Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Now don't get me wrong. Obama is one hell of a democrat, a politician, and a seemingly decent human being. He's done a great deal in this race and has thus far ran a commendable campaign. But let's also not get too glossy eyed. He has had his fair share of digs and is just as guilty of the sniping that led democratic leaders to call for a truce as Hillary was. I'm very excited about Obama's ability to galvanize democratic youth and get them involved in the process, but it also worries me that he is creating one hell of a lot ideologues that aren't really politically informed beyond a blind call for change. They see Obama through rose colored glasses and, to them, he can essentially do no wrong. Now granted, I'll take a politically active student in my party over not any day of the week, but I'm not going to get excited until they are as savvy/objective as they are active.
|
I'm willing to acknowledge my own bias on an issue, but I'm not going to demure when there's no call for it.
Clinton set out to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate" to great effect, and if you have any evidence that Obama participated in that kerfuffle beyond asking people to settle down, I'd be glad to see it.
As for starry-eyed, ill-informed ideologues, I think there's plenty to be found of any age and occupation in either party,
but don't mistake me for one. The only things coming from a Clinton nomination are a Republican victory or 8 more years of partisan bickering while our infrastructure and civil liberties erode.
Quote:
|
I would contend he's doing something wrong and needs to change it fast. I don't think anyone seriously believes things can keep going as they are and have an Obama victory. What do you think he is going to need to do to turn things around? If you do think nothing, then why should the trend of events since Iowa be discounted as meaningless?
|
I'm not convinced momentum has anything to do with either primary this year. From a strictly academic perspective, this is all about delegates, and Obama's ahead on that front. Yes, Obama was assigned by the MSM a theoretical momentum after Iowa, one he didn't acknowledge. There was no event or set of events so great in the five days that followed that would have countered that momentum, yet he lost NH, so it's questionable if it existed at all. What was clear in NH was that 20% of voters were undecided, and 40% of voters said they made up their minds within the 24 hours prior to 1/8. Regardless, Obama went from polling in the mid-20's in late December to garnering 37% of the vote. If that link I fixed works, you can see he gained 22% over the course of 2 months in Nevada.
He's absolutely doing something wrong, but it's a tightrope walk that I think he's been shying from until now. He has to respond to the Clinton's negative campaigning without abandoning his principles. He's starting to do so, and Bill Clinton's making it easier as he's getting crazier and dirtier this last week or so, but in responding not only is Barack giving the lie more life, he's giving the Clinton campaign more mud to sling. This is the true test, surviving the DLC, and if he can't get through them then this country's in more trouble than I thought. He's got a solid game plan for South Carolina, his campaign's had presence there longer than the Clintons. Should he win that primary next week, I think we'll see extremely tight races in CA, NY and some fly over states, and 2/5 will be the best popcorn and soda day of this election.