Obama's downward slide

[wyldwolf]

Barack Obama's "refreshing moment in the 2008 presidential campaign" as The Chronicle described yesterday's feel-good Bay Area visit, may provide only temporary relief from what has been a string of otherwise unwelcome developments.

One of the tell-tale signs could be found in the New York Times story that appeared on the same page as the Chronicle "jump" from page 1. It suggested that Obama's attempts to compete with John Edwards as the champion of the working man and woman may not be working too well with major unions, whose support, in terms of both money and campaign foot soldiers, is pretty important.

According to the Times, the best Obama may do among this constituency is to get some individual unions from openly throwing their support to front-runner Hillary Clinton. Overall, union endorsements are trending for either Clinton or Edwards.

Which brings us to the opinion polls, where the news for Obama is worsening. As his numbers dwindle, Clinton's numbers soar, both nationally and in the crucial swing states of Florida -- where Clinton outpolls Obama by 30 points -- and Pennslyvania and Ohio, according to the latest Quinnipiac survey.

Stubbing his toe, at least politically, on various foreign policy issues hasn't helped, adding to the perception, long-held by skeptics (unfairly or not), that he is a lightweight.

As the Los Angeles-based African-American commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson noted this week,

But even if Obama had done and said everything right on foreign policy issues, his slide was inevitable. In fact, there were signs that Obama could hit the wall with voters, and the issue would be his fitness to wear the tag of commander-in-chief.

It would be worse for Obama, Hutchinson continues, if he should by some miracle beat out Clinton or Edwards for the Democratic nomination. His political and foreign policy missteps would make it virtually impossible for him to unhinge one, let alone two states away from the Southern Republican bloc.

And where the fault lies, Hutchinson believes, is clear.

Though it's still early in the presidential game one thing is clear, Obama is the first casualty of Obama

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=19305%22

[ramapo]

1. He's not moved me

Seems like a fine enough fellow but not somebody that I'd vote for at this point.

[DaveJ]

2. This does not make Americans look good

If "stubbing his toe" is the way we describe ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, and speaking to evil leaders urging them to change, then Americans have a lot of growing up to do. Having the correct and mature reaction to issues hardly makes him a "lightweight."

[aquart]

13. Oh, dear.

Yeah. It does show he doesn't understand that Mutually Assured Destruction has been a HUGELY successful policy for DECADES. I take it that you don't get that, either.

Why would ANY nation negotiate an arms deal with us when they know in advance we are no threat? We have ONE weapon left, since our moral, military, and economic clout is gone, and that is our nuclear arsenal. And you want to take that off the table, too. Okey dokey.

That means the United States gets to stand in a corner while the new real players negotiate the fate of the world. We're out of the game.

[jgraz]

33. yeah, Japan's really been marginalized over the past 1/2 century

Mutually Assured Destruction is an outrageously dangerous policy that came very close to blowing us all to hell on several occasions. Even without being blow'd up, we've paid dearly for it in terms of lives, treasure and ruined ecosystems. Not what you'd call a success unless you're a DOE contractor.

[DaveJ]

52. It's not a game

I personally do not want the world to head in that direction.

The 'nuclear club' paradigm needs to change. MAD is not a policy or negotiating tool (well, if it is, it's one of many more) but moreso, MAD is the given status when a country obtains nukes.

We have more than nukes to negotiate with -- that is the strength of the American people. If we can survive the Bush regime, we must be incredibly strong people. But if all we have is our nukes, as you say, then we've already lost.

[William769]

3. Obamas campaign.

[obama_girl]

4. He has my vote!

obviously

[AtomicKitten]

5. you wish

:)

[lojasmo]

6. Yaaaaaaawn.

Whatever democrat gets the nomination, I'll vote for.

I am Sooooooo glad I don't have a horse in this crappy field.

I'd sure hate my candidate to lose to a horrible candidate like last time.

[aquart]

10. This is NOT a "crappy field."

These are intelligent, hard-working, able people. Any one of them is capable of running this country. Our disagreements are on the fine points.

I would NEVER rule out use of nuclear weapons, for instance. I wouldn't use them, but the point of them is MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. If YOU use 'em, WE'll use 'em. So NOBODY uses 'em. To destroy this successful policy in advance shows a tragic misunderstanding of international relations.

I don't think Obama is "lightweight." I think he's green. The only way to learn is the hard way and he will. But the Democratic slate of candidates if FAR from "crappy."

And if a bomb went off and destroyed them all, we could field another slate just as able and intelligent because our party attracts that kind of human being. We have an embarrassment of riches in that regard.

[lojasmo]

31. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Clinton and edwards voted for the war and the patriot act.

Richardson (who I think is most qualfied) will not get the nod.

Nor will Kucinich.

Or Gravel

SO, basically we've got Obama, who I like, but who doesn't have the chops to stand up to CLinton et. al.

So, we're probably looking at clinton, who voted:

1) for the war
2) for the patriot act
3) for the bankruptcy bill
4) scads of terrible Bush appointments.

and

5) who will likely lose in the generals.

Yuck.

[slick8790]

7. I dunno if his campaign is sinking or not...

But if it does, that's a shame. He's a fine senator and a very charasmatic speaker, who, IMO, should have waited for another election.

[quinnox]

8. agreed

I don't know who talked him into running this time, or if it was his own decision, but it may turn out to be potentially damaging to his future political career the way things are going.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Yes, how dare he step into the spotlight when it was clearly "Her Turn"...

:puke:

[quinnox]

11. It was his choice

Did he really think Hillary would be pleased when he starts namecalling and attacking her. He is young enough that he could have waited another 8 years to run for president. I don't think it is a good idea to make an enemy of Hillary Clinton!

[jefferson_dem]

14. Frankly, who gives a fuck if she's "pleased"?

I realize some Hillary followers might have a hard time with this idea...

but the election is about the country not about her.

Cheers!

[slick8790]

18. Agreed. But think about how much he could have benefitted by waiting?

He'd put to rest all the "lack of experience" nonsense. And it would give him time to establish a much broader grassroots support. I think he should have waited for his sake. But then again, the last sitting senator to be elected president was JFK, IIRC. A known quantity with a voting record anyone can use to highlight mistakes is never a good thing in a GE. But who knows, he could end up getting the nom, or at least a VP slot, what do i know? :p

[jefferson_dem]

27. Generally speaking, i agree with you.

More experience would tend to benefit any competitor for the POTUS. This year, i believe is different. The American public seems ready for something new and different - a "fresh approach" if you will. Obama appeals to that sentiment. One could effectively argue that more experience stewing in the Washington establishment is exactly what this country *does not* need at this moment.

In terms of raw personal ambition, the Dems are well-positioned for a presidential pick-up this year. Supposing Obama didn't get in now and a Dem did win, he would be waiting another eight years for his shot. Finally, what better way to audition for VEEP that to run for the top position and come in a strong second...?

<<< Anyway, this election is still very much in play. Nobody's been coronated yet, i don't think...

[laugle]

44. JD, since you are known for having some objectivity when

it comes to BO, what would you say BO would bring to the dem ticket, if he were chosen as VP?

[jefferson_dem]

46. Well...

Supposing for a moment that Obama does not walk away with the prize (ugh...I hate to go there already), the nominee would be utterly foolish to not harness his daft skills and amazing charisma and appeal. Besides, he will have a list of several million loyal supporters. In politics, that's *real* currency.

No one knows how this will turn out... but between you and me...

I would not be disappointed if we rolled out the truly historical "Dream Team" ticket of Hillary-Obama. Celebrate the obvious -- it's time for a new era of American politics.

[laugle]

48. Thanks for the reply, but most importantly, it needs to translate into votes,

afterall, winning is what it is all about.....to insure a new beginning for all of us!

We will just have to wait and see...it should be very interesting.....

[Spearman87]

41. That's why I think this was his moment in time

Experience is good. But Senate experience tends to become counterproductive very quickly: Most legitimate Presidential candidates (read: sufficiently close to the center) from the Senate, will have over time inevitably accumulated a voting record that on paper looks contradictory. Obama was riding a wave and he was right to jump in when he did. But he had to find other ways to prove himself sufficiently wise and seasoned to handle the job, and IMO his team of advisors have somewhat botched that job, so far.

[Spearman87]

43. His best bet now, to still be a hot name in 2016

I think it's actually through the VP route. He would have to be an active and visible VP though (in the Cheney mold!......well, you know what I mean :).....active in a way that was popular and impressive with the public)

But I don't think he'd help the ticket that much (I think Hillary will win), and besides they will probably hate each other by the time this is done

[Dawgs]

24. When did HE start attacking HER?

She was the one that called him "naive" and "inexperienced". Do you expect him not to respond?

"I don't think it is a good idea to make an enemy of Hillary Clinton!"

What the hell does this mean, and when has she demonstrated that she is such a great fighter? It seems to me that Obama was the one that got the cheers, and Hillary was the one that got the boos the other night.

[quinnox]

26. It means

that if she should become president, which is not only possible but likely, if you were Obama wouldn't you want to be a friend to Hillary rather than an enemy?

Maybe Hillary will find it in her heart to forgive Obama, but I fear Obama might yet go to depths unknown as the campaign carries onward.

and about the booing, well that was expected, everyone knows it was a hometown crowd for Obama, they were on his side.

[jefferson_dem]

28. On the other hand...

Hillary better straighten up, stop her whining, and make nice with Obama from here on out...

If she wants a seat at his presidential table, that is. :bounce:

[Vincardog]

22. "Her Turn" my a$$. Where did she get 15 years experience?

[DURHAM D]

12. Obama had several problems

with his message management in the three-four weeks prior to the Pakistan dust up. I think it reflects an undisciplined and not so competent campaign staff. Personally, I think he is too inexperienced (and too naive regarding smash mouth political campaigning)to be running for the top position at this point in his career.

I was hoping he would keep his composure through the primary and be picked for the number two spot this go round and then be ready for number one in eight years. VP would have been the best spot from which to run for the top slot. I am afraid that eight more years in the senate will ruin his chances - his voting history (no matter how good) will be used against him.

That said - I think his staff is repeatedly blowing his future. I would like to be completely wrong.

[ericgtr]

15. I have leaned away from Obama recently

mostly because I am not a fan of his recent attitude towards foreign policy and am left undecided at this point. However, I must say that it appears the Hillary supporters on here are simply militant, attack, and attack some more. You would think it's a red vs blue campaign for God's sake, every time I see another negative smear from a Hillary supporter I am turned off to her that much more. Honestly, I feel like I would support her more if it wasn't for being constantly bombarded by her supporters and ripping other candidates this way.

[Cameron27]

19. I don't like the bashing either, but to be fair,

there are a couple of Obama supporters who continue to post really ugly and unsubstantiated hit pieces about Clinton that naturally provoke a response.

It's not the best way to promote your candidate, but there are two factions at play here.

That said, I haven't been happy with Obama's Bush-Cheney lite remark, or the Obama/Edwards lobby attack on Clinton. I think I agree with Chris Dodd:

MyDD’s Jonathan Singer interviewed Chris Dodd, including this segment on Barack Obama and John Edwards claims to take no money from Washington lobbyists:

“I found the argument almost insulting to the audience. … So you’re getting money from trial lawyers, and you’re getting money from Chicago, Los Angeles… People, this “Washington lobbyists” is a nice bumper sticker, but don’t insult the intelligence of people out here. … As someone who has been an advocate for a long time of public financing, people sort of competing with each other as to how many lobbyist checks they won’t receive in all of this misses the point, it seems to me, in many ways. And, again, it’s to some degree because saying “Washington lobbyist”, as if a lobbyist from every other place around the country is okay and they’re the only ones who are wrong is trite and superficial.”

The National Journal Hotline Blog

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/tag/campaigns/debates/

Ack, one week I'm leaning towards Obama, and the next it's Hillary lol.

[ellacott]

20. Very, very true

This is how I feel also.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

29. run back to Sean Hannity and get your talking points for the day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3419554&mesg_id=3419554

[William769]

32. Pot meet kettle.

[wyldwolf]

34. excuse me?

[jefferson_dem]

42. Did he stutter?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

49. no, but he was talking to zuluman

:shrug:

[William769]

51. You are correct wyldwolf.

[hijinx87]

17. there could be another dynamic at work

the always reliable political maxim, "when behind, go negative"
may actually be working against him. I have always wondered if
there was something in the american psyche that would subconsciously
resent a man "attacking" a woman in a national political campaign.

I have no idea whether that is what is happening here, but something
seems to be applying downward pressure to his poll numbers. and as
I recall, the rethug that hillary trounced to win her senate seat
the first time tried some overly aggressive move in a debate that
came off as bullying. I don't recall exactly who or what. he never
had a chance to begin with, but being perceived as attacking a woman
was generally regarded as the thing that put his numbers into free fall.

just a theory. having a woman this close to a major party's nomination
for president is unplowed ground for our culture. we don't really know
how we will react to some of the things that are happening, and are still
to come.

I find all of this absolutely fascinating.

[oasis]

21. Obama could benefit from a little more seasoning. Hillary'll have the tough

task of repairing the nation after 8 years of Bushco theft and neglect.

Barrack will have ample time to prepare himself for his next run.

[daa]

23. He comes off as immature and

unsure of himself. When Hilary said she hs fought the right wing machine for 15 years and is a better person for it, that sealed the deal for me, because she is right. Who better to have the rapid response and fight the wing-nuts. She got creamed on health care on Big Dog's watch but she is back and said yes we need universal health care. Good for her, you go girl.

[Dawgs]

25. Well, the immature one got cheered, while your 'girl' got booed.

"Who better to have the rapid response and fight the wing-nuts."

You do realize that the right would love to have her as the opponent. They her want because they know that 45-50% of America will never vote her; no matter what. If Hillary has fought them so hard, why do they want to run against her in the general?

[daa]

30. He got cheered in his home town

The right is on the wrong side of ALL the issues. If you are worried about how many will vote for her, I wonder how many will vote for him in the South? Not here is Georgia, and she leads him pretty good here in Georgia.

[saracat]

39. Hmm.Isn't chicago Hillary's hometown as well? Wasn't she born and raised there? Obama's a

transplant!

[daa]

53. I think he lives there now

not her. And how many decased has it been since she was from there?

[laugle]

It's easy to get cheered, it's hard to tell the truth!

The mess Bush has created, will take someone who has the balls to make some very tough decision's, and some of them will not be popular!

We all know candidates who tell us what we want to hear, and then don't follow through. Kudos to HRC for speaking honestly........

[cleveramerican]

35. He hasn't capitalized on the attention he's grabbed

He has been very successful at getting everybody to look his way, and he certainly sparkles on TV, But he hasn't filled in the blanks well enough ...yet. He's getting better. The learning curve at this level is pretty steep. Hillary's inevitability is a pretty huge hump to get over for even the most seasoned candidate. He is still the Anti-Hillary, so he still has a chance

[durrrty libby]

36. His supporters don't want to hear it, but he just doesn't have it

He might be a nice guy and an ok senator, but here is no depth yet.

[saracat]

38. And Hillary does? Except for overwhelming personal ambition, where is the depth?

Hillary radiates an air of competence that I am not sure is justified.She can be a pit bull of a dirty campaigner but I am not sure that she displays leadership qualities yet.
Obama has virtually skyrocketed out of nowhere and is almost poised to take her down.He isn't doing it yet but the very fact that he is credible when she wasn't prepared for any kind of a threat is interesting.
Obama danger to Hillary is that he has "charisma' and people "want" to follow him.Hillary's strength is the "inevitability " argument and Obama is chewing away at that.Hillary doesn't have the reserves of "charisma' or likability to challenge this.Time will tell.

[BeyondGeography]

37. Mighty thin gruel, this piece

One little blogger supported by noted anti-Obama hack Hutchinson and Quinnapiac polls on states where Obama hasn't even campaigned yet. And his supposed foreign policy missteps force Republicans to say staying in Iraq is more important than pursuing Al Qaeda. Taking advantage of that "misstep" worked really well at the debate the other night, didn't it?

Wake me up when you post something meaningful again.

[Capn Sunshine]

40. Number one in public donations, not taking lobbyist money

You WISH Obama was downward sliding.

I have to keep pointing to the scoreboard to remind you who's winning.

[wyldwolf]

50. Number one in Wall Street donations. Behind nationally and state by state

WAAAY behind in California.
I have to keep pointing to the scoreboard to remind you who's winning.

[politicasista]

45. Hutchinson carries water for the GOP

He bashes Democrats cause they don't meet his shady agenda.

[Colobo]

47. YAWN!!!!OOOOOOOOAAAAAAHHH!!!

This makes me sleepy. :)