Can he lose all fifty states?

LINK

Obama's 'Sense of Urgency' Gambit

By Craig Crawford | April 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (169)

Barack Obama's latest tactical shift seems to be loosely based upon the notion that everyone should assume he is the Democratic nominee and that waiting another six weeks for the end of primary season would boost Republican John McCain's prospects for the general election five months later.

So now the Obama plan is to ignore party rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and focus on McCain. A planned debate for Sunday in North Carolina was scrapped because Obama won't do it. In remarks on Tuesday night after his crushing defeat in the Pennsylvania primary, Obama only mentioned Clinton by name once, while referring to McCain seven times.

Obama strategist David Axelrod underscored his candidate's new approach, telling reporters "there is a sense of urgency about the time we're losing and a sense of urgency that we not savage each other to the benefit of Senator McCain."

Republicans do not require help in savaging Democrats. Another six weeks of competitive campaigning will not give the GOP any ideas they haven't already conjured up -- and then some. Such fear-mongering about Republicans is just what Obama has accused Clinton of doing in arguing that he is un-vetted and implying that he is unelectable.

There are at least two more reasons to discount the Obama camp's self-serving sense of urgency to end the Democratic race before June 3. First, the voters apparently don't agree or they would not keep reviving Clinton's candidacy as happened yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Also, what is to be gained by drawing McCain into the spotlight? The presumptive GOP nominee has shown great zeal at counterpunching whenever Obama or Clinton goes after him. And those are about the only times that McCain garners significant news media attention.

she is welcome to run (how gracious of you)
Hillary going negative after she is mathematically eliminated (it's over, get over it)
Obama has won the nomination.  Time to move ahead (it's over, get over it)
negative campaign waged internally against our presumptive nominee.  That is why I am against another Obama/Hillary debate. (it's over, get over it)
Shame that Hillary is putting herself over the good of our party. (ha! ha!)
Open your eyes (belittling)

If people begin doubting Obama's strength and ability to handle tough questions, they begin doubting his candidacy.  And with the whole thing being built on a bed of "Hope and Change" sand, he may find his political reality shifting quite dramatically ... and not in a good way.

"Well, first of all, I want to go on the record with something I find very disturbing: Senator Clinton has asserted that only she is qualified to restore America's reputation in the world, and yet, she apparently could not be bothered to learn that, in the French language, "of" and "de" is redundant, and, maybe worse, her pronunciation is so bad she may have done irreparable harm to our relationship with France.  I have, therefore, contacted the appropriate diplomatic officials to see if we can set thigns right.  Now, that being said, I want to assure the American people that if there are to be more umbrellas made, they should be made in this country, and if I am president, I will spare no effort to ensure that Terrence brings his umbrella factory to the US."

As long as no one is going to land a knock out blow, it benefits both candidates, so I can see them going for it.

Unaffiliated voters can participate in North Carolina's semi-open primary, and although Obama split independent voters with Clinton in Ohio and Texas, political observers say independents in North Carolina appear likely to tilt back toward Obama, as they have done in other southern states.

Just how has she been defeated?

:)

Either way here, he loses.  If he doesn't debate, he's trying to "get out of the kitchen."  It bolsters her message that he's not prepared for the job.  If he debates and doesn't sharpen his rhetoric, then his ability to communicate well is further questioned.

Or maybe they just think the damage to their own reputations will be an acceptable price to pay for purging Clinton and her supporters.

I have no problem with a debate.  I do have a problem with a circular firing squad in which both candidates are simply attacking each other.  

Frankly, the only reason it was even a big deal is because he arrogantly made the remark that he found wearing lapel pins to be "phony" symbols of patriotism.

Why anyone considering running for the presidency would adopt that stance is beyond me.  

The voter clearly thought it was important.

When I heard it, I thought it was a nice soft pitch that Sen. Obama would smash out of the ballpark and gain some confidence for the rest of the debate. He has a good answer to this and he could have shown some respect to the voter.

His response, however, was weak. Whining about the question is not a winning strategy. Dismissing the person who asked the question was disrespectful to her concerns and also not a winning strategy.

I am glad that the Dem party can stand together against racism, even while I condemn it for being so silent about all the sexism that's been hurled at HRC.

And no, I didn't read the ads as racist, coded or otherwise. Your argument saying that they are considerably weakens your demand that the ads cease, so much so that it's hard to take your demand seriously.

Rev. Wright said what he said, then his church sold the DVDs. There's nothing underhanded or racist about it.

However, guilt by association sucks. It really, really sucks. Sen. Obama could've come out front on this with his own ad: "I've lived an interesting life and known interesting people. I don't always agree with them. In fact, I often argue and dispute with them. But I try to understand them. Even good ideas can come from people you disagree with."

That falls within his own messaging of unity and change.

Of course, this leaves Hillary with the chance to not only look strong where he looks weak, but to engage the people of Indiana in Town Hall forums where people are invited and encouraged to ask tough questions.  And where will Obama be?

On-stage in the spotlight making the same damn speech he's been making for months with no one getting a chance to ask anything at all.

And now Obama said about Michelle.

There are still several issues yet to be discussed that would be of interest.

Global warming and the need or not need for research/relationship to the executive office

Position on privacy laws for citizens

Government agency rebuilding plans.

If al Sadr's supporters are not all jailed or shot before the October election he stands to gain major power. He has brought in the Sunnis and is for a unified Iraq. He is also for total withdrawal of US troops. What if Iraq aligns with Iran, Syria and other non US allies, will we continue a war there until all the those voicing anti american sentiment are killed or jailed?

I admit I haven't seen the one with gangs in it.

The one about Wright basically plays the clip of Wright and then creates the case of guilt by association.  I might disagree with that case, but of course Clinton can't even be in the same room with Scaife for 10 minutes before she is condemned, so OK.

Whatever.

Anyway, I don't see any racial overtones in the Rev. Wright ad.

It's very straight forward.  No blond floozies saying "call me" like we've seen before in the attack ads on Harold Ford.