Curious: what’s the average draw at a political rally in the US?
[quote=“NYT”]It was a staggering sight. Upwards of 29,000 people at a political rally. And the Democratic primary in South Carolina is not until Jan. 26.
The Double O Express — Oprah for Obama — drew what is easily the biggest crowd at a campaign event, for any candidate, so far this season. It may have helped that the day was unseasonably warm, above 70 degrees, and gorgeously sunny. But this size crowd is rare even for a general election in the fall. (JFK drew about 35,000 for a Labor Day rally in 1960; get to work, Caucus readers, and tell us if you know of a bigger campaign rally without an incumbent president.)[/quote]
Jeez, I hope this guy bumps off Hillary Bush-in-a-Dress.
(The video of Oprah’s speech embedded in that story is worth watching.)
I agree, the video is worth watching. I’ve never watched an episode of Oprah in my life, but I watched this speech, and she was damn good. So was Barack.
Recent polls are showing Obama basically tied with Hillary in Iowa, N.H, and S.C. Seems that more people are listening to his message and are liking it. This is race is turning out to be better than a football game. Exciting stuff.
It will all be pretty much decided who will run for president by Super Tuesday in February. Let’s not get all over-excited and attack every candidate, okay? What will you do if Hillary and Obama decide to run together? I’m not making any decisions until vice presidents are chosen.
What will I do? Be unhappy if Hillary appears on the ticket.
She may have the skills and knowledge to govern well, but I do not think another Clinton presidency is in the country’s best interests.
With the current spat between the two, I’d have a hard time seeing those two on the same ticket. Besides, it’s doubtful that the democratic party would run two non-whitemales anyway.
Oprah looks to be more than offsetting Hillary’s successful attempt at dragging Obama down and away from his idealistic outsider, above the fray image.
I do, however find it interesting that your favorite Democrat seems to be Obama, while your least favorite appears to be Clinton. Once you get past the obvious stylistic and personality differences however, they actually seem to be really close on most of the issues, especially on healthcare and other domestic programs.
Uh, so you’re saying personality and style has nothing to do with the quality of one’s leadership? I would argue that these attributes very important and the principal reason why Clinton is gting her clock cleaned by Obama now.
But did these people all come to see him, or was it Oprah created the big stir about this. Maybe he should put Oprah on the ticket as VP
Then again Oprah may be able to endorse and sell somebody’s book, but selling a person for president may be more difficult.
I like Obama, and though people say his shorter life in politics and around the halls of Washington is a good thing, he has never had to make any bad decisions or deal with the career and life long politics of Washington DC
Uh, so you’re saying personality and style has nothing to do with the quality of one’s leadership? I would argue that these attributes very important and the principal reason why Clinton is gting her clock cleaned by Obama now.[/quote]Agreed, given their statements, it sounds as if they’d be aiming at the same targets. But how would they reach those targets matters… if they continue to shoot for them after the votes are counted. Besides, I trust that Clinton would shift to politically expedient targets, and that Obama would retool based on what made sense once he got down to brass tacks, so I’m not putting too much stock in candidates’ promises.
Clearly, Clinton is a more experienced, savvy, tactical politician. I think that’s a large part of her problem: too many old battles scars and callouses. She has neither a soft, nor deft touch, and she’s invested in allies of the wrong type – and after 16 years, who wants more cookie-cutter Clintonistas and Bushies?
Taking a look at right track/ wrong track polling numbers within the US, and satisfaction ratings with politics and political institutions, does she strike you as the needed agent of change?
Taking a look at perceptions of the US internationally, who better signals change in the street as well the halls of power? Barak’s name and face themselves would make a huge impression.
I’ve heard that something like 25% of female Republican voters are planning to vote for Hillary, but considering Huckabee’s popularity surge, I think there’s a real desire, across the spectrum, for a more reasonable political tone, and expect Obama could swing at least as many voters.
When there was speculation that Gore might get into this, I thought, “Great, Barak can be his vp.” Now that Gore’s out of the running, I wonder what it would take Barak to convince Gore to play a seriously robust vp role in the first term of his own administration. Gore could enjoy all the benefits of a return to the White House, and craft environmental policy to his heart’s delight, without putting up with many of inconveniences that likely put him off another run. It would be a great way to cash in on his recent popularity, accolades, and put to rest a lot of the questions regarding Obama’s experience.
Clinton’s not my least favorite candidate, I just don’t think she’s the right person for the job. She’s qualified, but ill-suited.
After Obama, I guess I’d root for McCain. Romney’s probably got the best set of skills, but who the hell knows what he’d do in office. Chris Dodd’s got not a chance in hell, but might be good. Then, I suppose, Clinton. Aside from Obama, the only vp who would really interest me would be Giuliani’s because I expect that, if elected, he’d be impeached just over halfway through his first term.
Not at all, I just wanted to inquire as to what Jaboney found to be the chief distinctions between a candidate he obviously likes very much, and a candidate he has appeared to dislike. I’m quite satisfied with his answers.
I personally, am skeptical of the clean, outsider, I alone have integrity message Obama is sending. I think far too many candidates have started their campaign in that manner, only to be dragged down into the political muck with the others. Thus, at this stage I tend to put less weight on those factors and focus more on the more quantifiable policy issues. That’s why at this point I don’t think of Obama and Hillary as being all that different.
Hillary and Obama are barely different in where they stand on the issues. I can’t understand how anyone could have strong opinions for one and against the other, at least not based on anything of substance.
[quote=“trebuchet”]Hillary and Obama are barely different in where they stand on the issues. I can’t understand how anyone could have strong opinions for one and against the other, at least not based on anything of substance.[/quote]There are many substantial reasons to favor one of these candidates over the other. Process is such issue that doesn’t appear in checklists of the type you’ve posted.
More on the importance of taking a different approach.
(I don’t buy Krugman’s argument for Hillary ‘Bush in a Dress’.)
[quote=“Paul Krugman”]Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn’t Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship.
OK, before I get there, a word about terms—specifically, liberal vs. progressive. Everyone seems to have their own definitions; mine involves the distinction between values and action. If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you’re a liberal; if you’re trying to make universal health care happen, you’re a progressive.
[…]
The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America’s new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.
And that’s where the continuing focus of many people on Bush, rather than the movement he represents, has become a problem.
A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled “Obama the anti-Bush,” in which he described Barack Obama’s appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to “someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide.” People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received.
But any attempt to change America’s direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing. Proposals for universal health care, in particular, are sure to face a firestorm of partisan opposition. And fundamental change can’t be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship.
I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR’s drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush’s attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn’t afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of “organized money”: “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”[/quote]
Obama is even appealing to Republicans. One of my classmates in law school, the guy who writes Intel Dump and who I remember as a pretty hard-core Republican, has publicly come out for Obama.
He doesn’t appeal to me one bit. I think naive candidates don’t fare too well in electoral politics. Look at Henry A. Wallace (whom I wrote my masters dissertation on ) in 1948 or George McGovern in 1972. I think Disraeli, one of the UK’s most cynical prime ministers, was right when he declared upon reaching that office, “I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole”. His opponent in that era, William E. Gladstone, was self-righteous and a total bore. Sooner or later, Obama will have to get his hands dirty and when he sinks to the sewers (and I’m sure he will), his naive supporters (not to mention Oprah) are going to be heartbroken.
I’m also wary of Hillary. While her foreign policy views are acceptable, and a few neoconservatives even supported Bill Clinton in 1992, they were soon disappointed with many of his foreign policy decisions. I don’t think one should ever completely trust a Clinton.
On the Republican side, I’m rooting for Fred Thompson or Huckabee. I don’t particularly like Mitt Romney. I think he dumped Senator Craig too quickly after the “bathroom” incident. Contrast this with FDR’s treatment of Sumner Welles. While serving as Under Secretary of State, Welles had a little too much to drink and tried to seduce a black railway porter on the campaign train. Two of his enemies within the administration, William Bullitt (first US ambassador to the USSR) and Sec of State Cordell Hull leaked this information and Welles was forced to resign. FDR hardly spoke to Hull and Bullitt after this incident (FDR and Welles were school mates at Groton).
President Truman remained loyal to TJ Pendergast, even after his federal conviction.
Romney dropped Craig way too quickly-- just like LBJ droppped his aide, Walter Jenkins, when that sex scandal broke. Romney’s father wouldn’t have done that.
Maybe FDR was ahead of his time in his views regarding homosexuality. I’m an avowed independent, and I am undecided. There is definitely no GOP candidate who appeals to me at this point. I like Hagel, at least from a foreign policy standpoint, but of course, he’s not a candidate. I like some of what Ron Paul says. He should run with Kucinich.
Among the Dems, I think Obama is trying to be all things to all people. I don’t see much substance to him. Edwards is all right, but he is a long shot. Same with Richardson. I can’t support Hillary because if she wins, she would almost certainly be re-elected, and that would mean from 1989-2017 either a Bush or Clinton will have been in the White House. That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.
[quote=“Jaboney”]What will I do? Be unhappy if Hillary appears on the ticket.
She may have the skills and knowledge to govern well, but I do not think another Clinton presidency is in the country’s best interests.[/quote]
Anyone see this story about Barack Obama supporting a Taliban supporter in Kenya?
[quote=“Doug Ross”]
Sarah Hussein Obama of Kenya, Barack Obama’s stepgrandmother, is a lifelong Muslim. “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she says.
So noted an April 2007 New York Times profile of Barack Obama. Kenya is in the news again and, like much of Africa, the reports are horrifying.
This past weekend, women and children – entire families – were burned alive as a crowd of Kenyans torched a church where they had gathered to protect themselves.
The violence broke out after a disputed election in which populist challenger Raila Odinga was defeated. [/quote]
[quote=“Jack Wheeler”]
When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire… Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.
Raila has now made a deal for support from the Soviets’ successors as world-champion enemies of the West and democratic freedoms: Muslim fundamentalists… The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya has posted on its website a photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. [/quote]
[quote=“Doug Ross”]
And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi… Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s “stooge.”
It gets worse. If you read through the agreement that Obama’s friend signed with the National Muslim Leaders Forum, you’ll find that Kenya is destined to turn into an African version of Talibanistan.
“Popularize Islam, the only true religion… by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.”
“Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross…”
“Outlaw gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster.”
“Impose a total ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages…”
“Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…”
Obama’s friend, in other words, is setting the stage for a transformation of Kenya into a Muslim state, similar to that which governed Afghanistan during the days of the Taliban. [/quote]
Maybe FDR was ahead of his time in his views regarding homosexuality. [/quote]
I’m a huge FDR fan, but I don’t think his views on homosexuality were ahead of his time. I think (with regards to standing by his friend Sumner Welles and hardly ever speaking to accusers William Bullitt and Cordell Hull again) he was loyal to people he spent his formative years with (Groton, Harvard etc).
I’ve read quite a few books on FDR, and as Under-Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, he was responsible for approving the use of decoys to entrap homosexual young sailors.
In any case, I thought Romney should have stuck by Craig. You judge your real friends by how they treat you when times are rough.
) in 1948 or George McGovern in 1972. I think Disraeli, one of the UK’s most cynical prime ministers, was right when he declared upon reaching that office, “I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole”. His opponent in that era, William E. Gladstone, was self-righteous and a total bore. Sooner or later, Obama will have to get his hands dirty and when he sinks to the sewers (and I’m sure he will), his naive supporters (not to mention Oprah) are going to be heartbroken.
