home

Obama Talks About America's Future

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:48:05 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The LA Times thinks Obama blew it here. I don't, I agree with him. America is not what it once was and all our children deserve better The question he was asked: Why is he running for President.

Republicans have tarnished this country's image during the past 8 years. America can do better. We have a chance to do better with Democrats back in control of the White House and Congress. Good for Obama. He spoke the truth.

< McCain: The Ties That Bind | Iraq And The Georgia Republic >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Talks About America's Future | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hmm... (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:46:32 AM EST
    I think that if there's something wrong with what Obama said, it's that it reinforces the notion that he's a stereotypical latte liberal that looks down on other Americans (bitter, gun-clinging overly religious folks who only speak one language) and like to blame America for a lot of the bad things that happen in the world. I'm not saying that's accurate, but it's the narrative the Republicans are trying to build, and this fits into that.

    I'm not sure what Obama meant, exactly. Maybe he's talking about our image abroad, in terms of torture, military tribunals, and the Iraq War, among other things. I could agree with that.

    But in many other ways, America is farther along than it's ever been. We continue to make strides in equality and fairness--we have full legal gay marriage in California and Massachusetts, for example, not that Obama or anyone other prominent Democrats helped. The Democratic primary field this year included an African American, a Latino, and a woman.

    When was the time that Obama looks back on fondly, when America was what it was? Surely not the Reagan/Bush I years. Probably not the Carter years--for all of Carter's good intentions, he was not a successful president. Certainly not the Nixon/Ford times. Any time before that, we barely had legal racial equality and even worse gender disparity than now.

    He couldn't possibly mean when Bill Clinton was president, could he?

    One of Bill's best lines (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by 1040su on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."  

    Parent
    Obama never seems particularly happy (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:05:53 AM EST
    when he talks about America.  I notice that most of his speeches seem to point out what is wrong but don't really stress what he is going to do to fix things (in solid terms, not the "Hope & Change" thing he's so good at doing).

    I have no access to sound so I can't play the video -- but I think it is one that I read about that says he would like to take America back to some period in the past.  

    I can't imagine what period that would be since things are generally better in the USA now compared to the past.  Was he just talking about "economically" and "with Bill Clinton" or what?    

    Your first sentence is (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:36:53 AM EST
    spot on.  Michelle began talking about how they themselves are a success story after there was an uproar.  

    A question:  Are his speechwriters too young - they miss the historical view of the USA - the historical "peoples" view - the party's historical view.  He needs some accomplished, experienced Democrats' views as well - not exclusively but as well.

    To my eye - he has made a choice to jettison the old party and seek a new coalition.  Why throw your friends away?  I don't get it.  

    Parent

    I think you may have hit (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:59:19 AM EST
    on something. His speeches do have the ring of someone who has learned about history but has not experienced it, and his twenty-something speech writers don't add any first hand knowledge to his own.

    Parent
    and the 20-something (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    speech writers -- if he depends on them solely -- make it more and more difficult for Obama to connect with and speak to those voters he's going to need, but as of yet doesn't have:  blue collar and rural.

    I can't help but think Obama is constantly eschewing the advice of those who have more experience running national campaigns and insisting on making decisions himself.  Ergo, you get silly mistakes like this stumble of an answer when, in reality, it's kind of a no-brainer.

    When someone asks "Why are you running for President?" what they're REALLY asking is a combination of "Who ARE you?" and "Why should I vote for YOU?"

    An awkward lecture on the ills of society or hwo we've lost our way isn't the best response to give.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    The sense I have always gotten from Obama is that he doesn't personally have any real ambitions. He waits for people with connections, money, ideas to come to him and offer to take him there.

    Nothing in his background suggests otherwise. I doubt the first run for state office was his idea, his friends did that for him.

    His Russert interview when he said he wouldn't have enough experience to run for president in 2008 was true, but Kennedy, Kerry, and a few senior mentors offered to direct the show.

    Parent

    Favreau is twenty-six (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    [The result was a speech with a light touch on the most striking point about Obama's victory: the historic nature of a black candidate's win in the almost entirely white state of Iowa. "The first line was simply, 'They said this day would never come'," says Favreau. "Even when we do speeches to African-American crowds, it's hinted at and it's understood. It's not hammered over the head."]  

    Newsweek Jan 08

    .......[Sensing the hype, Favreau catches himself quickly. "I looked at the Edwards people in 2004 and thought they were such Kool-Aid drinkers. Now I'm one of them myself."]

    Parent

    the "amazement" of his win (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    in Iowa has always confused me.  Clinton was never expected to win in Iowa.  In fact her campaign at one point considered not even running in Iowa.  For a long time Edwards was expected to win in Iowa.  But somehow, after the fact, it was supposed to be a stunning loss for Clinton there?

    Hillary would have been better off if she had done to Obama in Iowa the same thing that McCain did to Romney in one of the early caucuses.  She should have had enough of her supporters go over to Edwards and give him the win if it appeared that Obama was going to win.  An Edwards win would not have been difficult to explain since he had been campaiging there continuously for 4 years anyway and it would have stopped Obama from gaining so much traction.

    Parent

    Evidently (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    She'd have been smarter to take herself off the ballot. Then she could have claimed half the ballots for herself after Edwards dropped out mo matter what the actual outcome was.

    Parent
    'Things Are Generally Better Now'? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    Maybe you're looking farther back, but when I read this comment, I kind of scratch my head because, frankly, the last 8 years have been very bad ones in America as far as I'm concerned.

    I've always assumed Obama was referring to this period as well: so many things we've lived through and witnessed from Katrina to constitutional abuses and torture etc. that I NEVER imagined I would see in the U.S. in my lifetime.

    As to Obama talking positively about the U.S., I think a recurring comment in his narrative is very powerful: how much he has been able to achieve and how it was only possible because he was in the U.S., availing himself of the possibilities here.


    Parent

    please list a few of his achievements (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ford Prefect on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    Can you please list a few of his achievements? I am not meaning this as a rhetorical question. But his public and private jobs dont show any worthwhile achievements, one that is worthy of a leader of a nation, (not to mention a pre-eminent nation) in the world for sure. His tenure in HLR went without him writing a single article on legal matters. His senior lecturer position went without him making one single significant scholarly contribution to the legal literature. His stay at IL senate went without any worthwhile contributions (not withstanding his co-sponsorshipts) until the very last year or two when senate majority went to the hands of Emil Jones and Obama got favors over other long-standing significant contributors in the IL senate, just so he could run for senate. Apparently he was too bored there to even contribute. In the US senate he has barely had time to run for presidential primary, let alone make significant or leadership contributions. Where are those achievements you speak of?

    If you are speaking of his winning the primary, I guess you could consider that an achievement, not so much due to any significant contributions he made to american political/policy discourse. His campaign famously says that his is not about policies and minutia. He "achieved" primary victory due to 1) super delegates deciding he should be the nominee 2) his handlers solid grasp of the caucus process and the advantages he could gain in the caucuses, even if he didnt win the popular votes eventually. If anyone achieved anything his campaign strategists achieved enormously with astute understanding of a) the disproporionate gains that caucuses can make (delgates/vote wise) for a candidate, b) how to hit the other candidate's "baggage" through the media acting as a proxy and without leaving any trace from the campaign itself c) how to pounce on every criticism of Obama as a racist remark and hence disarming the opponents essentially. Perhaps a bit of that credit goes to Obama as the candidate, because candidates always deserve some credit for running a good campaign. But not much more, based on his record as previous candidacies, where the opponents either dissipated on their own, or he lost.

    Maybe it is me. Shouldnt we aspire to have more achievements worthy of a world leader out of a man who would running this country during crises and good times?

    Parent

    Did he ever really thing too far outside his (none / 0) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    neighborhood?

    He doesn't seem to be the ambitious, curious type. More of a short-term thinker and a follower who depends on the rich and powerful people he encounters.

    I do think that when the people who wanted him to seek the presidency started talking him into it, he may have looked at the Bill Clinton income and decided he really wanted to be a former president, so would go along. He's not a real hard campaigning candidate.


    Parent

    Well, I Guess We'll Have to Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    How far he's come from where he started seems to me to indicate enormous ambition, and ability in the form of successfully implemented ambition.

    Especially when you see what so many here criticize him as: an inside the beltway newcomer and--he is the presidential nominee of a major party.

    Parent

    Pffffft! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    "Rich 'privates' schools"

    I shudder to imagine what 'rich privates' might be...

    "Gimme degrees"

    "Gift appointments"

    "Swindled elections"

    Yeah, this is a serious discourse I want to engage in.

    (Cue laugh track.)

    Parent

    No Apology Needed for Extra 'S' (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    I'll own I was snarky picking on you for that.

    I've often gone and found positive material about Obama to refute some erroneous claims about him here. I've tried to engage respectfully with people here who repetitively post negative ideas about him--some of it reasonable (even as I disagree with it) some of it silly, some of it ugly.

    Sorry, you surpassed my capacity to engage with you with substance. I cited the things you wrote that did it for me. You're entitled to your enmity toward Obama. I'm not convinced that me responding to it does either of us much good or makes any difference.

    Parent

    'You Can't Tell Me..." (none / 0) (#112)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    I think that was my point, actually.

    There's nothing either of us can write that the other will listen to, me because your tone tells me you are anti Obama, period. Me, because...well, I'm not.

    I'm anti another 4 years of Republican presidency and pro electing someone who supports more progressive policies than we've seen in years.

    Parent

    Not much of a clip. (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:05:38 AM EST
    It would help if he were more specific.
    What future does he not want for his children?
    I hope the future Obama wants for his (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by prittfumes on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:46:59 AM EST
    children does not mirror the wonderful past this AA lived through here in the Old South before, during, and for some time after, the civil rights movement. The religious right has been trying for years to "take America back" to the "Judeo-Christian principles on which America was founded." That couldn't possibly be what Obama is talking about, could it?

    Parent
    America never was what it used to be (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:24:28 AM EST
    There were systemic problems even during the brightest points in our past, and signs of hope and progress during the darkest hours.

    From a purely political point of view, what he said was stupid.  

    Optimism beats realism at the ballot box.  Just ask Jimmy Carter.

    I (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by sas on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:27:58 AM EST
    agree in principle with everything you said.  America deserves better.

    On the other hand , this isn't the person to do it.

    Two AWFUL choices in November......

    UGH

    "He spoke the truth." (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:01:34 AM EST
    as if that's ever been smart politically?

    The problem here isn't that he spoke the truth about America -- candidates from the 'out' party always talk about 'negative' changes that they hold the party in power responsible for.

    The problem is that 'the truth' was in response to the question 'why are you running for President'.   The answer to that question has to be about why he should be president....

    mmmm (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:13:08 AM EST
    Loved Hillary's response.

    (If Obama was smart, he'd be taking lessons from her!)

    Parent

    I agree the clip is weak (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:14:22 AM EST
    but than so was Obama's answer. What did he mean once was or could be? I want to know how Obama defines America. What future does he want for his children? I think theirs looks pretty bright no matter what.

    Is Obama talking about the war in Iraq and GWB? Is he talking about our stature in the world?  Is he talking about  our greedy nature, corporate as well as their CEOs? Are we discussing the attacks on core values like FISA? Are we talking about the environment? Are we talking about sexism, ageism, racism in America?

    What does he think is great about America? Where  does he want to bring us back to? How does Obama bring us to his undefined place of "could be"? His answer was his standard rhetoric, but what can one expect from Obama? He's not exactly known for his substance.

    I agree there's plenty of work to do to regain some of our standing in the world, but I'm not convinced that Obama can define himself or the future of America. Core beliefs are easily fed from mind to lips and on that score Obama fails. Words are nice but conviction comes from the heart. I'm not so sure Obama knows where his heart lies in his relationship with Democrats, let alone America. He has yet to prove that he can drive his words into action.  Action is the follow up to words, after all someone has to draw the map to get us to the land of "could be".

    What do you bet (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by suki on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:23:49 AM EST
    that we will be told what Obama really meant by days end?
    Any takers?

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by AllenS on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:29:47 AM EST
    If you want to look at Obama's accomplishments, and what kind of president he would be, look no farther than the south side of Chicago, where he was the community organizer. He created nothing of value. Things got worse. Housing? Jobs? Crime rates? Graduation rates? Good luck.

    Heck, yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:17:02 AM EST
    If Obama could make a concrete difference in a community beset by every manner of hardship, economic and otherwise, then he could easily make his case for POTUS.

    The something of adversity...blah, blah.  There's a quote I can't remember.

    Parent

    First President of the Harvard Law Review (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    who contributed nothing to it.

    He doesn't think about anyone too many degrees removed from his personal life. He works for the people who make his life comfortable financially and will lift his ego.

    I am very concerned that he will be so much worse than GWB if he gets in there. Afterall, the country hasn't quite imploded under GWB, so how much damage can an Obama administration do since they probably don't want to start another war.


    Parent

    same record (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    he generated while teaching constitutional law in Chicago.  Never published a paper.

    Don't we all think the repugs know all of this "lack of accomplishment" data and will be pushing it after the conventions?

    Won't they compare the state of the south side of Chicago before and after his days as a community organizer to see what he accomplished?

    Won't they examine his record in the ILL states senate and see that it was manufactured for him by  Emil Jones in his last year there?

    Won't they bring out the clip of Chris Matthews hammering the Obama supporting politician for 5 minutes trying to get the guy to name ONE accomplishment and he couldn't do it.  They just play that snippet as a whole campaign ad on its own.

    Parent

    Canned speeches (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:25:12 AM EST
    Has a definite aversion to specifics. I would really like to see all the Democrat's pound the Republican's on specifics and offer alternative solutions. I realize that by generalizing you avoid accountability but I think the change this country has be screaming for (at least the last two years) requires a bolder and more direct approach.

    Obama stumbles trying (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:54:05 AM EST
    to find an answer to a rather simple question.  Why is he running?  To ensure our children a better future?  That's nothing more than a stump speech response.  Surely somebody as articulate as we've been told Obama is could have given a better answer.

    I'm almost amazed that he (none / 0) (#35)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:03:48 AM EST
    stumbled through this answer because his primary ads showing him making his "change" speeches always ended with "and that's why I'm running for president of the united states." Suddenly, he can't remember what he said? Of course, there were many reasons cited in those ads. Also, someone running for pres. who cannot with definition and clarity answer that question on the spot with better clarity, (and I believe the question was from a 7 or 12 year old, the future of this country) should not be seeking that office, imo.

    Parent
    You can only take the CHANGE meme so far (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:07:24 AM EST
    before it's start to backfire on you

    If you watch the piece in context (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by fafnir on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    (as I did on C-SPAN), you will see Obama yammer and stammer about things unrelated to the girl's question. It wasn't until the end of his nonsensical meandering that stumbled upon a sensible response.

    if his campaign (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    still hasn't moved him past the Stammer and Meander Stage when it comes to his ability to answer a question, I strongly suspect his performance in the debates will decidedly underwhelm a lot of people.

    I can't help but think Obama the Man -- especially under the harsh lights of a Presidential Debate where one can't Hope and Change oneself out of any self-induced pickles -- will in no way measure up to Obama the Hype and many, many people will sit back in confusion and think 'THIS is who the Democrats want me to vote for?  No way!'

    Parent

    Seems that would either be a lack of focus, (none / 0) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    or a lack of interest in what he is doing.


    Parent
    One other point: (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:32:58 AM EST
    Jeralyn thinks Obama gave a good answer.  But this kind of question should be standard fare on the campaign.  Consider it in the context of a job applicant.  Shouldn't he expect to be asked why he wants this job?  Shouldn't he have a good answer to impress his potential employer?  I wonder if Jeralyn would hire somebody that so obviously couldn't come up with a better, more articulate response than Obama's.

    it sounds like the standard answer (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    from a 17 year old girl in a beauty pageant.

    Q. If you were granted one wish, what would it be?
    ---------------
    spends a few seconds pretending to be in deep thought with very serious look on face.
    ------------------

    A.  Well, I guess I would wish for World peas for the future of all the children.

    Audience responds with thunderous applause.....


    Parent

    Should be a wish for (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by tree on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM EST
    "whirled peas", I believe.

    Parent
    oh, crap... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:48:55 AM EST
    i'll do better next time.   LOL

    Parent
    This what a real beauty pageant (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    contestant sounds like.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    In a job interview, when asked, "why do you want to work for this company?" you don't say, because this company ain't what it used to be.

    This may be true, but you don't say it.  As horrible as nationalism is, this country is about saluting the flag, saying America is better than everyone else about x, yata, yata.

    Voters don't want to hear the truth. The truth doesn't sell.  And besides that, the um,uh, oh, uh, um, truth definitely doesn't instill confidence.

    So there you have it.

    Parent

    What was America like before??? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by stefystef on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:17:23 AM EST
    I'm always curious about that because I think it depends on who is talking when you hear someone say that America can go back to what it was.

    Much of the hype behind the "American Dream", is just that- hype.  The reality has always been pretty ugly.

    Tripped up by a 7-year old... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    That sure bodes well for an Obama presidency, doesn't it?

    It's almost like he can't function unless the question triggers a pre-written, probably many-times-delivered segment of a speech.

    He reaches for the bumper-sticker sound-bite, always, and while that aproach may be somewhat appropriate for a 7-year old, he couldn't even get that one right in this clip.  "Uh...um...uh...," confusing what we could be and what we were - I felt like he might suddenly blurt out, ""Ooh, it's right on the tip of my tongue - oh, I've got it - we're the change, the change we've been waiting for - that's it, that's it - the CHANGE - how could I forget THE CHANGE!!!"

    Ugh.

    but, even though asked (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    by a child, it is a standard question.  Why wouldn't he have a pre-programmed answer ready for that question that didn't require all the umms and ahhs in it.

    Parent
    Maybe he only has the "asked by an (3.66 / 3) (#59)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    adult" answer...

    When I listened to Obama's lame response, all I could think was, his staff is now drilling into his head: "Never let a child ask a question, no matter how cute the kid is!"

    Parent

    I thought it was a good answer.... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by LatinoDC on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    both politically and in content...

    Politically: It makes the case about how bad the Bush years were/are and how McCain would simply be the continuation.  It also makes the idea of "change" stronger.

    In content: It stresses the potential the U.S has.  It also encourages people who see something wrong to get involved and try to change it.  This is particularly important considering the person who asked the question.

    Parent

    hahahahahahaha (3.25 / 4) (#74)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:33:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh, I just had a flash memory (none / 0) (#87)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    of the numerous HR people who have published "blind ads" for job openings that I have applied to and then had their first question be, "what made you want to work for [name of company]?" It's hard not to studder through the only answer available, but after the third experience, something has kicked in that won't come across as stunned disbelief.


    Parent
    Can I be a contrarian here (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    I agree that America is "no longer what it once was" in the sense of its long period of post WWII power, influence, economic dominance (or, as LBJ, to my immense irritation, would drawl in almost every speech "the richest, most powerful nation on earth"). Such things do not last -- circumstances change, new power dynamics, and new economic competitors, arise, the advantages of being a victor and prime benefactor of conditions arising out of terrible events like WWII give way to the unaffordable burdens and responsibilities of being an over-extended "super" power. Such a decline after such a period of expansion (both economically and militarily) is inevitable. No president can bring the fruits of that victory, or the economic advantages of that era, back, nor should one try (although some do try with new, increasingly detrimental wars). We need to acquire some humility and, despite how frightening the thought may be, accept reality (that our position in the world is changing). We need to start thinking and talking about how we acquire and maintain a decent standard of living (for all Americans) within the context of these new, more difficult economic circumstances as well as how we can keep ourselves safe in an environment where more and more of the world's players are flexing their own economic and military muscle and becoming impatient with our presumption and demand that they must follow our leadership and acknowledge our superiority.

    The world's leaders may like Obama better than Bush -- because certainly he is less in-your-face presumptuous and arrogant about American superiority and power than Bush, and because of his biography and personal charm. But they are never going to see him as another Kennedy. Or perhaps even a Bill Clinton. Because this is now a world in which the American power (economic and military) those Presidents represented is seen by many of the world's players, friends and allies, as less and less important to and/or aligned with their own.

    If Obama were talking more strongly about restoration in the domestic sense -- restoring our civil liberties, repairing our sense of economic justice -- I'd be applauding.

    But what I see as most operative in this election is what has been most operative in most elections since Viet Nam -- an argument over who can best maintain (or restore) America's unassailable position as, far and away, the world's top dog.

    That ain't gonna happen. But neither, yet, is our acceptance of that fact and our willingness to confront what it demands from us. To me, both these candidates, in very different ways, are candidates who represent America's overwhelming need to deny reality.

    Obama did blow it (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by rjarnold on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    by being incredibly vague. Do we even know when he means America used to be better, who lead when America was better, and who made America worse? And since it is so vague, people can intrepret it however they want.

    Instead of making vague statements like this, he should be making specific attacks on the failures of Bush and the Republicans, and associate himself with the success of Clinton and the Democrats.

    I've heard Obama supporters say (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    that anything but vagueness is too wonkish and is therefore boring.....

    Parent
    I've heard some say that too (none / 0) (#95)
    by tree on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    and all it does when they say such things is cement the belief that some of his supporters truly are Kool-aid drinkers.

       

    Parent

    I agree with a lot of the comments here (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by tree on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    but one additional item stood out for me, because its something I've noticed before in his extemporaneous speech as well as in some of his speeches.

      He seems as if he's struggling to remember his  answer and then finally gets a handle on it and ends(in this clip) with "I don't want that future for my children". Maybe he says something more concrete later on, but here he's back to talking about himself and his family. Wanting a better life for your own children isn't a reason to run for the Presidency; wanting a better life for other people's children is.

     To me, its just like when his campaign decided that he wasn't connecting with the average blue collar worker so he and Michelle went around talking about their hard times growing up. As if saying, "See, I was just like you" would make everyone want to vote for you, instead of laying out why you cared about those people and what you planned to do to make their lives better. That's what Clinton could do in a speech or extemporaneously and Obama hasn't been able to learn that. Sadly, I suspect its because he doesn't really care, at least not enough to make a difference. Its all, "Well,enough about me, what do YOU think about me?"

    this race for him (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    has NEVER been about us, the American People.  It's always been about HIM, the History he'd make, him, him, him, him, him.

    There are too many "I"s in his speeches and his campaign tends to be stuck in the Introduce Obama stage.  

    At some point, they have to realize that most Americans who are worried about their job, about the war, about the price of prescription drugs or filling their tank don't really give one good godd*mn about HIM and his story.  They really want to know what HE is going to DO for THEM!

    If they think they can ride to the White House on the back of him being (allegedly) raised by a single mother in poverty and lifting himself up by his bootstraps or whatever, they have another thing coming.

    Parent

    McCain commercial: One minute of Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    saying "me" "me" "me".....

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    The future of the children of an elitist gazillionaire is going to be just fine.

    Parent
    Obama gets it exactly (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    backwards!

    Candidate relates to the voters.
    NOT
    Voters relate to the candidate.

    The first meme helps the candidate internalize a connection to the people s/he are wooing and helps them to come across as more comfortable and relaxed with them.

    The second meme may help the voters to become more comfortable with the candidate, but doesn't prevent the candidate from ramming "I, Me, and My Family" down their throats at the time they are thinking their families are the ones who need attention.

    Parent

    He blew it big time (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Barbara D on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    First, if you are running for president you should be able to say why without uhs and long pauses. Second, he was talking to a child and the best he could do is talk about how terrible things are? It was inappropriate. Fourth, he seems to have an aversion to wrapping himself in the flag. It is a basic thing all presidential candidates have to do. Top of the list for why he is running for president should be that he loves this great country.

    Republicans should use his response in an ad. Aside from his not being able to answer the most basic of questions, it shows what a terrible extemporaneous speaker he is. His initial response was pure George W. Bush.

    I'm with the LA Times (4.40 / 5) (#3)
    by facta non verba on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:10:20 AM EST
    He stumbled for an answer which was at best incongruent. We're not the country we could be? What country is?

    Obama out of touch and let's hope out of office soon enough.

    if he had said (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    "not the country we COULD be" that would have been as bad.  But, he also said "not the country we WERE".

    So, as many have asked, when were we better?

    If he just meant our image abraod, then he should have said it better.  But, it's not a very good reason to run for president if it is only to restore our image abroad.

    And, he couldn't have meant return to the Clinton years, because he spent the primaries bashing the Clinton years while praising Reagan and the Repugs as the party of ideas.

    I think he was struggling for a SAFE answer and stumbled upon this which wasn't very good.  The funny part (or maybe iti s the SAD part) is tat I would think this would be the first question any candidate would have a prepared answer for.  And, if this was his prepared answer, it raises many more questions than it answers.

    Parent

    Marketing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:41:02 AM EST
    Combine this answer with that quote floating around about how he's the return of 'America's best traditions' -- and I think we have the new marketing campaign.

    The Hope and Change thing everything Shiny and New brought in the college kids and Lattes (who can afford new things) but obviously hit a big wall with the rest of the electorate, since his numbers flattened out quite a while ago.

    So (I can hear his marketing folk reasoning) if NEW didn't wow them, then obviously we need to go with OLD.  I bet it's not just his speechwriters who are 20-somethings.  Or maybe they are just like marketing/pr people the world over, not too deep.  I think they are finally trying to transition to a GE message.

    Parent

    Oh, so the new theory (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    is that Obama is now the "say anything to get elected" candidate. The "say whatever is necessary to the current audience" candidate.

    I thought that was what he and his supporters successfully bashed Hillary for in the primary?

    Does the Kool-Aid cause problems with memory as well?

    Parent

    When Was the U.S. a Better Country? (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    In the nineties?

    IN the sixties, seventies? Sometime when our gov't was getting away with lying and assaulting our rights and ignoring our needs quite so much as they have in the last 8 years?

    Parent

    let me see (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    50's - no civil rights

    60's - Vietnam

    70's - Vietname, Nixon, gas lines

    80's - Reagan, ME, ME, ME, Wall Street, if it makes money, it's good, "Trickle Down" economics. BIGGEST deficits EVER, Iran Contra

    90's - Clinton era.  Obama couldn't have been talking about that because he spent the entire primary trashing the Clinton era

    Parent

    Is Your Perspective Really That Black and White? (none / 0) (#84)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    (Excuse the expression.)

    1950s: Stable, exploding-growth economy. And the beginnings of civil rights reform--Little Rock and school de-segregation.

    1960s: Continuing booming economy and expansive era of reform in race relations, feminism and the beginnings of LGBT 'liberation'. Also the beginning of environmental consciousness raising with air and water getting cleaner. Also more and more people attaining higher levels of education as a routine matter.

    1970s: Continuation of growth--socially and culturally from the 1960s. 1973: Roe v. Wade.

    PLUS yeah, Nixon--a corrupt president driven from office by very responsive, assertive legislative and judicial branches. We'd be LUCKY to have the federal gov't in 2008 we had in the 1970s. Bush-Cheney, if not actually impeached would have been leashed more for sure.

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    what I assume he was talking about was the crap we have had to endure for the last 8 years both here at home and at the expense of our image abroad.

    But, that isn't what he said, now is it?

    If he had said the country is not what it COULD BE and then provided some specifics of what he would like to see it become, I would be fine with that.

    But, what he said additionally was that the country is not what it WAS.

    the Obama campaign has spent much time this season sometimes taking what an opponent says LITERALLY and bashing them over the head with it even when they know full well it wasn't what they meant.  Shining example is the RFK comment by Hillary.

    They have spent as much, if not more time, inferring or implying what an opponent meant and bashing them over the head with that when they didn't feel like being limited to what was literally said.  Case in point, fairytale, LBJ/MLK, shuck & Jive and way too many others to list here.

    So, I take much delight in doing the same to Obama when he presents the opportunity.  And, the opportunity is presented quite frequently now it seems...

    Parent

    That's What I Heard Him Say (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    I assumed he was speaking of the last 8 years.

    Did he S-P-E-L-L it out in so many words?

    No.

    Could he have been more articulate in this response to a 7 year old's question?

    Certainly?

    But it was obvious what he meant. It's been a common theme in every Democrat's speaking for years now: We need to re-claim America from the abuses of Bush-Cheney and the last 8 years.

    Parent

    well, by adding (none / 0) (#100)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    not what it WAS, it gives the opposition the opportunity to ask him when the country WAS what it should be.  Then they get to point out all that was wrong with the country for whatever era he picks...

    Parent
    I can't believe that he didn't (none / 0) (#101)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    have a well-rehearsed answer for the "Why do you want to be President?" question. It's not like it was a trick question.

    Parent
    Needing a WORM (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    is a fault.

    How long has it been since "bitter...clinging"?

    (How long has it been since I've longed for Hillary's articulate and carefully phrased replies?  5 seconds?  )

    Parent

    Certainly. (none / 0) (#106)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    Didn't mean to write that as a question.

    I'm amazed to see the attention focused on this one comment and focused on it as a gaffe, at that.

    Parent

    The article itself was (none / 0) (#12)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:16:49 AM EST
    meanspirited.  And the comments about it being a racist attack nonsense.  But Sen. Obama has got to start talking serious now - he's still on the vague track.  Granted a 7 year old asked it - but it's a good question.  He could have lasered in here about the last 8 years for instance - we're tired of the bromides out here; we get it.  And given a thumbnail about the big issues and the Democrats record and future plans.  

    He has to talk about Democrats more often and what they've done in the country, and how they will clean up the mess and do more for its citizens.  He really really annoys me he won't speak of President Clinton's record - People are exhausted with the past 8 years, exhausted.  Would it kill him to mention that as Democrats we can give Americans a better chance - or at least a fighting chance - not easy but look to the Democrats.

    When Hillary said in a moment of tiredness -- I know, I see it.  That moment said volumes - and she often speaks of the Party.  If he can say such nice things about Reagan he sure as heck can say nice things about the Democratic Party.  He's got to start thinking about downticket - altho maybe some of these candidates do better on their own.

    More amunition for the Republicans IMO (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:03:33 AM EST
    They are going to milk this for all its got.  American not the same? Heh?

    You just can see the TV ads they can use against this snippet.  

    You don't tell a bunch of old Americans that the new Americans coming up will be better even under the best of intentions.  This will be a vote getter for McCain

    Who is this neanderthal Andrew (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:16:43 AM EST
    Malcolm that wrote this piece of s*it article? Who is he and under what rock has he been living in for oh I don't know, the past eight years or so? Does Obama have to go down the list and speak slowly for these people? I'd love to be Phil Graham or this Malcolm moron, but I'm not, so everything for me has NOT been peachy and it's not all in my head. This must be satire, but even if it isn't, this article is still a complete joke.

    Obama speaks slowly already with pastorial cadence (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    and still doesn't say much of substance. The article may be a joke to you and the world may be in a sorry state... but one questions still begs  what and where is Obama going to take this country. Are we no longer going to be defined as the United States, but the Obama Nation, after all it's "Obama or Die" isn't it.

    Exactly what does the Obama Nation mean? Is it making people irrelevant because they support someone other than Obama? Does that mean hijacking the core values of the Democratic Party and filling the promise with lofty hopes in lieu of steadfast goals? Does compromise really mean not standing up for anything or to anyone, hence the resilience of the status quo?

     I'm getting as tired of the Democrats as I am of the Republicans. The favorable rating of Congress suggest I'm not alone.  Does any leader stand for anything that's not poll driven and poll tested? How many nuanced position does one candidate get and still get away with saying nothing? Obama believes it was wrong to invade Iraq, but it takes hours of consultation for Obama to figure out if was wrong of Russia to invade Georgia?  The glimmer from Obama's self promoted halo doesn't really help him through the fog that he, himself, created.

    The joke is that for an author,Obama, should choose his words carefully and be better prepared for simple questions from 7 year olds.  

    Parent

    Next Ad for McCain? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    "I didn't have to Google Georgia to find out they were our ally"

    Should be in the works any day now  :-)

    Parent

    But I heard the peas crop (none / 0) (#27)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    isn't good this year.  Just a smile for the morning - hope you don't mind.  Agree with your sentiments exactly.

    Why doesn't he talk about ACORN, in trouble in NM (none / 0) (#32)
    by SunnyLC on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:55:54 AM EST

    Meanwhile...the funding of ACORN is just amazing...and they keep getting caught screwing with voter registration.... And this is where Obama cut his organizing teeth...

    Latest scoop on ACORN...in trouble AGAIN, this time in NM...plus some links to stories on ACORN....
    Tomorrow...another NM/national "youth" group also in trouble....

    Part I: New Mexico "Progressive" Voter Registration Groups in Trouble: ACORN Again...Surprised??

    http://tinyurl.com/6cfb6k
    http://insightanalytical.wordp...

    ACORN does amazing stuff (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    They register voters by the 1000s 99.9% is on the up.  This is Talk LEFT.  Registering minorities and low income people is something that should be praised.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#37)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    we agree to count the votes once we've registered the voters?

    Parent
    What you are talking about? (none / 0) (#39)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:24:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Come on, Sam, you appear (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    to be a smart guy. We've had a decade filled with "hanging chads", faulty voting machines, and disenfranchised voters who don't count, then do count but only for 1/2, and then do get a full vote, but not the way they voted. Registering new voters is great, but we also need to respect the votes of the voters we already have.

    Parent
    What???? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:46:55 AM EST
    Is Obama gonna give FL and MI their full votes back as long as they don't vote for Clinton?

    LOL

    Maybe he and the ROOLZ committee can figure out a way to do this in the general election too.

    Parent

    It is my understanding, (none / 0) (#50)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    and PLEASE someone tell me that I'm wrong, that Obama will keep the uncommitted votes and the four he was given in MI. Since the current plan a la Dean is that no vote will actually be taken, it's sort of moot. I think they are moving toward vote by acclamation. From Fox News:

    Party operatives are still trying to find the appropriate role for the former president and first lady in the crowning of Barack Obama as the party's presidential nominee.

    The article
    also says that "Clinton remains a senator from New York for now". I'm not sure what they mean by that.

    Parent

    but, even if... (none / 0) (#53)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    he keeps the uncommitted and the 4 they gave him, won't giving them back their full votes, just make the final vote tally between the two even closer if they actually have a roll call vote?

    If they don't have a roll call vote this year, what would be the reasoning for ever having one again in the future?

    The networks have all said in recent years the reason they cover less and less of conventions is because they have become nothing more than scripted commercials.  How do you suppose cancelling the roll call vote of what actually happened in the primary does anything to stop this trend?

    Parent

    as she was just recently (none / 0) (#54)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    re-elected by an overwhelming margin (70% or something like that), I'm not sure what the "NY Senator for now" comment means either.

    Unless they're alluding to her being his running mate (highly doubtful if not downright impossible) or to movement behind the scenes with SDs getting V-E-R-Y cold feet with The One and reconsidering their earlier abandonment of Hillary.

    Perhaps that's why Obama is terrified of her being on the ballot or of having a roll call vote?

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying (none / 0) (#45)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    I completely agree, I just think you are attacking the wrong organization, given that their record, though Republicans like to claim otherwise, is VERY clean.  

    Parent
    Registering voters (none / 0) (#73)
    by DJ on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    is important and a worthy cause.  Making sure votes cast actually count is something we don't do well in this country...both parties too.

    Parent
    Didn't they watch "The West Wing"? (none / 0) (#40)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    Bartlett's staff was trying to get his answer as to why he wanted to be President to 10 words or fewer. Geez - Aaron Sorkin wrote this stuff years ago - doesn't somebody on Obama's staff own a TV?  

    This is going to be a problem for him - if he cannot give voice to why whe wants to be President, then it's game over. The American people don't want flowery BS - they want someone to lead.

    and you just know, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    with decades of campaign experience behind him, John McCain has no problem answering questions like this in "ten words or less".  

    We may not like what McCain says, but, in the end, Voters are more likely to agree with and be able to remember what McCain offers if Obama trots out yet another one of these long-winded, confusing, WTF is he saying?-type of answers in return.  

    And the more Obama meanders and zig-zags his way toward something coherent -- all while eating up an embarrassing amount of seconds (minutes?) on the clock --, the greater the risk Voters are just going to tune him out and wonder what, exactly, he really has to offer?

    Parent

    eating up the clock (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    never caused Obama any problem in the primary debates.  The moderators always just gave him more time.

    Check the details form the primary debates and see who always got MORE time in those compared to other candidates.

    Parent

    ah, if only the General Election (none / 0) (#56)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    were like the Primary, Obama would be fine.

    But I strongly suspect the Moderators will be more along the lines of what he faced in the last debate than the Moderators who allowed him and Edwards to tag-team Hillary in the earlier debates.

    The Media has a long-standing love affair with McCain which will amp up once the Official Nominees are set.  

    But Obama?  Well, he was a one-night stand who's going to have to eventually get the message that he needs to find his pants, call a cab and go home.

    Number?  Oh, yeah, sure.  Here you go.  (scribbles 12123456789)

    See ya.

    Parent

    I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    You're correct - we might not like what McCain says, and he may be a terrible debater, but he's going to get off some great zingers in the debates that are going to be played as soundbites a million times over, while Obama tries to muffle along.

    An with both their infamous tempers - it out to be a sight to watch.

    Parent

    why do you think (none / 0) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    that Obama won't do any joint town hall meetings with McCain?  He stopped as much of that as he has been able to since the last debate he held with Hillary and the media was "MEAN" to him.  

    At taht point he cancelled all future debates with Hillary and said NO to any joint town halls with McCain.  

    I'm surprised he has even agreed to the three formal debates with McCain.  Maybe he couldn't figure a way out of those.

    Parent

    his avoidance of town halls (none / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    is a very slippery slope.  

    Not only does it continue to reinforce the "he's not ready to lead" theme, it also gives the appearance he's afraid to face McCain one-on-one.  Although that may not be the case, one has to wonder how he'll handle dictators or the massive problems facing our Country if lobbing questions from Americans with a 70-something year old man makes his stomach queasy.

    Secondly, with the town halls he holds on his own (I'm sure he must do THAT at least, right?), all it takes is for the Republicans to "find" one -- just ONE -- "plant" who gives Obama a pre-arranged question and it's lights out.  

    The "he's not ready" theme is solidified, the town halls he's avoiding become an even greater issue and the pressure when he caves and DOES one is intensified as people wait for the stumble when faced with questions he didn't arrange beforehand.

    I often wonder who is running things in ObamaLand.

    Parent

    he's already successfully gotten out (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    of doing any joint town halls.  There just isn't time now to do anything more than the three scheduled formal debates that will come up after the conventions.

    He accomplished this the same way he stopped any possibility of revotes in MI and FL.  Just run out the clock.

    Parent

    I'm surprised McCain (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:25:49 AM EST
    hasn't responded with "There is always time to address the needs of the American People"

    If he continues to refuse joint Town Halls, expect this to become something alluded to and pushed in his face during the debates.

    And is Obama gonna duck and weave on National TV when put on-the-spot that he won't stand with his opponent and take questions from "average Voters"?  That he only responds to familiar, already-in-the-tank crowds?

    It's an unnecessary distraction for a campaign that will be besieged with bigger and more important distractions come September/October.

    Parent

    what surprises me (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    Is that when this happens that the opponent doesn't just go ahead and have the event anyway and publicize the fact that Obama chose not to attend.

    That's what I thought Clinton should have done in NC, IL and OR.  Maybe the media wouldn't do it, though.

    I even thought Clinton should have offerred to debate McCain if Obama wouldn't show up in those last states.  That would have been great theater.  Could you imagine the uproar she would have caused if she had done that?  Dean and Brazile would have had heart attacks.

    Parent

    McCain is waiting for the vacation pics (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    when Obama says there was no time . . .

    Parent
    oh boy (none / 0) (#82)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    hadn't even thought of that.

    And when you compare Obama's TWO vacations -- within barely three months of each other -- with McCain, at his age, having not taken ONE yet?  The "not ready to lead" theme grows even stronger.

    And with Obama's relatively soft support in the Polls, I don't think it'll take much to tip voters over the edge into throwing in the towel and just not voting for him or not voting at all.

    Parent

    Cafferty (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    tauts that this Hawaiian trip is the first vacation Obama has taken in 19 months!

    How quickly the media forgets the other vacations

    The poor guy.....

    Parent

    if Obama's boyz at CNN (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    are pushing the lie that this is the first vacation he's taken in 19 months, you can be sure the Obama Campaign is concerned with what people will think if they learn it's his SECOND in barely THREE months.

    And it's not like Cafferty can't easily be corrected via mass emails, you know?

    McCain should run an ad highlighting the Obama Spin coming from MSNBC and CNN followed by the factual correction.  You know, with a big Buzzer sound when it's wrong with a Ding! when it's correct?

    :-)

    Parent

    WIth media friends like this.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    who needs 527s?

    Parent
    I don't have sound and was spared another of (none / 0) (#51)
    by WillBFair on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    Obama's talks filled with canned rhetoric and shallow cliches. How I'll missed the Clintons' plain talk. But here's hoping Obama crushes McCain.

    This is exploding (none / 0) (#62)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:34:19 AM EST
    all over youtube, Fox News, Rush, the message boards and around the water cooler. I may not have thought it was a HUGE deal at the beginning but it clearly is.

    This is going to hurt him, wound him, badly. Many candidates have said America's best days are ahead of us, he said they were behind us in some vague reference to a time "back there".

    I am sure we will get WORMed soon but it won't help. I am beginning to wonder if I want Hillary WORMing her way through the next 4 or 8 years.

    ah, the water cooler (none / 0) (#71)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    I was severely reprimanded by a Moderator on this site for my belief that many Americans get their political news (or gossip, if you will) via the "water cooler".

    Nope, doesn't happen, that's ridiculous, I was told.  But it DOES happen and those Voters too busy to follow sites like TalkLeft or to even watch the news rely heavily on what their co-workers and friends share.

    And Obama's stock seems to be in serious jeopardy when it comes to this kind of chat.  

    This incident -- from a child, no less! -- following on the heels of his hand being very publicly slapped for trying to play the dreaded "race card" against McCain as well as the impending shock and confusion when Clinton isn't chosen as VP (what?  she got 18 million VOTES!!!) isn't good no matter how one wants to spin it.

    His struggle to hit 50% and move out of MOE territory makes more and more sense.

    Parent

    He's given the softest of softball ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    questions (from a child no less) and he gives an answer which the Republicans can (will!) use in attack ads.

    Sigh.

    Obama Talks About America's Future | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment