I'll mention this again...maybe these voters, the swelling in Iowa and the "indi's" in NH are disregarding what insiders say. They want to take back THEIR party. They want to change the tone, both Democratic and Republican. This seems to be what they're saying. The Democrats in Iowa surely said this in picking Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards over HC. The fine work Eriposte is doing will not matter to these voters. They are looking for change, period. Obama is talking about change, talking. Americans may just want the guy "that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night." Insiders, forgetaboutit, they're not listening to you anymore. You brought them the deadlock in DC. That 11% Congressional approval is coming home to roost.
Posted by peter at January 7, 2008 10:13 AMthe problem, peter, is that none of the big three are offering the change people really want. that 11% is largely due to disaffection in the democratic ranks because congress hasn't been aggressive enough in confronting bush. obama's rhetoric is winning, but the change he seems to be offering is really just more of the soft approach. either he's using that rhetoric to win, and will then disappoint the broderites by actually becoming aggressive, or he will govern as he campaigns, and disappoint all but the centrist, and cognitive dissonance liberal, democrats.
Posted by Turkana at January 7, 2008 10:20 AMObama's signature success, he claims, is to have help write and sponsored a bill that controlls how the Senators eat with lobbiest. They now, thanks to Obama, have to stand up when they eat and can no longer sit down.
Big fucking deal, eh?
And Peter, the Democrats in Iowa voted for Clinton. It was the non-democrats who gave Obama the edge.
You know, I know it seems crazy, but if indeed voters are wanting "change"---someone, something, somehow "different" than the recent past---shouldn't that logically mean that the WIFE of a prior president, weighed down (fairly or unfairly) with trunks and trunks of political baggage from that recent administration, just ain't gonna be seen as "change"?
ESPECIALLY after having just endured a dismally failed "Poppy/Sonny-boy" dynastic disaster?
Just saying.
Posted by euzoius at January 7, 2008 10:49 AMThe inevitability message collapsed as soon as Hillary started making some mistakes, like on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. To maintain inevitability, Hillary would have had to project an air of being bullet-proof.
Hillary may have a shot at Obama when the Senate debates the FISA law. This may be where Obama has to show that he has substance. It also could be a trap for him. At this point, Hillary has little to lose by going for broke and showing leadership.
Posted by Mister Go at January 7, 2008 10:49 AMGood point mister go---publicly opposing the absurd, Beltway-and-Corporate Elite driven Telecom Immunity monstrousity would play very, very well for either of the sitting senators, and wouldn't seem all that "risky" to me. Will either one do it?
Who the fuck sympathizes with the Bushco enabling, illegally wiretapping telecoms?
Posted by euzoius at January 7, 2008 10:56 AMnow that we're discussing "Inevitability"...back to the real world as opposed to the Campaign World for a minute....The Navy is reporting a run-in with Iranian boats in the Hormuz, now we hear that two Navy fighters have collided and crashed in the Persian Gulf...The closer we get to the Inevitability of a Democrat in the WH, the closer we get to a very irrational act by Cheney or Bush. It will also inject the Fear card back into the campaign rhetoric, forcing the Dem candidates to rattle their swords, something that they aren't real good at.
Posted by T2 at January 7, 2008 11:26 AMTurkana, GOP's approval of Congress is below that of Democrats. Different poll, similar results, 26% vs 30% approval respectively. Both sides are down on this Congress. And "Hope" in either Obama or Huckabee, is the vehicle towards that.
Posted by peter at January 7, 2008 11:48 AMThe campaign, however, never really pushed the inevitability card. Rather, it was the media that created it and now it is the media that accuses the campaign for wrongly using it.
As to euzoius' point about change: yes, people want change. But they want change from the past 7 years of Bush. The people of New Hampshire would welcome the economic success they had during the Clinton Administration--and that would be a change from their present situation. So you can't link Hillary with the past 7 years and say she doesn't represent change. She--along with Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark, and Madeline Albright--represents change from the current situation facing America.
Posted by MTM at January 7, 2008 11:59 AMUntil Obama gets back to the Senate and helps his fellow Democrats pass legislation that is at the core of the Democrati principles, he is a phony. All the talk about change - what change. All this talk about working with the other side. Why isn't he really working with the Republicans in the Senate? Why isn't he bringing them across the aisle to vote with Democrats. Where is his magic, where is his pixie dust, why can't he get the Republicans to go against Bush and pass the SCHIP legislation which is supported by most Republicans.
Obama seesm willing to let the Democrats languish in their attempts to curtail funding the war, putting a timetable one the pullout. Where are his eloquent speeches extrolling the virtue of getting out of Iraq. Why isn't he up there with Harry Reid helping him get it done. Where is the evidence that he would do ANYTHING controversial - like voting on the Kyle-Lierberman resolution. He can criticize HRC for her vote but where was he?
He was against the war - good - so was I and a lot of other people. But I don't think that qualifies me to judge anyone who had to actually vote in the Congress at that time.
When Obama gets back to the Senate and starts "bringing change" to that small club of 100; when he starts "bringing the sides together" then he deserves some credit for his rhetoric. Until then that is all it is just rhetoric and meaningless.
Posted by Grandmother at January 7, 2008 12:23 PMTurkana:
Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright represent sober competence[...]
Hee hee!
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 7, 2008 01:14 PMTurkana you hit the nail right on head when you said about the strategists. Hillary should have learned from Kerry's mistake. Kerry listened to strategists and did not repond to those swiftboaters when he should have as anybody would do if somebody falsifies his records.
Hillary was told by her strtegists that she is shoe-in for democratic party nomination and she should look towards the general election. That is why she voted YES on Kyle-Lieberman resolution on Iran. She thought her YES vote will prevent attacks from Repub spin machine in the general election. That was the beginning of her slide with democratic voters and that slide is continuing. Why she did not understand that her YES vote on Iraq was already an issue with democrats? Why compond the problem by voting YES on Iran?
Posted by suresh at January 7, 2008 01:16 PMKerry's mistake, Clinton's mistake, y'alls mistake, the people are tired of all the stategist and their comments. They want their party back, then, they want their country back, that comes next.
Posted by peter at January 7, 2008 02:27 PMI want to see Hillary stay in the race, if only to help define Obama.
Also, Rezko's trial is coming up soon, right?
There could be surprises there.
Obama is going to dissapoint a lot of people. He's just a politician.
Look at his advisors, it's the same old crew.
You think the media is going to be blowing him after then finish of Hilary and her 'tears' ?
The real problem with "inevitability" as a near-official campaign narrative, is that it's incredibly fucking arrogant and can only serve to piss people off.
Christ, why not just call it "Manifest Destiny," that's got a ring to it as well.
Posted by Kundalini at January 7, 2008 03:53 PM"Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright represent sober competence, and who doesn't want sober competence..."
To some of us Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright represent mass murder.
But then, I guess they didn't slaughter or starve to death any Americans, so it's OK.
Posted by Shirin at January 7, 2008 05:25 PMThe odd man out, Edwards, is going to wait in the wings and ride this thing out. He's really not taken seriously by the media, but you can bet Team Obama has a wary eye cast his way after what he did to Clinton.
He probably won't win the nomination, but he might.
Posted by RAM at January 7, 2008 07:56 PM