No Mas

The Obama camp begs off of doing no more than 8 debates in the next 20 weeks. That seems plenty, but color me unconvinced that the reason the Obama camp is pulling him from the debates is because there are too many.

The debates have not been a format in which Obama either feels comfortable or has been able to gain traction; he admits this himself. Coming off the first Democratic debate this year in South Carolina, Obama said:

Last night I was a little nervous.
And then just this week, up in New Hampshire, Obama reflected on his performances:
"There's no doubt that the 60-second-format debates, or even 90-second, are tough for me," he said, adding: "Some candidates have mastered that art more than I have."
You can't blame the Obama campaign for making the break, debates were obviously not Obama's forte, and have only served to open him up to attacks by the Senator trio of Clinton-Dodd-Biden, as being unexperienced.

I am beginning to expect a moment similar to what happened with Dean in 2003, when a question was poised by Ted Koppel, who asked the other Democratic candidates to raise their hands if they believed Dean could beat Bush. Only Howard Dean raised his hand. Only this time, the question would be something along the lines of asking the other candidates to raise their hand if they believe Obama is experienced enough to be President.

These charts are nothing but conventional wisdom with money layered on top, but it is obvious that the Obama campaign needs to shake things up. The inevitability of Clinton is stronger than ever; Edwards has been inching up in early state polling; Obama has been tanking on the Intrade charts for nearly a month, closing at 20 today:

The Obama camp probably feels that recent events, as they have unfolded from debates, have slipped Obama away from his script; they want to have a bit more control of their candidate, while at the time to limit something that hasn't worked to their advantage.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)



Re: No Mas

diary title -- Duran?

by dblhelix 2007-08-18 03:06PM | 0 recs
I disagree

Ah, so you base a campaign's future on Intrade predictions. Very smart, uh?

As for the Obama campaign's decision, from his vantage point, Barack Obama has to do more retail politicking than either Clinton or Edwards due to the fact that a lot of people say they don't know enough about him. He's operating from a disadvantage. This is a problem his campaign feels needs to be addressed quickly given the shortened calendar. In the early states, its crucial to do the meet and greet face-to-face politicking.

I fully support the Obama campaign's decision to focus much more on the retail stuff. Those with other ideas of their own can read into it whatever they want.

by rosebowl 2007-08-18 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

  Jerome has turned this site into nothing more than a breeding ground for anti-Obama trash, and Hillarybots who sound like they are part of a cult. The only time we see a front page post by him is to "concern troll" Obama's campaign.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 03:34PM | 0 recs
Boo Hoo!

Anything that is not some kind of creepy, sycophantic, worship of Obama for, well, just BEING Obama, is described by the Obamaniacs as "anti-Obama 'trash'".  However, people can bash Hillary and that's fine with people like you.

I am an Edwards guy (for now).  But my philosophy is that ALL our candidates are good.  And, since one of the most important things in the world for civil liberties is the Supreme Court, I am comfortable with ANY Democrat who happens to get the nom, because I am confident that any of them would make good SCOTUS picks.

Judging from your signature line, this post from you seems to be pretty hypocritical (as well as something you gleemed from a rightwing propaganda website).

Pot, meet Kettle.

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

time for you to move on? Is this your final answer?

Please, nobody is begging you to stay.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

I agree with you here...

by JaeHood 2007-08-18 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Umm, InTrade prices and such actually amount to at times very good judgments of what the present polling percentages of candidates are when there's dispute.  They're easy to quote and don't require longwinded technical explanations and justifications of which pollster gets weighted how much, really.

There are two ways to look at the Obama move.  One is, he simply comes away inferior when matched against Clinton and Edwards for whatever reason of politics and personality.  So you have to remove him from that environment to one where he gets all the attention, and then he convinces.

The other view is that putting Obama into that environment constrains the quality about him that convinces.  I.e. you have to get him away from the Party and the MSM, because they have some sort of toxic effect on him or his supporters.

If the latter is true, I don't know how he succeeds in the General campaign.  If the former, the Primary will not be kind to him.

Simply put, as I've believed for some time, Obama is the man for a different environment.  We need him when all these residues of pre-WW2 attitudes and Cold War idiocy and bitterness and all the establishments built on them are much more decayed and expended.  2012 will be far better for him is my view.  Leave the hard and thankless work of 2009-12 to e.g. Hillary.

by killjoy 2007-08-18 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Sensible post.  I also believe that Obama is exactly the wrong guy for the times we are in.  These are probably the most partisan times that I can remember in over 30 years.  Now wonder:  The Bush/Cheney disaster, the contested election in 2000, more foul smell in Ohio in 2004, etc.  Obama's candidacy makes no sense for the atmosphere we are in.

I think if Clinton wins it, she'll be a popular 2-termer.

Obama may have a shot at 2016.

by georgep 2007-08-18 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

George--I totally agree.  In the California poll today it showed that most people wanted the two-fer to fix the mess we are in.  I would say this is the wrong time for Obama. The change that Bush and the Republicans brought us has caused incalculable damage to our nation's people and to our relationships with the rest of the world.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The title is confusing . No idea of what you are trying to convey.

However by and large I tend to agree with your analysis .

The debate format is not working for him and they have to turn away from his weakness and work on what they think works for him.

The way it was handled i.e. by releasing a memo was very sloppy and made it look even worse for him.

Much of this could have been handled better without issuing memos about it.

The campaign season has valleys and peaks , its almost as if he peaked a couple of months ago and he is just going down the valley . Still time to turn it around though. It was however the debates that hurt him the most , ever since the whole meeting with dictators thing and the inconsisitent turn around Pakistan comment.

by lori 2007-08-18 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Lori, No mas means no more.  I assume Jerome means no more debates for Obama.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-18 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Oh I get it , so much for being a sophmore in college , might as well toss the last 2 years into the bathroom.

by lori 2007-08-18 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Oh, I hope I didn't offend, I was just giving it a shot.  I could be wrong. :-)

by bookgrl 2007-08-18 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas
No you didn't , you are right . I looked it up.
Lots of gratitude.
by lori 2007-08-18 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

no it means Obama will do 7 more atleast and this is just a bunch of bullshit.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Not true.  She is leading in every category by at least 2-1 and among Latinos 4-1.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

no it means Obama will do 7 more atleast and this is just a bunch of bullshit.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

How did the Pakistan comment hurt him?  Because news orgs focused on a small part of a bigger quote?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-08-18 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Its not so much the Pakistan comment that hurt him , I think he was right on the substance of it although the way he worded cause him some grief , however it seems very inconsistent to say just days prior to that speech that you were willing to meet these dictators within your first year and then turn around and make that speech , it just looked like he didn't know what position he wanted.

I am willing to bet that his campaign would like to have that 1 week span back , remember that 1 week period he made the dictators comment , bush cheney lite and Pakistan . That happened within a span of about 1 week.

by lori 2007-08-18 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

IMO, Obama is leaving the debates because he doesn't do well in them.  He often gets attacked by the other candidates.  I think it is a problem for his numbers.  The debates dislodge the charismatic theme because that works when he has prepared speeches.  It also gives him more time to do more campaigning.

This will help Edwards as it gives Edwards the chance to take Hillary on one on one.

by jsamuel 2007-08-18 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

He has to learn to deal with attacks. The general election will be MUCH harder and dirtier.

I find it ironic that the only things I like about Obama are his willingness to negotiate face to face with even hostile world leaders and his willingness to put America's interests above Pakistan's.

The inevitability of Hillary makes me not care much about the election. Whoever wins, the American worker will lose. It was the Clinton administration that opened the H1-B floodgates that destroyed so many tech jobs.

by antiHyde 2007-08-18 03:27PM | 0 recs
So, maybe that makes Edwards Marvin Hagler?

haha!  That's the VERY first time I've ever read the Roberto Duran surrender used in politics.

So, does this make HRC, SRL?  

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: So, maybe that makes Edwards Marvin Hagler?

I didn't know it until just a moment ago, but it seemed to have also popped up in ABC's blog to use that title about the same time:

Obama: 'No Mas' on Debates.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-08-18 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

If Obama gets nervous then perhaps he can try the remedy that seems to work for Laura Bush, when she has to be around crowds:  Xanax.  But, unlike Laura, he could take a reasonable amount and not come across as dazed, glazed, and hazed, like she does.

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

If you had to sleep with W, you would take drugs too.

by antiHyde 2007-08-18 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I agree with your assessment, Jerome.

I also think this is good news for Edwards.

by bookgrl 2007-08-18 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The only advantage is that the candidates have time to campaign in these early states, organize in these front loading states, fundraise, and stick to the original DNC sanctioned debates.  Most of these forums will not be televised, so what is the point?  It would be one thing if the primaries were spread out, but they are not.  So, the focus for all these campaigns should be the early states and retail politics.  I don't see Clinton arguing this point, or Edwards for that matter.

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Caroline, I agree.  I'm not offended in any way by Obama's decision.  This is more about the political calculation and what it suggests about the campaign.  Front runners always want fewer debates, the less they say the better, they are already winning.  Close rivals usually want more debates.  It's air time to demonstrate to a wider audience why they are the better candidate.  I find it strange that they put out this memo because as you have said there are already a number of debates so will there be much pressure for more?  And, because it seems his campaign see's the debates as unhelpful to him, and as I've argued, that's not usual for a close rival of the front runner.

by bookgrl 2007-08-18 03:32PM | 0 recs
I don't expect everyone else

to continue on this debate/forum stretch.  For what?  Mr. Obama does have to do more retail politics than the other candidates, as is seen in Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton was correct here, to stay with the sanctioned DNC Debates/Forums, intially.  

Look at the calendar and the front loading of states.  It would be to each candidates advantage to campaign, participate in the scheduled DNC Debates and call it a day.

And as for Mr. Obama getting attacked, as in the AFL-CIO Debate, he had the final word to all three that authorized, voted for the Iraq War.  After that exchange, nothing else was said on that matter.

I would be all for the debates, if we learn, garner something "new", but we don't.  So, for that reason alone, I am not bothered by him not participating in every single debate/forum.  The public will have enough to evaluate with 10 upcoming events.  If that is not enough, what is?

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't expect everyone else

I disagree.  These issues constituencies have Millions of members paying attention.  They are engaged and quite important Democratic voters.  To tell them they are not important will make them less likely to support the missing candidate.

 Look at the recent forums that are the type we are talking about here:  The AFL-CIO debate had 17,000 union people at Soldier's field, many people watching on Youtube, and they have Millions of members, a very organized and engaged group of people.  Then you have Yearlykos, the netroots debate invite.  Then you have the recent gay/lesbian debate, televised on LOGO.  Then you have the UNIVISION debate (spanish speaking consitutency.)   They are ALL like this:  Very important debates, watched by many people, everybody very engaged and the people attending and watching very likely to be part of the primary voter pool.

by georgep 2007-08-18 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't expect everyone else

That is your opinion.  If you like, you can have a forum, a day, per special interest.

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't expect everyone else

well said.

by rapcetera 2007-08-19 12:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

maybe Obama is actually going to try and campign in places and reash out to voters that actually will mean something. If edwards could raise the money and get the crowds that Obama was getting I' m sure he'd do the same thing. jerome is right though pasndering to single issue type forums is not Obama's forte as he does not dispense with the bullshit easily enough. It's good to see Obama is in this to actaully win the nomination not impress biased pundits or netroots "leaders" with an axe to grind.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

You truly are belligerent, aren't you?

by Denny Crane 2007-08-18 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Perhaps it should be noted that Obama has already participated in 19 forums and 7 debates. It's certainly true that Obama isn't the most suited towards the soundbite format that is the only option candidates have at debates, but I think ultimately he's decided that his time can be spent better.

by remove 2007-08-18 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

don't bother with the truth on this site, it's turned into Hillaryhub JR, with Jerome who's axe to grind couldchopt down a forrest. Nothing but the pro-Hillary spin to see here.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Many days the majority of the diaries are anti-Clinton. This is the only site I have seen so far where there was a "Hillary Clinton Is The Anti-Christ" diary.

by robliberal 2007-08-18 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

And the administration of this site should have been on its toes.  Though the comment was correct, it was not worthy of a singular diary.  Thus, all these hit diaries on Mr. Obama, which add up to nothingness.  Many need to take writing lessons, on promoting, explaining why you are committed to your candidate, instead of the daily hack pieces of nothingness.

I have found good solid diaries on Daily Kos about Mrs. Clinton than here.  Many here do her a great disservice, and I am a fence sitter.

This site was once one of substance and good debate, but lately one must wonder about the continuous hack jobs on Clinton and Obama.

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

re:  'Hillary is the anti-christ' diary:

you wrote:

"Though the comment was correct, it was not worthy of a singular diary."

Tell me why anyone here should have respect for a poster who never posted here until today (unless caroline becker is the reincarnation of a previously banned poster) who writes that the comment the diary in question was based on was actually CORRECT?    Boy.  Gotta love the "new" Obama posters trading places here daily.  

by georgep 2007-08-18 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

These attacks are way too much.   Stop this track at once.  Obama made a move that is not sitting well with some posters.  You HAVE to learn to live with not everybody dancing in lockstep to your personal whim.  Some people agree, some people disagree with you.   You want everybody to agree with you.  That is silly.  

by georgep 2007-08-18 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The more the public has seen of Obama through debates and the media the more ground he has lost in the polls. Avoiding the media spotlight in an effort to stop the bleeding in the polls will at the same time give an even bigger boost to Clinton.

by robliberal 2007-08-18 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I don't agree.  What has the debates brought us?  Nothing.

I don't know what Mrs. Clinton's position on healthcare is, there is no plan.  I am confused on Mr. Obama's healthcare package, and Mr. Edwards states it will cost more.

I want details and specifics.  There have been 19 debates/forums, all the same.  Nothing new or different in the answers.  Until they decide to tackle a one subject, it does not mean anything.

And I do not believe this will harm Mr. Obama.  There are 10 more debate/forums, and that is more than enough.  These candidates need to be focused on the early states, the early frontloading states, organization, etc.  What do you want, a forum a day?

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

looks like another 'icebergslim' incarnation.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Debates are important -- They show if a candidate can stand up to the media and the other candidates.  Its sad that Obama cannot handle the foremat because he would reach millions of voters.  In 1960 Nixon lost to Kennedy because Kennedy was a better debater.  In 1972 Nixon didn't allow debates. He won that election however, by 1974 Nixon had to resign because he tried to circumvent the constitution.  Perhaps if he had agreed to debate in 1972 he might not have won that election and we would not have had the long national nightmare that was Watergate.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Wow, all these different opinions on Senator Obama, but all sound incredibly the same.  A shame.  

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

You know what the shame is, to elect another idiot to the biggest job in the world.  It will take us years to come out from under the damage that this current President has done to this great nation.  We cannot afford anymore on the job training for the next President of the United States.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:22PM | 0 recs
Want proof that MyDD has 'jumped the shark'?

just read this blog entry by Jerome. I'd swear the guy has just flat out lost his mind since Mark Warner announced he wasn't running.

I think its time for all the reasonable people, including Obama, Richardson, and Edwards supporters to move on. This site offically sucks ass.

by mihan 2007-08-18 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Want proof that MyDD has 'jumped the shark'?

how many times have you called 'quit'? Is this your final answer?

I hope you stick to this promise.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 03:48PM | 0 recs
Don't take this the wrong way

areyouready, I really enjoy reading what many Clinton supporters on MyDD have to say. Even when I disagree, a lot of folks make honest arguments. But I can't seem to understand you or where you're coming from.

Your latest thing seems to be saying that you hope people leave the site? How does that help anything? If you really, truly believe in Hillary Clinton, you ought to employ your time trying to convince people, not driving them away.

I say this without being committed to any candidate (unless Russ Feingold changes his mind): Most of what you say really seems to lower the level of debate. I'm not saying you're the only one-- some Obama and Edwards supporters can be the same-- but from where I sit, you seem to be the loudest voice.

At the end of a long day of posting on MyDD, do you really feel like you've done anything to help Senator Clinton's campaign?

by Fitzy 2007-08-18 05:00PM | 0 recs
How DARE he!

You holier-than-thou Obamaniacs clutch your pearls in absolute SHOCK if anyone...ANYONE at all, EVER says anything that could be construed as not absolute, unquestioned worship of the guy.

Edwards, HRC, Kucinich, they can all get slammed, venomously, on a daily basis, but you have this "HOW DARE YOU!?!?!?!?" attitude if god, er, Obama is criticised.  

Deal with it.  If your candidate is as wimpy and think-skinned as some of his Kool-Aid drinkers on here, then HE has already jumped the shark and will soon be nothing more than a flash in the pan.

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: How DARE he!

The Obamamaniacs sound just like the 25% who still support Bush.....Could they be one and the same?

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

It's certainly true that Obama isn't the most suited towards the soundbite format...

What does that mean? His entire political career is based on one thing: soundbytes from his 2004 convention speech. He's the ultimate soundbyte candidate. Take away those soundbytes and he has no record to run on.

by hwc 2007-08-18 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The accurate description is that he is only suited towards scripted soundbite format...

He can't think fast on his feet, no depth... He really is NOT that smart.  

by areyouready 2007-08-18 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Areyready that is a racist comment if I ever heard one.

by BDM 2007-08-18 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

No it isn't.  

Obama needs time to formulate his answers.  I believe this is why the debate format does not work for him.

by lonnette33 2007-08-18 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

racist comment? you must be crazy.

The reason I pointed out he's not smart was that I was so tired of hearing MSM and his supporters claiming how intelligent he was, blah, blah, blah...

Frankly, I don't see that in debates, most of his answered are canned.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Not smart?

The guy was head of the Harvard Law Review.  He's obviously brilliant.  He's not my first choice for president, but let's not get ridiculous.

by markjay 2007-08-18 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

based on all of the imvective that you spew on Obama and not on any of the other candidates with your candidate so far ahead in the polls, I can omly conclude that you are a racist. If NOT OVERTLY AT LEAST A CLOSEST RACIST.

by BDM 2007-08-18 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

give me a break. Your childish behavior does not match your actual age.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 08:13PM | 0 recs
Stop the bulls--- "racist" labelling.

That's jumping to a pretty big conclusion with no evidence.  Just because areyouready (wrongly in my opinion) said the guy isn't that smart, doesn't make areyouready a racist.

If I call Obama pompous does that make me a racist?  If I call Hillary a corporatist does that make me a misogynist?

Lets avoid throwing out the word racist when it isn't warranted.  If someone speaks incorrectly, correct them and move on.  Calling someone a racist with no cause is almost as bad as being a racist.  It shows you are trying to drag someone down with a label.

If I were in a less forgiving mood I'd zero every damn comment throwing out the term racist or sexist in response to some slight on a candidate, but I'll let someone else do that for now.

by Rooktoven 2007-08-18 08:15PM | 0 recs

You are right, rooktoven, that this remark was a personal bash of the lowest order.  It is beyond trollish, it is absolutely disgusting.    I agree with you that that remark deserves to be zeroed to heck, so I'll do the honors.  

by georgep 2007-08-18 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

After the current President if you can walk and chew gum you are Einstein.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

just because you score the most points in a debate does not mean you are the smartest person in the room.  and i'm saying this as a former speech and debate team member who can spew a mountain of bullshit with the best of them...

by bluedavid 2007-08-18 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The problem is that Obama's handler David Axelrod has decided to sell Obama's personality and not deal too heavily with issues. I believe its because Obama does not agree with other Democrats and he has to take great pains to hide this.  The debate format makes candidates explain their stands on various issues and its not easy for Obama to bob and weave on his answers.  Rope-a-Dope to the Presidency is not going to work.

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

This is incredulous.   Oh well, luckily, the "real world" does not have to read blogs like this.  

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

This is the real world. Wanted a new president.  Adults only -- need apply.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Uprated as it wasn't worth a 1 rating.

by Ernst 2007-08-19 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I totally agree with your analysis Jerome.

I think this is a win/win for Hillary though. The more debates she does the more support she garners.  I think most people watch the debates to see how Hillary will perform and answer the questions. I believe the Hillary camp is salivating on this information.

I'm not sure who made the comment initially, lori/bookgrl, but I agree that this development gives Edwards an opportunity to gain some momentum with the absence of Barack at some of the debates.

by lonnette33 2007-08-18 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I think its a good move in general for the Obama campaign.

His message has centered around the idea of being different and bringing change and the longer he stands next to the rest of the field, repeating the same sound bites over and over, the more he risks being seen as just another candidate.

Also, his path to the nomination requires early state surprises and victories.  Without early momentum, he cannot win in California, Florida, etc where he is down huge.  He is still largely unknown in the country and even in the early states.  As he has rolled out his first commercials and spent more time in early states, his poll numbers have responded (at least according to some polls).  With states continually leapfrogging each other, making the primary campaign shorter, time has become crucial to the campaign.

That being said, Senator Obama still needs to master the debate format.  I hope he wins the nomination, and if he does, I want him to be prepared to take on the Republican nominee.  He has made HUGE strides since the first debate, but he still has room to grow.  After the first debate, I was pretty depressed about his performance.  After the Labor debate, I thought he was finally starting to hold his own.  He has agreed to at least 8 more debates, which hopefully will be sufficient given how far he has already come.  I guess 8 candidate debates are never going to prepare a candidate for the 1 on 1s in the general election anyway.

by WellstoneDem 2007-08-18 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

nasty, misogynist comment alert!


Totally inappropriate, bro.

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

thanks, but i usually ignore this guy and many Obamaniacs. They are like a bunch of spoiled kids. We Clinton supporters, Edwards supporters get slammed on a daily basis. We do not usually whine like kids. LOL.

This guy has threatened to leave this site for countless times. It's funny he still comes back.

Addiction? LOL.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I am new to this site, and from what I have seen, yes, all of the NASTY, RUDE and CHILDISH remarks have come from OBAMA supporters.  

Many of them seem to have a problem with the fact that the self-annointed, self-appointed "CHOSEN ONE" aka OBAMA is not crushing HILLARY CLINTON as the media predicted he would, first by March, then by Memorial Day, now by November, etc.

I support Hillary, mainly because of her experience,  yet I am not going to resort to the kind of name calling and desperate antics that the OBAMA supporters do.  

I can respect everyone's choices.

by Sandy1938 2007-08-18 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Yes to be a Clinton or an Edwards supporter is to get no respect.  But I will take it proudly because Clinton and Edwards are the best candidates.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

this guy is more like a Rush Limabaugh fan. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Areyouready is a racist.

by BDM 2007-08-18 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I think it's more than just Obama wanting to duck a bad format for him.

My guess is that the deeper motivation is to avoid any situation where he can be be confronted or challenged. He'll sit tight until after tomorrow's ABC debate and then go intensely negative against Clinton for the next five weeks on the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire. He knows that the only things reported from these stump speeches will be the attacks and he will stay clear of any media who might challenge him on his hypocrisy of combining his new-age politics of hope nonsense with gutter politics.

Michelle Obama's not so veiled 90's style family values attack yesterday was the precurser.

I also think he's going to start attacking Democratic Party special interest groups, positioning himself as a more articulate Mike Gravel type maverick. His pitch will be that Clinton is beholden to labor, to teachers, to corporate interests. He can't very well appear at special interst forums while making this "independent" pitch.

by hwc 2007-08-18 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Thats quite a theory...

Just as a reminder, Senator Obama is already committed to attending all of the following debates, about 1 every 3 weeks through December 10.

August 19, 2007: ABC in Des Moines, IA

September 9, 2007: Univision in Florida

September 26, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Hanover, NH

October 30, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Philadelphia, PA

November 15, 2007: CNN* in Las Vegas, NV

December 10, 2007: CBS in Los Angeles, CA

by WellstoneDem 2007-08-18 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

That is entirely my point. After tommorrow, he can duck the media and the other candidates for five weeks until September 26. The Univision forum will be all Latino issues (although he might get a question about his immediate summit meetings with Chavez and Castro).

by hwc 2007-08-18 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Yeah, in the age of the 24 hours news cycle, where candidates travel with packs of journalists, Im sure Senator Obama is just going to run under the radar.

What exactly are Latino issues and why do they not qualify as a real debate?

How does one saying they would be willing to meet with unpopular world leaders mean they are going to hold immediate summits with all of them?

How has the policy of non-engagement with Chavez and Castro worked for the U.S. over the past 9 and 48 years respectively?

by WellstoneDem 2007-08-18 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

You are really running with this, but towards a stone wall.

The man has 10 more debates.  Most in early states.  I don't see Clinton arguing this point, since this is what she wanted from the beginning.

You can not let every special interest throw up a forum and everyone attend, you can't.  Most of these forums won't be on television, what is the point?

All the debates indicated above with some not listed are sanctioned and agreed upon the candidates and the DNC.  If any of these candidates can bring something "else" to these formats, let us know.

The only format no one will commit to is a single issue debate with only the top contenders.  Again, no response.  Anyway, good evening.  And stop bringing the context of this site down, you are a good writer, and better than this.

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Most of these forums won't be on television, what is the point?

There's an untelevised candidate forum going on right this very minute. A union labor forum in Iowa. The point is an opportunity for all of the candidates to speak to rank n' file union members in a key caucus state. You know...real campaigning. Real people. Real questions. Real issues.

by hwc 2007-08-18 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I think the track of some Obama supporters on this site makes little sense.  Had Obama come up with this decision a month ago, he would have been a no-show at Yearlykos, a no-show at the AFL-CIO debate, a no-show at the gay/lesbian debate, a no-show at the South Carolina debate.  I think the only one he would have actually been present for over the last 2 months would have been the CNN Youtube debate, right?    There will be more very important issues debates sponsored by very important Democratic issues groups with Millions of members (i.e. AARP, labor unions, firefighters unions, etc.)   This is a very interesting decisions that is bound to hurt Obama with some of those groups.  Discussing it is absolutely necessary and important.   Acting as if everybody who does not agree with your (and other Obama supporters') idea on this is a jerk, creep or basher is actually what brings discourse of this site down.    

So, Obama made a decision that has ramification on the debate schedule.  Defend those decisions while letting others have their opinions (even if they are not in line with what you like to hear.)   Then move on.  Don't bash posters on this site for OUR opinions because they differ from yours.    

by georgep 2007-08-18 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

You are spot on, the Independent Democrat.  Who with all that money could easily run as an Independent.  08's Lieberman.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

One of the Special Interest forums is the Congressional Black Caucus. Lets see him diss that one.  Wonder if when Obama was a kid he said the dog ate his homework.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:29PM | 0 recs
Extremely biased diary

"The Obama camp probably feels that recent events, as they have unfolded from debates, have slipped Obama away from his script"

Or the Obama camp realises that the debate format only works for candidates who are good at talking points and canned scripted answers. (= Hillary, who deserves credit for being good at it)

Obama was second to Hillary according to most debate polls, so he clearly is not bad at it no matter how you try to spin it.

by Populism2008 2007-08-18 04:08PM | 0 recs
Response from Clinton source

Time Magazine's Swampland blog has a post up called "Obama Taking His Ball and Going to Iowa". arack_taking_his_ball_and_goi.html#comme nts

They got an off-the-record comment from a Clinton source on Obama's announcement:

A source close to the Clinton campaign fired a zinger off quickly: "So he'll meet with dictators but not the black caucus or seniors in Iowa?"

by hwc 2007-08-18 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

hwc, do you really believe someone from the Clinton camp would say that off the record? I personal believe Ana Maria is spinning.

by lonnette33 2007-08-18 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

definitely spin. Read carefully. It's said the response is from a source close to Clinton camp.

Clinton camp is disciplined, they are not going to get down into the dirt for this sort of trivial stuff.

by areyouready 2007-08-18 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

With Wolfson and Penn you better believe that they would use this dirt. They are the hit man of the Clinton campaign. Nothing is out of bounds for these guys,

by BDM 2007-08-18 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

In unattributed source parlance, somebody "close to the Clinton campaign" usually means somebody like Wolfson who gave the quote on the grounds that it not be directly attributed. Daily occurence.

And, yes...I do think the Clinton and Edwards campaigns are going to hit Obama hard on this one. It's got everything:

a) Highlights Obama's poor performance in debates

b) Brings into question his effectiveness as a general election campaigner.

c) Points out his unwillingness to engage with Democratic party constituent groups. Don't underestimate this. Democratic strategists know that the key to the nomination is nailing down the support of the Democratic Party interest groups: labor, minorities, teachers, seniors, LGBT, etc.

by hwc 2007-08-18 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

This debate stuff is pure nonsense. These dwvares gave been nothing buy 30 second sound bites with 8 candidares and no substance.



Otherwise it is a wasre of timr

Jerome I thought you were above making such a big deal over nothing. Why not blog over how these candidaTES will end the war with plans of large residual forces such as Clinton's plans.

by BDM 2007-08-18 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Response from Clinton source

Whats nonsense is for a 2 year Senator to believe he should be president and then get upset when someone criticizes him.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:32PM | 0 recs
Black Caucus...

that crap on FOX NEWS, and you are defending his attending this?  When all have dropped out of this debate, including your candidate?  What next?

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 04:51PM | 0 recs
we know Edwards and Clinton feel the same way

since their conversation was broadcast.  I hope the others follow their convictions (and Obama) instead of wasting their time with Gravel and Biden.

by John DE 2007-08-18 04:45PM | 0 recs
What Is Obama Doing?

His method of campaigning sure doesn't look too good from here. Especially in the present context we have come to deplore. Don't we need consistency, more than ever? I am not blogging for any one candidate really. But his approach has me unsettled. (Well, I really want Kucinich; Is that too much to ask?)

by blues 2007-08-18 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Another hit piece from Jerome. You are so Bias for your candidate Clinton. Have you ever done A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF cLINTON'S POSITIONS OR POLICY'S?

by BDM 2007-08-18 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

BDM, this is not a hit piece.

by lonnette33 2007-08-18 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

The headline is inflammatory.

by KCinDC 2007-08-19 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I think this is a pretty fair analysis. Certainly Jerome himself has done much worse in the past.

by Korha 2007-08-18 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Jerome has written a lot of critical pieces on Clinton in the past.   You should know that, since you are a regular on this site.

BTW, his point on INTRADE is very valid.  Many Obama posters have stated that INTRADE is much more accurate and better for predictive value than any polls could ever be.  I believe INTRADE has a great 15-year record predicting political races, right?  The argument is that these people put their money behind their convictions, which means that they are bound to do a lot of research, be very well informed, the opposite of low-info voters.    With that context in mind, how can an Obama supporter not be dismayed by INTRADE'S current tilt and "predictions"?

For the nomination:

Clinton 62.6%  Obama 22.4%  

40.2% margin between Clinton and Obama.   That is a stunner.  BDM, you have made abundantly clear  that you are convinced that INTRADE is a very reliable predictor.   How to explain this huge differential of OVER 40%?   It was much, much closer not too long ago.  Something must have happened to make these investors go so strongly for Clinton and take Obama down to this low a level.   Could it be that these last 5 weeks have been disastrous for Obama?  Nah.  He did everything right.  The MSM is just "out to get him."    

The individual states, according to Intrade?

Iowa:  Clinton 47%, Edwards 30%, Obama 18%

New Hampshire: Clinton 65%, Obama 25%

Florida: 82.5%, Obama 14.5%

South Carolina:  Clinton 55%, Obama 35.5%

Let's be serious here.  The investors who put their money up at Intrade certainly don't consider this a contest at all.   A 40% differential for the Democratic nomination is an absolute blowout.  These people are doing their homework before putting their money up.  They clearly don't like what they are seeing from Obama, which is why they are putting their money elsewhere.   Perhaps some Obama posters should realize something here.   It is not that everybody is suddenly against Obama, it is that he is making too many mistakes, which brings with it the criticism, the less flattering articles, the money going elsewhere.   The "egg" (Obama starting to make mistake after mistake) was there before the "chicken" (press jumping on Obama, netroots not giving a lot of love, etc.)

by georgep 2007-08-18 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I, personally, have not read one by him.

by caroline becker 2007-08-18 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I think Barack Obama and his strategy team made a mistake with this decision to limit Obama's debate and forum appearances -- and an equally big mistake by issuing a press release about it. I also believe that the people Obama brought onboard to run his campaign are just another indication of his lack of experience.

Obama is good with the rallies and bringing in money but that is where his appeal ends.  

Also, any indication - ANY at all - that a candidate is losing his confidence, is a death knell for his campaign.

by Regan 2007-08-18 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Maybe it is a mistake, but if so it's not a gamebreaking one. In the large scheme of things, one mistake or one gaffe doesn't change anything. It's the pattern of mistakes and gaffes that will decide the race.

Obama still has ample time (and money) to turn things around.

by Korha 2007-08-18 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

A couple of day's from now nobody will be talking about this stuff.

The american people basically think this campaign started too soon and is to long. They are getting tired of this stuff.

by BDM 2007-08-18 07:34PM | 0 recs
Couple of months

... And nobody will be talking about Obama anymore.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-18 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

A couple of days from now we will be talking about something else.  But when you don't know a candidate perception is reality.  This will stick with the public as did his comments on pre-emptive war.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

We have seen what can happen when you elect a president who just wants the power associated with the job.  Obama should have thought long and hard why he wanted the job and what he wanted to do for the people.  In the Sacramento Bee today it said that people originally embraced Obama because they thought he was a liberal but after listening to him they found he was a conservative.  That is what turned Californians off.

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

by markjay 2007-08-18 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn's union busting

One of labor's bigger irritations with the Clinton campaign has been the role of chief strategist Mark J. Penn, who has remained worldwide president & CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations and public affairs firm. One of the B-M clients most despised by labor is Cintas Corp., which is the largest uniform supplier in North America and say it clothes 5 million people for work each day.

Tonight, Clinton and the rest of the major Democratic presidential candidates are at an expo center in Cedar Rapids, speaking at "Workers for a Better Iowa," put on by the Hawkeye Labor Council, the official organization of the national AFL-CIO in East Central Iowa. The candidates are appearing ahead of Sunday morning's ABC News debate from Des Moines, the first for the Democratic candidates on broadcast television.

So what should show up on the back of the A section of today's New York Times but a story reporting that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has called for a $2.78 million penalty against Cintas for violations at its Tulsa plant. The Times says a worker died when a conveyer belt dragged him into a large drier, where he "was trapped for more than 20 minutes in temperatures that reached 300 degrees." The Times reporter, Steven Greenhouse, wrote that the proposed fine "is more than four times any previous safety penalty leveled against a service-sector company." Cintas issued a statement saying it is cooperating with OSHA.

A Los Angeles Times piece on Aug. 7 carried the back story about Burson-Marsteller's unwanted cameo in the campaign: "The firm's clients include Cintas Corp. of Cincinnati, which manufactures and launders corporate uniforms. With Burson-Marsteller's assistance, Cintas has staved off a push to unionize its workforce, and the public relations firm's website at one point boasted of its work in parrying union pressure. `Companies cannot be caught unprepared by organized labor's coordinated campaigns,' the section read, `whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating.... That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation.' "

Yet another twist in this roiling campaign: a P.R. firm getting bad P.R.

by BDM 2007-08-18 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn's union busting

This is on topic how?

by Rooktoven 2007-08-18 08:30PM | 0 recs
for the phoney's Hypocrates and cheap shot artists

Washington post

The top-tier Democratic candidates are known to agree with Obama's view. In an earlier event, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) was caught on an open microphone complaining to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) about the size and frequency of the debates, and Clinton agreed.

maybe that should stop the GOP type double speak about cowards, chickens and NO MAS.

by nevadadem 2007-08-18 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

i mean here's the thing: do we want someone who is a good debater or someone who will be a good president?  i'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but a debate is not the only way for a candidate to explain his/her philosophy for running the country.

it's also not the only way to win an election...

by bluedavid 2007-08-18 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

As President you have to be ready for tough questions.  Obama is not ready to be President.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

That is a pretty good point raised, bluedavid.  The problem is that this year you have many issues groups wanting the candidates to show them love.  Those who, as they feel, jilts them, just do not get the love.  It is as simple as that.  So, if you are missing from the candidate lineup of, say, the firefighter's union's conference, it is very unlikely that they would back you.  The same is true for the AARP (Seniors) debate, which of course will be discussing issues important to seniors.  If Obama is missing from that, what does one expect the AARP to write, who are they likely to support?  

It is not about debates, per se.  It is about getting in front of major issues constituency and answering their questions.   Together these issue constituency make up the electorate.  If they feel cheated (because candidate A decides that they are not really important,) they'll take it personal.   It is the way things work.   The "debate" itself is not the real issue, but the issues constituency that feels shortchanged.   If you alienate too many of them you don't have enough nomination votes to vie for the presidency in the GE.  

by georgep 2007-08-18 11:16PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

I agree.  But each candidate should want to appear before these groups.   After what people have suffered for the last few years and being ignored by Washington, these interest groups want to make sure that the Candidate is going to take them seriously.  If Obama ignores these groups who respresent in the case of AARP 15 Million Seniors.  He does so at his own peril.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:43PM | 0 recs
This thread has gotten kinda ugly.

Can't we just all get along?

by jgarcia 2007-08-18 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No Mas

Obama is afraid he can't compete so he wants to duck out.  Perhaps he looked at the poll numbers from California which his campaign staff admits are alarming.  Hillary Clinton leading by 30 percent. 4-1 lead among Latinos, more than 2-1 among Women and African Americans.  At least a 2-1 lead in every geographic region in the state.  She is the overwhelming favorite in every age group and every education level.  The robust poll numbers show that Hillary is putting to rest the commonly held notion among Dems that she is a drag on the ticket.  

Democrats who strongly approved of Obama were still loathe to vote for him.  While those who strongly approved of Clinton would vote for her.

by changehorses08 2007-08-18 10:16PM | 0 recs
Stick a fork in Obama: He is done

This is just dumb in so many ways.  What will voters think if Edwards and Clinton can show up and he can't?    Hows does that look?  How does that help him?

I think you are seeing a campaign that has fizzled and doesn't have any clue how to regain any forward progress.  Obama is not going to beat Clinton by avoiding opportunities to take her on in person.

Edwards will move past Obama in the next 2 months.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-18 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stick a fork in Obama: He is done

dp--I totally agree.

by changehorses08 2007-08-19 03:44PM | 0 recs
Controlling the debates

If any of the candidates wants to dominate a debate, he should open up his first response with "That's a great question and I will get back to it in a minute.  First I would like to say to the panel that I will NOT be participating in any 'raise your hand' questions.  Solving the tough problems that the Radical Right is dumping in the lap of the next Democratic President will require hard, tough work and taking very unpleasant action - and you don't get that kind of thing done by 'raising your hand'.  So let's just forget about that tonight.  Now, ..."


by sphealey 2007-08-19 06:57AM | 0 recs
Jerome was right. Good Call.

The experience question came up at the debates.

by bookgrl 2007-08-19 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome was right. Good Call.

But he was wrong in suggesting that Obama is not doing well as he just won the debate. 008/popup?id=3493427

by BlueDiamond 2007-08-19 08:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads