Is Obama being compared to Palin damaging his status?
 

Is it dangerous for Obama to be so consumed with constant comparisons to the experience of Palin? Lately, it seems that media attention is barely mentioning McCain.

So is Obama unwittingly being reduced a junior level in the eyes of the public? Is this McCain's strategy?

I kind of think that accusing McCain of having "strategy" at this point is somewhat laughable...

Does it hurt Obama to be seen as the vastly more senior of the relative newcomers in the race? I don't think so. I think it puts him right where he wants to be, change-wise. He's not entrenched, but he's got the chops to do the job. It's a middle-ground that would be trickier to walk without this "who the hell is that?" foil to compare himself against.

...just as Gore and Kerry said about Bush.:thumbsup:

From RCP:

National Gallup Tracking Obama 50, McCain 42 Obama +8
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National USA Today/Gallup* Obama 50, McCain 43 Obama +7
National Hotline/FD Obama 48, McCain 39 Obama +9
National CBS News Obama 48, McCain 40 Obama +8

These are after the Palin announcement and the trend is moving upward since the Palin announcement. I don't think it is bad for him at all as Obama is very qualified and this is highlighting that. Couple that with the clear case of better judgment than McCain and Obama has a winning case. The whole Palin fiasco is turning into people asking "Does McCain lack judgement?". McCain can decide who is the most qualified person to be President should he die in a 15 minute interview with someone he knew nothing about just because he felt she was his "sole mate"? McCain continues to show is lack of judgment with this decision and it is hurting him.

Well, and why not? Bush knew Harriet Myers was right for a Supreme Court seat because he "knew her heart".

Fortunately, American women are smart enough to see this for the cynical, patronizing move that it is.

the idiocy of all this is making my head spin.
just when i thought that maybe, just maybe, american politics had SOME chance of escaping the grip of the one-dimensional, here we are, less than ever.

and the right is, once again, trying to pitch idiocy as a virtue.

and the op asks us to consider whether and how this idiocy is rubbing off.

sheesh.

What ever gave you that hope?

Kind of my point. The election strategy wins the election. It has nothing to do with the best message. This was further driven home by McCain's campaign manager saying that it's all about personalities. I see the beginnings of painting Obama as a junior politician... potraying him MAYBE as qualified as his inexperienced VP running mate. The more Obama keeps punching back defending himself against Palin, he appears less presidential. Obama has smart people working for him and they will find a way to strike back at McCain/Palin in a similar way. The message has been long gone from this election.

Yes it's idiocy... I'm always amazed at the willingness to attribute the idiocy to only one party, but so be it. We're entitled to our opinions.

McCain (and surrogates) will keep hitting on "experience"

Obama (and surrogates) will keep hitting on "change"

Something like 70-80% of the American people think the country is moving in the wrong direction.

Which, IMO, makes a more compelling case for change over experience....unless Bush does something not totally off the table for an October surprise....strike Iran and unleash the rage of the Muslim world.

-----Added 2/9/2008 at 11 : 48 : 58-----
Watching bits and pieces of the Republican show tonight, I saw alot of looking back...a heavy focus on McCain's military career and POW experience.

Hell, many key swing voters (first time voters under 30 and the 30-40 Independents) werent alive during this time....while it is a compelling story, I dont see that message resonating very well outside the Republican base when most Americans are most concerned about pocketbook issues.

If I were advising McCain, I would suggest that the economic message over the next two days better be very forward looking to distingush himself from the last eight years....simply saying he will cut earmarks wont do it,

I was also surprised (not really) to hear that there was a total of only 36 African-American delegates to the convention.

Roachie, you got to give the people some credit here. Yes some will be baited and buy into various sound bytes and catchy hook liners but many of us are capable of distilling the facts, issues, positions and policy stances in drawing conclusions and making decisions. And it's people like you and us who continue to debate and demand more, demand better. By and by things improve. At least that's how I see it. In other words, don't despair yet.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 12 : 30 : 04-----
I think that says alot don't you?

Exactly. Actually, I would have to say, for many of us swing voters (I know I'm on a ledge here "speaking" for swing voters) Change vs. Experience is a very compelling case. I would suggest the 70-80% DO want change. Which is why the McCain strategy to me seems so baffling.

I fit this demographic mold. While I admired the military hero POW experience of McCain, it can only carry you so far. One of the reasons McCain has pretty much lost me to Obama is because of his failure to recognize the change 70-80% of us want. he seems completely out of touch to me. The other reason why I liked McCain was because he was a "maverick" and possessed the willingness to cross the aisle. But with his campaign, he just seems old and out of touch to me. Not the fiery progressive maverick I thought he was.

Tell me one instance, one vote, where Obama 'crossed the aisle'. He has voted the party line 100% of the time. McCain is the one who has shown the ability to listen to both parties, and has actually NOT voted the republican line, so I don't understand your arguement and believe your little statement there has no merit.

Yeah, well if you ask me, it's not strategy... it's hoping and praying that 51% of Americans will fall for the charade. In other words, a strategy of hoping that people will be stupid and follow along with the herd. And, in fact, that's exactly what people did. Woo-hoo, great way to run a country, makes me so proud of my compatriots.

Rudel73, the head of the Illini congress, a McCain supporter and former colleague of Obama was just on NPR talking about how he and Obama co-sponsored several bills.

You asked for one....I'll give you two:

A Bush bill to limit class action lawsuits. (roll call vote)

The Bush 2005 energy bill. (roll call vote))

He bucked the Democratic leadership position and party line on both. Although both had a relatively few good provisions, I dont particularly like his vote on either, but I dont expect to agree with every vote of my chosen candidate.

How does that compare with speaking out against torture/waterboarding, then voting the Republican line to allow the CIA to use waterboarding...

..or voting against the Bush tax cutes in 01, calling it fiscally irresponsible, and now being the front man for the party line and making its extension the center piece of his economic policy....

....or now towing the party line and opposing his own comprehensive immigration reform bill or climate change bill.

IIRC, Obama has voted with his party about 95% of the time; which is more than McCain, but still, 95 != 100

In 2005 and earlier, maverick McCain bucked the party.

In 2007, candidate McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time

Fact Check

I dont know where you got the numbers that Obama voted with his party about 95% of the time. I know his party line votes were less than some of his Democratic colleagues - Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Brown, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Schumer....

Um, I didn't say Obama crossed the aisle in my post. Go read it again.

Nice post, brand new moderator calling people who voted different than themselves stupid and sheep in a herd.

Please tell me what the people who re-elected Marion Barry after his drug conviction are?

Because you do know these same brilliant people will overwhelmingly vote for Obama.

I like Obama strategy, I will give you more handouts than you have ever seen, vote for Obama, they'll be bused in by loads.

From the site you link to:

Yes, I'm a brand-new moderator, but that does not mean I have to become politically numb.

You are also reading a bit much into my words. I do not think that everyone who voted for Bush was stupid. However, for those who voted for him AND THEN swallowed every word he said, hook-line-and-sinker, and never questioned what he was doing with his authority and their tax dollars and American lives--yes, I see this as being beyond common sense, and it is following the herd, for the sheer fact of following the herd. That goes beyond the original "vote."

I know many people--people I respect a great deal--who voted for Bush because they were deceived--in a word, they trusted him--and they have since regretted their decision and changed their minds. They looked at the situation critically and revised their thinking. I see that as rational thinking, and a willingness to admit that they were wrong. It is not stupidity--far from it.

So no, it's not simply a matter of "whoever voted differently from me is stupid"--which is what you seem to think I said. But for an administration that based their campaign strategies on the electorate not "getting" it, not questioning what they were doing, not holding them accountable... and people going along with that, right to the end--that's just asking for trouble on a national scale, no matter whether that administration is R or D. I expect voters/citizens to be responsible throughout the tenure of the person they elected. And national trouble is exactly what we have on our hands, right now. Can you deny that?

Honest question: Are you 100% happy with what the Bush administration has done in the last 8 years? Do you feel good about where the country is headed right now? Do you trust him?

Thanks for catching that. I must have stopped reading when it noted that Obama voted with Bush 33% of the time....certainly more than Kennedy, Feingold, Dodd, etc.

Abaya, what kind of trouble on a national scale are you speaking of?

To answer you questions, no I'm not happy with Bush 100%, I think he should have handled Iraq a bit different, I think he should have put an electrified fence along Mexico instead of that flinsy wall.

The direction the country is heading? I think with Obama as president will will be heading towards a Carter re-do, and I remember it well.

I keep hearing this direction stuff, would you care to elaborate about what that direction would be?

Off the top of my head, the economy as well as our global reputation stand out as massive national problems. There's also the alarming impact that the Iraq war has on our national debt. I see these are just a few of the problems and the "wrong direction" that we have been headed in, for a while. It is magnified by living overseas for the last 18 months, and observing firsthand the extremely poor opinion of all things American, in several countries.
Fair 'nuff. Good to know.
Let's say that's the worst-case scenario (I disagree that it is, but just going with your opinion). Do you really think that could be worse than the last 8 years? I guess I don't. And maybe there's just no resolution to that difference of opinion.

Perhaps Abaya you werent around during the Carter years, or maybe you were I dont know but, 20% interest rates, 13% unemployment, total loss of face in world view.
No thank you, I would prefer to stay on this course.

http://blogsforvictory.com/images/blog/carter.jpg

Edit to add I forgot what refueling was like.

I guess to me, I see the Bush (and then McCain) folks leading us right down a very similar road again... not the same numbers, but certainly the same direction. Whoever inherits this administration is going to have all of that shit to deal with--and they'll get the blame as well (especially if Obama wins). But, as I said, irreconcilable difference of opinions here. I prefer to not stay on this course. Anything, really, I don't care what... but not this course.

mike, settle down...

we both lived that era...it wasn't that bad...

Not me, I plan on selling one of my houses in the near future and 20% interest rates would put a damper on that. I really do not want to go back to odd and even gas rationing, and waiting in 2 hour lines.

I remember the gas lines and the odd/even days (I wasnt old enough to drive), but i recall it resulting from the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-4 immediately following the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East, before Carter took office.

The results of the embargo lingered into the Carter years. Nixon's price and production controls also contributed.

Yes, I do. I remember the Carter era too. Interest rates at 15-20% (maybe more), gas lines, unemployment and inflation. I ended up in the Navy because there simply were no jobs in my area. Even flipping burger jobs weren't a given. I think it's completely possible the next 5-10 years could be worse then they are now. But to me it's question of which candidate I think can guide us through what I think might be some really hard times ahead. Since I sincerely believe Bush and the GOP's policies have created this mess I don't think someone who's agree with Bush 90-95% of the time is the person to get us out.

I read stuff like this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...waE&refer=home

And I see an economy headed down hill fast. I don't see how continuing on the course that got us here will help us out.

That was basically my point; thanks, Tully. I am not saying that the next few years are going to be any easier, but I do believe that they could get far, far worse, with the worse-of-two-evils candidate at the helm. And yes, obviously I have my bias on who that would be, as we all do here.

No. I don't think so because they aren't like comparisons.

Phooey.

Why do self-professed liberals defend this phony?

Nixon's price controls were not the problem. The problem was Carter's avant-la-lettre Reaganism. His message: Suffer, the market is rational. The guy was Reagan in a cardigan. Fuck him.

I dont think I defended Carter in my post. I have never ratedl him highly as a president.

I tried to set the record straight on what I thought was rewriting history on much of the cause of the gas lines in the early-mid 70s.

If you dont think the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74 and Nixon's price and production controls were largely responsible, what Carter policies do you blame...something more than avant-lettre Reaganism, please.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 11 : 28 : 02-----

Added:
Nevermind...I dont want to make this about Carter. Save it for a presidential history thread.

I like Obama because I think there are some major issues facing our country, specifically social security, health care, and income inequality. Anything done to confront these issues square on will be highly controversial and could have catastrophic consequences if they're wrong.

I dislike Obama because he's voiced some protectionist rhetoric--specifically repealing NAFTA and vowing to bring back manufacturing jobs and the like back to America. Both of those promises are just hot air, as Obama himself knows given his cadre of U of Chicago economists who are stalwart, classical free-market proponents. I'm also not confident Obama will address the issues he says he'll tackle successfully. Things aren't that bad right now, at least for me, and I'm more worried about the downside than the upside in this case.

I like McCain because he's competent and won't shoot any holes in the ship by firing in the dark. I think he will handle the economy better than Obama would in terms of maintaining and improving America's competitiveness and facilitating continued positive GDP growth, but I think we will continue to see a rise in wage inequality and still greater pressure on the average American. I expect he would have a presidency that would follow policies similar to Bush's, but that he would push for some political reform. Given the speed with which he circumvented his own campaign finance reform act (McCain/Feingold 2007) makes me wonder whether any reform will be just as superficial.

What I dislike about McCain is that he's shown himself all too willing do whatever is necessary to become president. I think that his choice of Palin was done more to strengthen his campaign strategy than it was to strengthen the fundamentals of his ticket. He has run relentless negative campaigns, circumvented his very own campaign finance reform laws, and vigorously pursued every possible advantage he can get. I realize he's running for President of the USA here and that tenacity is a commendable trait, but I question where he draws a line in the sand and says my integrity prevents me from going beyond this point--where do his morals stop him using the ends to justify any means?

Sorry if that's off topic--I just felt like there were a lot of very strong opinions being thrown around and wanted to share my opinion as a true neutral.

Oh? I doubt the American people, in general, are smart enough to see this for the cynical, patronizing move that it is.

:orly:

(But come Novemenber, I hope my doubts are proven wrong.)
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 09 : 35 : 48-----
Same line of reasoning that I heard from Bush supporters, back during the 2004 Presidential race.

:grumpy: