.

p.s. Obviously, even if it could be changed fundamentally, those changes would not be "unalterable". Don't know why you chose that word.

Posted by slick | March 7, 2008 5:57 PM

"Being tough isn't the same as being negative."
--Jesse

"I think he should stay not so much positive, but cool."
--Enozinho

Pointing out your opponent's weaknesses shouldn't be a bad thing. Clinton is in bounds to raise "who do you want answering the phone" (the sleeping children was the part that sent that ad into eyeroll-inducing fearmongering), Obama is within his rights both to say it should be him, and to say why it shouldn't be Clinton. In turn, he has made transparency a theme--point out what he did in IL, in the Senate, and in his campaign to encourage this. AND point out what she didn't do. Including the tax returns, the library donors, but also the past--it's one thing to insist Whitewater had something to it, another to point to the pardons Bill gave out.

I would also say, in general, that she has been given too much of a pass on assertions: I have 35 years of experience; I played an important foreign policy role; I have passed the commander in chief threshold. Sadly, this usually appears in the media as "Hillary says...." Demand details. That's not going negative any more than insisting he provide details of how he would bring change, or what his health care plan does.

I don't see the knives from the Obama campaign on this. Asking why she prefers the appearance of a scandal to the reality of tax returns (did they not file for 7 years?) is not the dirtiest attack known to man; it's not even a dirty attack. It's a question about transparency, from someone who keeps announcing "I'm vetted. There's nothing new anyone could find on me." Don't just nod when she says that.

Posted by Deborah | March 7, 2008 6:04 PM

ambinder hates Hillary. He hates her. Just one of the many reasons I love her.

Posted by hadenough | March 7, 2008 6:05 PM

Except, of course, McCain has now flipped on the majority of issues that defined him as a moderate.

And is it possible for someone to make the case against Obama without engaging in self-congratulatory invective against his supporters?

Posted by Klaus | March 7, 2008 6:06 PM

As a late white-middle aged woman, it pains me to see Samantha Powers withdraw from her role with Obama's campaign. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who rode her husband's coattails to each of her political victories, Ms. Powers is smart and dedicated enough to one day run for the presidency on her own merits. It is truly monstrous that she had to step aside from the Obama campaign when she is exactly the type of person who could play a leading role in guiding us out of the foreign policy disasters of the past ten or more years. And, as a former managing editor of a large newspaper, I think the journalist who printed the words that Ms. Powers asked to be "off the record" should be beyond ashamed. If she were my employee, I would show her the door.

Posted by journalist | March 7, 2008 6:07 PM

Marc writes:

Issue two is the gutter-level of the presidential campaign, with the Obama team raising questions about the Clintononian allergy to transparency and the Clinton campaign comparing the tactic to Ken Starr's Whitewater fishing expedition.

Only Ambinder can write a sentence which implies that asking for Clinton's 2001-2006 tax-returns constitutes a "gutter-level" campaign tactic.

Onward to Puerto Rico, Marc!

Posted by wj | March 7, 2008 6:09 PM

I support Obama because he vows to raise the level of political discourse in the country. I believe McCain would do the same to a lesser extent.

You're not interested in buying any real estate, are you?

Posted by goethean | March 7, 2008 6:10 PM

Like Mike in MS said above, win Mississippi. Give a victory speech claiming that the win signifies voters really buy into his new politics. Tell us all how WE are tired of the Clintons and their irritating tactics.

The problem his "new politics" platform is that there is no good answer when he loses. He can't blame it on an outside force (e.g. the media) because his argument is that outside forces don't control voters. "Yes we can" and all that. So, basically, he has to stick to the high ground and have faith that voters will back him.

I sincerely wish him good luck with that. He's going to need it.

Posted by CG | March 7, 2008 6:10 PM

Slick,
I appreciate your remarks. I agree "unalterable" is a stretch, but I believe we must try. What we have now doesn't work.

I am trying to find my own peace of mind. If the Democrats can only deliver another Clinton, why do we need them?

Posted by Ken From Katonah NY | March 7, 2008 6:10 PM

I haven't read all comments yet, so apologies in advance for repeating sentiments.

I am an Obama supporter and will support him even if he goes negative. But for supporters who have more recently come to know him and to vote for him, I think Obama has to attempt to keep things above board.

My suggestion is that Obama avoid reporters, take it to the voters with town hall meeting after rally after town hall meeting and at those meetings make *his* case for the presidency. Talk about specifics and talk about his philosophy. Get specific about when he has reached across the aisle (I know he has, but keep doing it). Play only his game. I think it is truly him and therefore the best way for him to win. His authenticity is his most winning characteristic.

Finally, I would suggest that Obama politely refrain from addressing HRCs attacks by answering in sound bites. He should instead provide a website with mindnumbing details of the Rezko situation with newpaper clips and all of the detail he has provided to the media in interviews over the last 1.5 years. And then he should refer all questioners to the website.

Posted by jsc2008 | March 7, 2008 6:11 PM

Obama has to hold his fire for a little longer and simply frame up Hillary (ask questions and get others to ask questions) and defend himself from the most scurilous charges. A "there you go" again reponse will work on a lot of stuff.

Remember that he will win Mississippi and Wyoming, and after that it's a looooong way to Pennsylvania. He needs to make smart speeched and get his positions out there, without giving her any free media. Job One to avoid the last part is stop talking to foreign media, and go over the rules with surrogages again. If you are unprepared, do not go on.

That said, he has to be prepared to come out hard two weeks out from Pennsylvania and very hard 10 days out to the end. Be fair, but raise doubts. Hillary has lied a lot, is lying now about some things, and is trying to cheat to win. "Liar, cheater, mudflinger, crazy woman" is the frame. And it's not a hard frame to put her in, is it?

P

Posted by PBurns | March 7, 2008 6:18 PM

"Refreshingly honest"?

Cut out the euphamistic dither, Ambinder, their comments were "JUST PLAIN STUPID".

Were Obama and Plouffe "refreshingly honest" when they categorically denied the comments of Goofus, or were they "BALD FACED LIARS"?

The whole sorry crew has proven themselves, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, to be NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

Posted by robert ethan | March 7, 2008 6:18 PM

[Needs introduction–this would be the heart of the message….I’m not a speech writer so here goes]. The key to this whole thing is that Obama has to now paint Clinton as essentially McCain-lite. That both are establishment creatures. Also the chant of the crowd should be “Turn the Page” not “Yes We Can”. To be given Tuesday night after a commanding victory in the MS primary. This allows his message to ring clear in the six weeks up to Penn.

—

I Barack Obama run against the establishment. I run against two candidates who represent the insider mentality.

An establishment that said we had no chance, that money had to be raised through PACs and lobbyists, not a million strong small donations from regular Americans. An establishment that says the electoral map can not be redrawn.

The establishment in this contests is represented by two candidates, two dynasties.

John McCain is running for George Bush’s Third Term. An election between Sens. McCain and Clinton would guarantee another Bush or Clinton in the White House for now 32 years consecutively running.

[Turn the page]

I run against two opponents who both approved of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, who rattle sabers with Iran. Against two opponents who will keep us in Iraq indefinitely, furthering an occupation that costs lives and money and saps our efforts in Afghanistan. Against two opponents, both of whom criticized me for believing in diplomacy from a position of strength without fear.

[Turn the page].

I run against one candidate who will not disclose her tax returns and another…

Against one candidate who wants to parse the difference between rejecting and denouncing and another who will neither reject nor denounce an anti-Catholic bigot who blames the sufferings of the victims of Hurricane Katrina (American citizens, brothers and sisters of ours) on their sins.

[Turn the page]

The establishment is afraid. It has seen massive numbers of people join the political process across the country, who want not a divided America but a united one, individuals that the system with its micro-trends and micro-managing, its strategy based on Karl Rove style slash and burn politics, can not control.

The establishment mindset crosses party lines and will unite against its own party in order to maintain its power. The establishment senses its grip on power is loosening and therefore is in all out attack mode.

Attacks like one from my Democratic opponent says that she and John McCain are ready to lead and I am not.

It is true, It is very true; I am not ready to lead (BIG PAUSE FOR EFFECT)….

I AM NOT ready to lead this country into indefinite occupation, unending war, and endless bellicosity.

I AM NOT ready to lead this country back into the 1990s, the Cold War mindset, or a future that decreases American influence both at home and abroad.

[Turn the page]

I AM ready to lead this country into the 21st century, into a world and a mindset not limited by the Cold War constructs. A world of both extraordinary possibility and serious threat.

I am ready to lead this country as president into that day.

Posted by SonnyL. | March 7, 2008 6:20 PM

About the Rezko nonsense:

I saw this on Sullivan's site reagrding Rezko:

"Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama. "

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

I am puzzled. Why is Rezko associated with Obama if three of the others in the trial are associated with Clinton?

Posted by Ken From Katonah NY | March 7, 2008 6:20 PM

I am puzzled. Why is Rezko associated with Obama if three of the others in the trial are associated with Clinton?

Um, could it perhaps be because Rezko paid for part of Obama's house?

Posted by University | March 7, 2008 6:22 PM

He can't win any more states by going negative. The only real issue is whether Clinton can close gaps or pull out a few unexpected wins in contested primaries. I doubt it, but she might.

Generally, though, the reason Obama has to fight negative isn't to win more primaries but to show the superdelegates that they have a reason beyond pledged delegates to support him. He will probably fail, but he's stupid not to try. Thus far, he's doing terribly.

But then, the Obama campaign wasn't particularly positive. It was just vapid, which allows people to see whatever they want to see in it.

Posted by Cal | March 7, 2008 6:22 PM

Obama has no choice but to bloody her up and Lord knows it would be easy to do. If you doesn't she is going to kill him. Everyone knows the Clinton's are ruthless. If he wants to remain in this, he better remember some of those old street fight'in tricks from Chicago.

Posted by linda | March 7, 2008 6:23 PM

Ken: thanks.

He should take the HIGH ROAD. That would be both politically wise AND the right thing to do.

You cannot be the candidate of change and then act like a typical politician.

He has to walk the talk.

But that doesn't mean he has to lie down and take it. I don't think that he is. Pointing out certain things, most of which have been mentioned in other comments (e.g. HRC's lack of true experience), is fair game.

The real problem is that his campaign is based on a lie (or fantasy, whichever you prefer). He might be SLIGHTLY different, and well-meaining, and sincere - but he's still a liberal politician from Illinois. No escaping that. The "holier than thou" act (regardless of which person is doing the acting) doesn't take long to lose it's shine as reality sets in.

In the unlikely event that Obama does become the next POTUS, I think his supporters would become disappointed and disillusioned upon seeing the limitations of the polticial system.

Posted by slick | March 7, 2008 6:25 PM

I suggest that Obama asks the simple question: why should Democrats vote for anyone who endorses a Republican? Tie her to McCain, bring up her votes on Iraq, her flagburning bill, all of her real Bush-enabling record. End with "It's time to pick a President - Hillary Clinton has made her choice. We think Democrats should choose more wisely than to endorse George Bush's wingman. Barack Obama - it's time to turn the page." That strikes me as true, undeniable, and absolutely fair, when you think what she's been trying to do these last few days.

Posted by zilifant | March 7, 2008 6:27 PM

Listening to the rhythmic chanting coming from the Accolytes of the Cult Compound, you would think that somehow, the BRAINLESS, LOWBROW COMMENTS AND GENERAL DEMEANOR exhibited by their leaders in recent days was somehow a plot hatched and engineered by the Clinton Campaign.

They "****ed up" to quote Dr. Sam, not only "in Ohio", but also in Canada, England, and various parts of the U.S.A., and they did it entirely of their own volition. Stupid is as stupid does, and none of these people should be charged with any responsibility greater than small engine repair.

It's a case of "Nouveau Riche" trying to adopt the language of class and breeding, after suddenly and unexpectedly finding themselves living in an upscale neighbourhood. Doesn't happen overnight. You can put earrings on the pigs, but you still can't take them to the dance.

They are The Beverly Hillbillies.

Posted by robert ethan | March 7, 2008 6:36 PM

Um, could it perhaps be because Rezko paid for part of Obama's house?

Normally I don't respond to ignorant trolls, but this gets one. That is absolutely not true. I assume you're referring to the lot next door to his house that Senator Obama bought from Mr. Rezko for full market value.

Kind of like the full market value Bill Clinton got in that sweetheart deal with Accoona Corp...oh yeah, the shares had no value at the time of sale but somehow that scallywag Bill got $3.50 a share from an anonymous buyer!!

See how east that was?

Posted by Barry O | March 7, 2008 6:36 PM

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/15528823/detail.html
“Recent polls have shown Sen. Hillary Clinton with a healthy, albeit shrinking lead in Pennsylvania but late Friday afternoon, Obama’s campaign suggested it might not be able to win the state, which is a striking prediction that has come before either candidate has even begun campaigning in Pittsburgh. [..]
During an afternoon conference call with reporters, his campaign manager downplayed the importance of Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, saying Clinton would likely win it by a wide margin.
“We look at it as a whole picture, not about one state. We’ll be campaigning a lot in Pennsylvania, but our campaign won’t be defined by that state.”

The comment comes on the heels of a prediction by a Clinton top aide that she might be unbeatable in the Keystone state.”
Clever. He’s going back to the “underdog” role and managing expectations by stating aiming low.

This way if Clinton loses the blow will be much stronger, as “Obama was almost writing off PA at the beginning of the campaign there”

Posted by David Broom | March 7, 2008 6:39 PM

Fascinating. We now have Bobby Ethan writing an autobiography. A pig in earrings indeed - but with a tin ear and feet of clay. Still, the attempt to master English is amusing, in a slightly creepy way.

Posted by maxent | March 7, 2008 6:39 PM

Hmm is that Bobby the Boooby Ethan again? I really thought he'd given up on these complex issues and settled down to beating up children and small animals.

Posted by jager7 | March 7, 2008 6:42 PM

I basically think David Brooks is ALWAYS right on tactics, particularly among Demaocrats b/c of his distance and b/c he's as much of a Democrat (used to be a lefty) as either Clinton is. And he's right again.

This is still Week 1 of the six-week insanity that is the Pennsylvania campaign. This whole week will blow over. He needs to go to PA and make friends by being himself; everything will work out fine.

As for this week: Follow #1 Crisis Rule: Keep your head while your entire campaign is losing theirs. Your point about the temparature of the staffs is well taken. Except Hillary is full-on out there with her peeps. He can come out of this the cool calculator, not caught by events, but owning the long view. Now is the time for a major economic or foreign address (go-go Goolsbee can help, maybe.)

And ALWAYS, keep talking about her (their!)Iraq vote. McCain says he will defend his. Is she (still) with him on that? Yes? Then they are the same. No? You got the 3 am call wrong.

Last, don't talk about the math. Just know in reality you have already beat her, the American people are clamoring to elect you president, and draw strength from that fact.

Posted by Mike | March 7, 2008 6:44 PM

Damn it Robert Ethan, you were the one who insisted we go to the dance! I didn't even like you, just felt sorry for you, you dweeb!

yours,
Pig in Earrings

Posted by piginearrings | March 7, 2008 6:47 PM

settled down to beating up children and small animals

robert ethan is known to slowly torture animals with a fork. is this the same as beating them up?

Posted by Paco | March 7, 2008 6:49 PM

I think Obama should stay positive, but his message has to evolve to respond to the changing environment (Clinton's negative smears). I think he can build another hope-filled, yes we can type of stump speech and language around the verbage that his wife has used in her stump speech: "I'm tired of being afraid". Obama can go after the politics of fear; he can go after the people who play the fear card; he can talk about the consequences of living in fear the way like America has been living; he can talk about how politicians use the fear card to get elected; he can talk about politicians like Bush and McCain, and Clinton who play the fear card and talk tough thinking that the illusion of toughness makes them tough. Well, in fact, they are weak. They are weak on terrorism. Their tough-talking smack puts Americans in more danger, not less danger. Obama should label Hilary as weak and soft on terrorism and wanting to talk tough, like Bush, in order to create the illusion of toughness. Obama should not play the national security game as Hilary has defined it.

He can do all of this while building on his message of hope and while building on the FDR message of "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

He can still talk about the tax returns, and the donors without being negative or nasty. His surrogates can be tougher. They can say that the ticket for entry into being qualified for the highest office in the land is being willing to give copies of your tax returns. The fact that she has not done this and has continued to slide around on it means that she doesn not meet the minimum qualifications for this office.

Posted by Doug | March 7, 2008 6:50 PM

I don't think staying nice or being passive will work too well. The voters like a degree of edge in their candidates, and Obama has to show he can cut her back. They key thing is to do it quickly, effectively and with style. Zilifant has the right approach - Clinton gave a huge hostage to fortune in endorsing McCain. Use the clip of her onstage, praising him, then hit her with the sucker punch about Democrats picking a Democrat, not John McCain's Vicepresident. That really boxes her in, makes her either backtrack on McCain, or concede the Republican lite label. That's a bad place to be in a Democratic primary, and Obama should put her in that box quickly and with style. Don't use the old White House stuff - just tie her to McCain and Bush, and let the voters make sense of what she really is.

Posted by maraschion | March 7, 2008 6:52 PM

Normally I don't respond to ignorant trolls, but this gets one. That is absolutely not true. I assume you're referring to the lot next door to his house that Senator Obama bought from Mr. Rezko for full market value.

Of course it's true, to anyone with a lick of street sense. Helping to pay for Obama's house is exactly what that transaction was all about.

Posted by University | March 7, 2008 6:58 PM

It is the Obama campaign that injected the race card into this campaign. When Bill Clinton called Obama's Iraq war record a fairy tale, it was the Obama campaign with a complicit media taht twisted it by saying Clinton referred to Obama's campaign as a fairy tale. Obama put out the memo calling Hillary the senator from Punjab which is a racist attack on Indian Americans. It is the Obama campaign that tried to get the media to write stories about the Clintons' finances last fall.

It is Obama who kept saying for months that Hillary cannot be trusted. It is Obama who attacked Hillary first in the October Philadelphia debate. It is Obama who brought up White water and Rose law firm this week. In teh South Carolina debate, it was Obama who attacked Hillary FIRST for being on the Walmart board. Obama was the one who attacked Bill Clinton and praise Ronald Reagan in Nevada. He and his wife have been running against the nineties. Obama used Harry and Louis Republican style mailers to attack Universal Health Care. Obama was the first one to attack Hillary on NAFTA and got caught talkign to the Canadian government. Just today canadain prime minister's office put out a statement that there was no contact between Hillary's campaign and the Canadian government on NAFTA.

So, let us be fair here. Obama has run a mean and nagetive campaign right from the beginning. It is just that the media applauded him for attacking Hillary. All this holier-than-thou stuff saying how Obama never started a knife fight and how he is above it all is just a bunch of bull.

Posted by SRK | March 7, 2008 6:58 PM

History will regard the Obama campaign with similar derision as that accorded his spiritual predecessor, the short, fat, Elmer Fudd lookalike, former Mayor of Vermont and current Nemesis of the DNC.

"The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Off Their Mouth Straight.".

Perhaps discredited aide Austin "Goofus" Goolass will marry similarly discredited aide, the hatchet faced Samantha Power, and become AUSTIN POWER . Certainly it seems like Dr. Sam would be "The Top" in any of her relationships.

Posted by robert ethan | March 7, 2008 7:00 PM

Slick,
Last post, got to run....
No doubt, Obama is a rare politician, but how much rarer that he is also an African American and that with Obama we can erase centuries of bad baggage. So. Then. The Democrats, if they can't do this, then who needs them in our lives.
And if not Obama, has the time come for a new paradigm, a post capitalist society paradigm (See: Peter Drucker, The Post Capitalist Society).

Now, in this regard, if not the Democrats, then what? Consider the Boeing deal on the airplanes. The Military chose the European company, Airbus. If our own Army doesn't care about nationalism any more, then haven't the multinational corporation overturned the whole applecart? Isn't nationalism now dead? Aren't we really in a world of multinational corporations overruling national governments? Haven't the rich now formed international networks which overrule national governments? Aren't American worker's incomes now sinking even as China's worker's income rise? I could go on and on... Haven't we crossed some line recently? Aren't we now in a new world in which a new political paradigm is needed?

I don't know about you, but I am thinking if it weren't for Obama, I'd be ditching the Dems, and going radical right now. No longer radical right or left, but against the corporations, like Nader is trying to do, like Peter Drucker argued we need to face.

Posted by Ken From Katonah NY | March 7, 2008 7:01 PM

Tell me, SRK, do the Clintons pay you well for writing this illiterate drivel? You really ought to go on half-pay, because you are least convincing surrogate I've seen in a long time. Are you Howard Wolfson in disguise, or just Dumbo?

Posted by morzer | March 7, 2008 7:02 PM

Ken from Katonah, the press is ignoring the Clintons' connection to the Rezko flap because they're not from Chicago and - more importantly - still scared s***less of HRH's complaints of media bias.

Yes, I'd like to see Obama stay above the fray - sticking to issues and message. I'm glad to hear that, in PA, he's planning to scrap the rallies and concentrate on town halls.

My main concern right now is that the Clintons will gladly take down the party in order blaze their path back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Party leaders as well as the press need to hold both candidates' feet to the fire, but especially the Clintons. They're clearly inflicting the most damage.

The press can do their job by showcasing Clinton's refusal to run on issues and her record, preferring slash-and-burn tactics to anything remotely positive. They can start by giving Clinton's role in the Canada/NAFTA story as they did Obama's. Instead, they appear to be taking her denial at face value - something they refuse to do with Obama, whether in this matter or Rezko.

Posted by Judy | March 7, 2008 7:06 PM

Of course it's true, to anyone with a lick of street sense.>

Uh huh. By "street sense" you of course mean "Clinton campaign sanctioned bullshit". Again, you're incorrect. His dealing with Rezko was about an adjacent lot. Not the best of judgement perhaps, but certainly not illegal. As a Clinton dolt you should be well versed in the art of plausible deniability.

Now, be a good little troll and learn how to use the Google.

Posted by Barry O | March 7, 2008 7:06 PM

Hmm, it seems our pig-fancier Robert the Troll Ethan has slithered back to display his illiteracy. You know, looking at his range of references, I have to conclude that he's some sort of gay redneck who watched cartoons and considers himself enlightened on that sad and slender basis.

Posted by yashel | March 7, 2008 7:07 PM

We're looking at two scenarios playing out. Hillary continues to maul Obama and destroys his chances for the win in November should he get the nomination (with the vain hope she can win the nomination in 2012). Or. she manages to win the nomination using these tactics but with fewer pledged delegates and alienates the large numbers of new voters and independents who have been attracted to Obama's candidacy, thereby giving herself a pyrrhic victory and losing in the general. How incredibly f---ed up. And, by the way, the main reason this is going to play out this way is because Hillary would rather destroy Obama than lose the nomination. Remember, "she's in it to win it." Democratic party or prospect of victory in November be damned.

Posted by enough already | March 7, 2008 7:10 PM

yep, 'ol bob ethan is back to play again. he's in the hall of shame with the likes of tim k, ken, petey, ruth, et al.

Posted by Heinrich | March 7, 2008 7:12 PM