http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/mothersday/?sc=1846&utm_source=1846&utm_medium=e

The problem for Obama is that there is no there, there.  How does he change the perception that he is not tough if he actually is not tough?

You are asking too much of him.  And why are we even bothering?

We've already got 2 candidates who are ready, willing, and able to become President.  Both McCain and Clinton are tough and tested.  Obama, not so much.

This is why I will not give up on Clinton.  She is showing how tough she is by hanging in there and fighting the good fight.  The fact that Obama is starting to lose white men should bother him a great deal.  If this plays out over the next four races, then he's got a serious problem.

His campaign is based on a series of passive aggressive insuations about his opponents that the media an surrogates gleefully amplify on his behalf.  

He's not shown he can fight it out in a debate without calling the other person silly or accusing the questioner of being unfair.

How about demonstrating:

1. an interest in governing as opposed to running
   
2. empathy
   
3. an interest in understanding a wide range of problems (as opposed to getting fed "positions")and the pros and cons of various solutions
   
4. class
   
5. humility

Also, the Foxy Brown/Coffy characters PG portrayed in the 70s were the best female/power archtypes.  Hillary is def the political equivalent in 2008.

That's why I support Hillary.

Note the comments that the Repubs are saying... they snark about Obama's new type of politics and are calling him a hypocrite already.

Obama may have declared victory and is moving on to the GE (unity?), so are the Repubs.  They are going after him for declaring victory in an effort to pick up more Clinton supporters.

Typically, this would be the sign of undefined or diffuse brand and brand management. Obama does come across in brand-speak as "different" but is he "relevant". Does he solve problems in everyday life? On the policy side he's completely vague, but Ben Page had this theory of purposive ambiguity-- if you were defined then the opposition candidate could run against you.

The follow-up being that you would build an "emotional" bond, hence the "Lovemarks" approach to brand management. So maybe his handlers did it on intentionally. But frankly, if his image is so low on all the brand image stuff, then who would buy it? Wouldn't you want to know what you were buying if you were shopping for a Prez?

The change is due to the change in the role that Clinton is perceived as playing --- she's not "Bill Clinton's wife" anymore, she has become her own person -- Bill Clinton is now married to HER, not the other way around.

And tough is just one of the things he isn't.

"Can't I finish my waffles?"
"I've answered 8 questions already!"

The thing is, I'm sure he is kinda tough because look at some of the tactics he has used, he is truly the one who'll do anything to win.  But the Regressives were able to destroy actual war heroes, what in the Hell do you think they're going to do to him?  And no, I'm not "afraid" of the Regressives, but I'm not 20, and I know what those bastards will do.  They won't even touch race, certainly not directly, too risky and unnecessary when they have Ayers and the like.  That issue doesn't bother me (and niether does Wright actually for that manner.)  But Independents will be bothered by it.  Remember in 2004 there was a story about a guy standing in a food bank trying to get his children fed yet he was still going to vote for Bush because he wouldn't allow Homosexuals to marry.  We in the blogoshere are generally much more engaged than the average citizen, and know better, but because OUR world has fundamentally changed due to the Blogs, we think everyone's has, which is  a dangerous presumption.  Hillary won't win a majority of voters like him either, our point is that she will make McSame compete harder for those voters than will Barack.

And now with all of these pronouncements that people like me aren't needed because the Obama people have a whole new party planned, uhm, okay I guess.  I have only voted loyally Dem since '88, so who f*cking needs me, right?  Kinda like Shrub was going to revolutionize the Republican party, and oh boy, has that been a roaring success.  Barack has my vote, and I don't think he'll be a bad President, but I don't think he can even win.  Let me put it this way, the Barack people are going "All In" on this hand, rending the Party asunder, defaming it's best President since FDR to achieve their goal(at least IMHO, LBJ was good but had the whole Viet situation, and Kennedy never really had a chance to do much.  I respect the hell out of Carter, but he was a crappy President.  Truman might be better than LBJ, but we are getting off track here a little.)  You'll have my vote, not my support (money, phone banking, door knocking) and there are millions like me, who will vote for BO, but will do it with a sigh.  But there are millions who won't.  He is not winning Nebraska and Montanna and places like that, he does have a chance in Colorado and Virginia, but the kind of support he is bleeding right now is exactly the kind that he will need if he is to win in those States.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but I just think we're doomed with this guy, and his unseemly internet thugs smirking and dancing in the End Zone is getting a little more than tiresome.  Being called a racist HAS become tiresome.  His people had better come up with a better strategy then White Liberal Guilt, or we're going to get our clocks cleaned.

Obama enabled Clinton to draw in voters that may have been sexist before--because in the case of clinton vs obama, clinton is still the "masculine" choice.  Usually, a strong woman gets branded as b*itchy, like she did in the 90s, but in this case she succeeds because she's the more "masculine" candidate.  There is nothing new about minorities working hard and having to show toughness to get past a glass ceiling...it's just usually much harder.  

However, clinton has been savaged by the press because our culture has become more misogynistic--NOT just sexist.  Looking at previous campaigns of female candidates for president, we seem to review them under different lenses and act like the concept of a woman leader is totally new.  Arguably in 1872, the candidate was actually considered strong because the idea of a successful businesswoman was interesting to the public.  However in the middle part of last century, the economic changes led the media to play up the domestic/kitchen images--even when the candidate was a multi-term US Rep/Senator.  

I can't see how Obama has anything to learn from Clinton about image-building. Bowling lessons, a definite maybe. Image-making, I don't see it.