Two things stand out. The wishy-washy response to the NAFTA-Canada thing could not have helped in Ohio, where Obama made a big deal out of savaging the agreement. During a time when voters seem to want the genuine article, this made him (rightly or wrongly) appear to be just another fake politician. Not a smart move when you're playing catchup in the Rust Belt.
Barack Obama's other problem wasn't really his. That 3AM ad of Hillary's worked, at least to the point that it raised questions about who would do a better job in a national emergency. People say they don't like negative advertising, but time after time, it works, and works well.
Obama still has the overall edge in delegates, but Tuesday should serve as a grim reminder that he's got work to do. As much as I hate to use sports metaphor to describe politics, Obama has shown himself to be a skilled counter-puncher. Trouble is, counter-punching might not win the title you're looking for.
The senator from Illinois must begin to make a serious case for himself at the expense of his opponent. Reacting to what she says about him won't win him Pennsylvania, the next big prize in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes (though not the only one). It's time for Obama to come out swinging.
It's also time for Democrats to realize this battle may not be decided until the end of August at the Democratic National Convention. That means looking forward to dealing with the role the superdelegates will play, as well as devising an equitable solution to the sticky problem of the Michigan and Florida delegations, which are now not going to be seated.
Tall orders, yes, but that's why they pay Howard Dean, isn't it?
Posts
4 comments:
While it may seem like negative advertising don't you think there was a ring of truth to the 3am ad? I would be thrilled to have either as president. But what Hillary lacks in charisma she more than makes up for in dilgence, smarts and pragmatism. Obama charms and moves an audience but can he run a country?
I wonder how much harm the increasingly nasty campaign will do to the overall democratic campaign. Maybe it will make them stronger in the end but at the moment McCain can look like a statesman!
This could distract from the real agenda of getting a democrat in the White House.
As a Brit living in Finland and Switzerland, both usually US friendly (as is UK), its amazing how much damage the Bush administration has done to the US's reputation abroad.
To Doddly, what makes you think Hillary is more capable of running a country or better yet answering that call? Thing is, people get brainwashed. The more they hear something, the more they believe. "Hillary has the experience," she says and the pundits follow. Then Doddly and the like follows.
See, only a president can claim experience of a president. There are those who have expertise (Obama with the constitution, Hill with Law) but the job is unique. Puleeeze stop with the the she's got experience argument.
Speaking of the total destruction that these thugs have done to our relationships with every single country around the world, it may be that Obama will be allowed to win. The 1% "people" don't appreciate the damage that has been done to their revenue streams. It just may be that they see Obama as a potential goodwill ambassador who can accomplish friendship resurrections around the world.
I watched Obama on CSPAN the other day and actually allowed myself to venture toward the feeling of hope, something I have learned not to do (Nov. '06 aftermath was the last straw for me.) He's so human and dynamic, and cute, I might add, that I actually started to feel optimistic. His ten years' Constitutional Law lecturing/teaching experience is more than a little bit encouraging.
As far as his ability to run a country, I can almost only think of sarcastic things to say about that, given what has been going on for nearly a decade. Obviously the WHO of who sits in the white house can make zero difference when a system wide agenda is being perpetrated on the people of a country. Given that, I can safely say that someone smart, conscious, dignified, aware that there IS a Constitution and that laws are supposed to apply to all, and ethical sitting there could make a nice sized dent in this nightmarish pile of garbage in which most of us are choking and drowning.
Of course, depending on the political party of the candidate who is allowed to be "elected", the hypocrite-thug-smear-machine will either canonize him for any positive changes made moving forward, or vilify him/her for not making needed changes.
We would have an actual democracy if everyone would vote. They can't steal elections with large margins. Only close ones. The more people that vote, the more votes the democrat gets.
Obama is probably the ONLY candidate, ever, that a vast majority of people feel even comes close to representing them. Maybe with someone to vote for, people will finally vote this year. It's already happening.
I have only voted FOR someone once in my half-century of life. All other times that I have voted, it was AGAINST someone.
I dare say...hope springs eternal.
Post a Comment