Obama: a fresh face or an old-school tactician?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Obama: a fresh face or an old-school tactician?

The presidential contender may be sold as something new, but in Illinois' hardball politics, he fit right in.

==Now, promoting himself as a fresh face on the national political stage, proclaiming his distance from lobbyists and the Washington culture of special interests, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has to contend with his own history.

From Chicago to Springfield, his past is filled with decidedly old-school political tactics -- a history of befriending powerful local elders, assisting benefactors and special interests, and neutralizing rivals.==

=="We want to know that when we sit down, we're serious," Yehudah said. "They know it when a $1,000 check comes in."

Obama lost his congressional bid. President Clinton backed incumbent Rush, who received twice as many primary votes as Obama. Obama was left with a $40,000 debt.

Later that year, Yehudah associates pitched in an additional $5,000 to help retire Obama's debt. The contributions were recorded on Oct. 7, 2000, three days after the Illinois Senate, at Obama's behest, approved a $75,000 state grant to Yehudah's nonprofit, state records show.==

Read the rest at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamaprofile8sep08,1,6196379.story?page=2

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Like Lincoln, He's Both

Abe Lincoln wanted to do the best thing. However, he was fully aware of the realities of politics, and he pandered heavily as necessary. In the end, he was able to move The People into doing the right thing.

I get the feeling that Obama is similar in that he understands the limits of behavior within which he can be elected, and he moves to the highest moral ground that he can within those limits.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. You're comparing the man who saved the union to Obama?

The hype has no bounds...

So you are voting for him based on "faith"?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. In The Specific Way That I Wrote, Yes

I don't know what the future would hold with Obama as President, but I like what I'm seeing so far.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. You like the same guy corporate America loves

Ah, the magic of Obama. :) Do you think his corporate donors are not aware of this ability he has but HRC lacks? Obama will be able to sell things that Clinton would get crucified for by progressives.

[Tellurian]

5. Good to see you back dmc..

Nothing's changed much...suggesting MG watch the newly released dvd.."The Perfumer" a retrospective projection of Obama supporters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Thanks

:hi:

Can you tell me more about that DVD? I had not heard of it before.

[Tellurian]

16. Sure..

The actual title is: "Perfume" The story of a murderer.




you will notice familiar similarities to some folks here.

[durrrty libby]

6. Abe Lincoln, JFK, RFK.....these comparisons for BO are

ridiculous and a slap in the face to these true historical heroes

Maybe Sticky-Fingered Louis might be a better fit. :rofl:

[Ethelk2044]

10. your opinion, however I take Ethel Kennedy Opinion over yours Any Day

Here are some kind words by Ethel Kennedy about Barack Obama...


"I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did," Ethel Kennedy said, comparing her late husband's quest for social justice to Obama's. "He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him." Ethel Kennedy invited Obama to deliver the keynote address at a ceremony commemorating the 80th birthday of Robert F. Kennedy. She said she had carefully followed the career of the Illinois senator, whom she referred to as "our next president."
I have heard a lot about JFK and RFK being leaders that only come around once in generation. The most appealing thing about Obama is his leadership qualities. I get the feeling that he is the same kind of leader as JFK and RFK and that I don't want to be missing out on a movement.

:toast:

[durrrty libby]

20. Poor Ethel has suffered so much in her life.Why take advantage of her?

Try getting a historian to make a comparison. You know damn well there is none.

Be logical for fuck sake. Truly shameful :eyes:

[Imagevision]

Yeah right, poor Ethel, just answer the question...

[durrrty libby]

89. Ethel Kennedy and her children made the ultimate sacrifice

to their country. The fact that you have no respect for that

is quite telling and a damn shame.

"Yeah right, poor Ethel, just answer the question" :eyes:


The answer is...he is neither.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Lincoln vs. Obama

Lincoln: saved the union, issued the emancipation proclamation
Obama: gave one hyped speech in which he spoke of substantive things like coaching little league in blue states and having gay friends in red states

[TwilightGardener]

7. You said it very well--he does the best he can within the reality of politics.

Pure idealism gets you nowhere--ask Kucinich.

[PATRICK]

56. In your defense

This is like how you get treated for cogent comparisons using the Hitler analogy, only in reverse. Our reverence for good presidents ignores their political acumen, ambition, compromises, etc. A good speaker from the hustings rather than the establishment, a good historical matchup need not get into 'saving the union". Obama isn't president yet! Lincoln's election split the union although he tried to hastily backtrack on his earlier statements and put off abolishing slavery quite some time. FDR also dealt with the concerns of the business world, slowing his new deal reforms, hampering recovery, allowing them to try to overthrow him, letting the fifth column traitors to get away scot free and not controlling the succession of progressive policy in his own party. But to be fair to the greats, Obama has no record as president yet!

We are talking about any pol running for president unless an eisenhower or Washington who don't have to do anything. Performance concerns are more important than analogy violations. One might have concern, looking at past GREAT presidents that a great candidate doesn't fully get it and will be controlled, harmed by compromising forces, especially with a newbie tempted to fill his cabinet with Repugs or Clintonites or corporate figures. That is not such a huge concern as the certain diabolical performance
of the GOP candidates.

Name dropping, flames rising, but the historical comparisons ARE important.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Oh, Cujo is back

and his Hillbot friends are here to greet him...I'm getting all verklempt at the superficial warmth that shared hatred of Evil Obama is capable of generating...sniff, sniff.

[NYCGirl]

9. LOL!

Hillpeople taking solace in the arms of a Edwardsite. It's downright touching.


:rofl:

[Tellurian]

17. LOL!

I'm just waiting for the explosion of netroots heads when Hillary is named the nominee...

No more wackadoo pronouncements will be the order of the day.

[NYCGirl]

21. I sure like her more than I like Edwards. NT

[Tellurian]

25. hmm...

I know you do, NYCGirl. Not forgetting how you defended her early on. She will be the "one" as becomes obvious to the netroots at some point in time.

[NYCGirl]

28. Well, I hope you'll understand if I campaign for my choices until the primaries

are well and truly over.

[Tellurian]

34. ...

To understand is not to forgive, remembering she is the only one capable of beating back the Republican machine.

[NYCGirl]

35. ...

That, of course, remains to be seen.

[Tellurian]

38. That of course will become fact soon enough. nm

[NYCGirl]

39. Perhaps, but right now it's only opinion. NT

[Tellurian]

48. As what you say, only an opinion. nm

[illinoisprogressive]

11. Thanks for letting us know that Obama is tough enough to go after the gop.

[Tellurian]

12. Go after them to HIRE them. Hiring Neo-Cons just like Bush..

[alfredo]

15. When in Rome.... One has to tune their campaign to the local

issues and styles. A Kentucky pol that goes to Illinois and tries to campaign as he did in Kentucky, he's going to get his ass handed to him.

If the power brokers still hold power, you will have a tough time getting anything done without out them. You can't change the system sniping from the outside. It takes someone on the inside to do the job. You have to understand the reality to change that reality. Will Obama be strong enough to stay uncorrupted? Will he be strong enough to be different? Will he be strong enough to bring the promised change?

[zulchzulu]

18. God...I wish Mother Teresa was alive to run for President

:sarcasm:

I read the article. Yes, there are some juicy tidbits that opponents can use to slander Obama... Yes, in the world of politics, you do have to raise money. Yes, in the world of politics, there is always to spin something that is perfectly legal into something that is "devious".

Point me to the serious, viable candidate running for President who doesn't have something that someone could exploit. They don't exist.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. The problem is Obama is marketed as above such things and acts as holier-than-thou

If he were honest about these things it would be a completely different matter.

[durrrty libby]

22. Exactly.It's like the gop and their "family values" It's all about the hypocrisy

[NYCGirl]

23. Show me where Obama said he would never take personal contributions from

CEOs.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. You're pulling a Sean again. No one is talking about that here nt

[durrrty libby]

52. The meme around here from Obama supporters has been

“His donations are from the wee little people, not from big evil corporations like Clinton.”

Don’t bother jawing the silly indignant outrage

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. You're right. BO has invested so much in this that it would hurt him greatly in the GE

The appeal he has to swing voters is his personality and marketing that holds that he is above such things. Take the latter away and you have an even weaker GE candidate than the current one who loses PA, OH, and FL.

[zulchzulu]

24. We can play nasty if you want

Any candidate running can be skewered into a bloody pulp over any issue if you want to play dirty.

I could rattle off 10 issues about each candidate that would make a fairly uneducated person just give up and never vote. Do you want that? Is that your mission? Do you think your preferred candidate can't be taken down with scandal mongering in a day?

I read the article posted. There is nothing there that is unusual in the world of politics. The only people who want to bring up the legless story about Rezko are people who would rather play smashmouth politics over an issue that has nothing illegal about it. But, if you're desperate or someone looking for a morsel to spin as something to degenerate support for a candidate, then that's your strategy.

What always happens is that you end up sinking the very quicksand pit you made to trap others in.

If that's all they have on Obama, I am very confident he's going to be the nominee. Period.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Is any other candidate marketed as and as reliant on a myth of being above such things?

As to Rezko, if Obama is the nominee we will hear a lot about him. Again, since Obama is not running on real issues he is particularly vulnerable on this. Rezko is a classic case of how the "new kind of politics" is exactly like the "old kind."

[zulchzulu]

32. Again...

Do you think any candidate will not fall into scrutiny?

The Rezko case has been pushed by some in the Chicago press and it has gone NOWHERE. I welcome anyone trying to make it an issue. They will be embarrassed and debunked like the scum they are.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Every candidate needs to be vetted now, not after we are stuck with him/her nt

[Tellurian]

37. It's going to Trial in February..

why are you pushing blatant misinformation?

[Tellurian]

36. Yes, you failed to take Hillary down with your scandal ridden smears..

so whats your point, tough guy?

[emilyg]

26. Great to see you back.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Thanks

:hi: :)

[earth mom]

40. Obama is NOT one of the good guys. Not when he supports liquefied coal for fuel = Rethuglicans. nt

[Tellurian]

44. Absolutely! nm

[ripple]

54. LOL, Hillary supports it, too! n/t

[Tellurian]

57. Hillary is supporting energy exploration.. Obama is a hypocrite

including coal. Hillary isn't sponsoring a Bill to Fund the expansion of The Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act as Obama is:

"Who, but who, would soil the environmental reputation of Barack Obama?"

The Democratic senator from Illinois gets stellar marks from greens. Just a few months ago he was calling global warming "real," saying: "It is here. . . . We couldn't just keep burning fossil fuels and contribute to the changing atmosphere without consequence."

(out of one side of his mouth while...)


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. It's a development that has the coal crowd cheering. So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator's green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

Environmentalists say focusing on coal does nothing to arrest climate change. Instead, they say, lawmakers should back cleaner alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions standa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

[ripple]

87. Your candidate also supports liquified coal

http://www.heatison.org/content/blank/candidate_chart

Hillary and Obama are correct. We can't afford to sit on our thumbs while we wait to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel. Liquified coal isn't ideal, but it's better than what we're doing now and it's certainly better to liquify while we seek new energy opportunities, rather than continue to pollute at the current rate. Again, our candidates agree on this issue.

[AtomicKitten]

41. In other words, Obama is a formidable candidate.

The Los Angeles Times does a profile-type story about Obama's political past and concludes, "From Chicago to Springfield, his past is filled with decidedly old-school political tactics -- a history of befriending powerful local elders, assisting benefactors and special interests, and neutralizing rivals. Obama may be packaged as something new among presidential contenders, but in this town where politics is played like a blood sport he fit right in." That's music to Clinton and Edwards' ears.

On Sunday, the New York Times wrote about Obama’s 2000 congressional primary loss to Rep. Bobby Rush (D). “The episode revealed a lot about Senator Obama -- now running for president, against the odds again and with a relatively slim résumé. It showed his impatience with the frustrations of his state Senate job; his outsize confidence; his fund-raising powers; his broad appeal; and his willingness to be what Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and supporter, calls ‘a very apt student of his own mistakes.’” It also showed his difficulty wooing working-class African Americans.

By the way, this piece sparks a thought we've noted before: Candidates who have experienced a loss at the ballot box usually handle the bumps in the presidential road a bit easier. Check out the last 12 presidential nominees, all of them experienced a ballot box loss before their successful nomination.

Bush 43 ('00 and '04) House race in '78
Kerry ('04): House race in '72
Gore ('00): presidential race in '88
Clinton ('92, '96): gov. race in '80)
Dole ('96): VP in '76 AND '88 presidential)
Bush 41 ('88 and '92): Senate race in '70
Dukakis ('88): gov race in '78
Mondale ('84): VP nominee in '80 loss
Reagan ('80 and '84): presidential in '76

The Oprah fundraiser in Santa Barbara was a who's who in attendance.

"When you have been called, no one can stand in the way of destiny," Oprah said at the fundraiser, per the Chicago Tribune.

On Saturday, in addition to his fundraiser with Oprah, Obama spoke to a crowd of more than 5,000 people in Santa Barbara, CA, NBC’s Samantha Mehrotra notes. He focused his speech on change and called for an end to the Bush Administration’s policies. “ are sick and tired of being sick and tired… They are tired of an Administration that seems to be riddled with incompetence.” Obama further advocated for change by talking extensively about political reform and the need to “put an end to a certain brand of politics that has come to dominate the scene in Washington.” And he addressed talk about his experience (or lack thereof) by saying that “time does not guarantee good judgment.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/10/353233.aspx

[Tellurian]

43. In other words, Obama IS involved with the Chicago Mob..

OBAMA'S 'MOB-TIE' $IDEKICK

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

September 5, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - A man who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure will host a Windy City fund-raiser tonight for Sen. Barack Obama.

Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator's Oval Office bid.

Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help.

Giannoulias was the bank's vice president and chief loan officer for most of the more than $15 million in loans.

He was not charged with breaking any laws. The Obama campaign disputed any suggestion that Obama is tarnished by the association.

"Barack Obama has a long record of fighting for ethics reform from his days as a state senator," a campaign rep said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09052007/news/nationalnews/obamas_mob_tie_idekick.htm

(an incidential paradox to Obama's do as I say, NOT as I do... charade.)

[NYCGirl]

46. You just LOVE those right wing sources, don't you? NT

[Tellurian]

47. It's not a RW Source...check again..

[NYCGirl]

49. The NY Post is not a right wing source? It's as wingnutty as they come. NT

[Tellurian]

50. I see, you refuse to view the sight...fine!

[NYCGirl]

51. Your link goes to the NY Post. Where do you think it led? NT

[Tellurian]

58. The NYPost has been a Liberal newspaper source for years

and follows the political slant of it's owner. From what has been published lately in other news sources, Murdock has had a break with Republican Neoconic ideals. There aren't any Republican adverts in the online publications. So you'll have to update your thinking about the NY Post online. Murdock has reversed his political bent back to his original Liberal leanings.

The Murdoch years

While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, (key words)reflecting Murdoch's politics.

Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of his British tabloid papers such as The Sun, typified by the Post's famous April 15, 1983 headline: HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR. The Post also recycled The Sun's famous GOTCHA headline, this time in reference to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, instead of the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War.

Because of the institution of federal regulations limiting media cross-ownership, Murdoch was forced to sell the paper for $37.6 million in 1988 to Peter S. Kalikow, a real estate magnate with no news experience.<26> When Kalikow declared bankruptcy in 1993,<27>the paper was temporarily managed by Steven Hoffenberg,<28> a financier who later pled guilty to securities fraud;<29> and, for two weeks, by Abe Hirschfeld,<30> who made his fortune building parking garages. The Post was repurchased in 1993 by Murdoch's News Corporation, after numerous political officials, including Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo, persuaded the Federal Communications Commission to grant Murdoch a permanent waiver from the cross-ownership rules that had forced him to sell the paper five years earlier.<31> Under Murdoch's renewed direction, the paper continued its conservative editorial viewpoint."

[NYCGirl]

66. But it's the wingnuttiest right wing rag NOW.

Edited to add "Liberal" NY Post recent cover.

[Tellurian]

68. haha! I remember you thought the world was flat as well, for oh so very long..

Things change...get with the program..

[NYCGirl]

72. I'm a New Yorker. I know what the NY Post is — and fishwrap is the best thing

it can be called.

[Tellurian]

73. AL GORE is not running, no matter what state you're from.. nm

[NYCGirl]

74. And this has to do with you and your beloved right wing sources how?

You're really grasping.


:rofl:

[Tellurian]

77. You haven't proved a thing..

There are no Republican ads in the NY POST online..

carry on...

[NYCGirl]

78. LOL!

Yeah, and I guess you think Fox is fair and balanced, too!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/04/murdochs_new_yo.php

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/30/ny-post-uses-gay-stereotypes-to-cover-craig/

[Tellurian]

83. ::yawn:

[earthlover]

76. Robert Murdoch....isn't that Hillary's buddy? Fox News, yadayada....

No wonder Hillary supporters like The Post! It's her buddy who owns it!

[AtomicKitten]

53. Sounds like a "The Clintons Murdered Vince Foster" allegation.

The delicious irony is that kind of dirty politics often backfires, and if what goes around truly does come around, all I've got to say is heads up, sister, because Democrats are sick and tired of that kind of slime from the GOP and aren't about to take this kind of cheesy politicking within the party in stride.

[Tellurian]

60. If you continue to believe denial is just a River..

I've got a bridge to sell ya!

[AtomicKitten]

62. Better be careful mimicking GOP sliming tactics --

The bad karma will come back and bite you and your candidate in the arse.

[Tellurian]

64. Sorry, mine is for real as your example has never materialized..

Not going to happen. My slate is cleaner than a coal politico supporting environmental changes.

[AtomicKitten]

65. we shall see

I'm thrilled that the Hillary and Edwards supporters have linked arms in their attempt to take Obama down here at DU. Very telling.

Gobama.

[Tellurian]

67. Obama's decline and stagnation is of his own making..

Our little band of supporters are out manned 20/30 to 1 on this board.

It's all Hillary's prowess as an outstanding campaigner thats done it.

GO HILLARY!

[AtomicKitten]

69. Obama is neither declining nor stagnating --- you just wish he was.

Nice try. Thanks for playing. Drive through.

[Tellurian]

71. C'mon now...you're a smart lady..

Obama plateaued after the last debate and the reason he pulled the plug on any extra debates.

He didn't win any points in the Univision debate either...His answers (when he chose to address the question) were totally flat offering no solutions.


September 10, 2007 Survey USA California poll:

Clinton 51%, Obama 27%, Edwards 14%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=487589bb-87d0-4a2a-96b4-3721541076b9

September 10, 2007 Gallup:

Clinton 43%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16%

With Gore: Clinton 39%, Obama 19%, Gore 16%, Edwards 14%;

Combined Responses:

Clinton 63%, Obama 41%, Edwards 31%, Gore 28%;

Head-to-Head: Clinton 63%, Obama 32%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-09-09-politics-poll.htm

[AtomicKitten]

79. I'll give you national -- but you weren't specific in your derogatory remarks.

See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3509250&mesg_id=3510625

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. When is the last time a national poll showed BO, a former front-runner, gaining ground? nt

[AtomicKitten]

75. Moving the goalposts again?

I'll give you national, but the rest will be won state by state. And Hill's vulnerable underbelly is showing in that milieu. You can bet Obama and Edwards are going to keep fighting, hard.

So, no, Obama is, in fact, not declining or stagnating. Neither is Edwards.

This race isn't static. Not by a long shot.

And even though you have me on ignore I thought I'd put it out there in cyberspace that it's much too early to pop the champagne and trying on smug. You get a two-fer with that: (1) you put people off the candidate you do support and (2) the premature celebration usually ends kind of ugly here at DU.

[earthlover]

82. When is the last time you saw a conversation when hillary supporters didn't bring up polls?

Even when irrelevant to the conversation..out...of...the...blue....

It boils down to this for the Hillary campaign: 1) hillary is inevitable, resistance is futile 2) obama is naive and should go to the back of the bus for eight years until such time he can try again 3) if Obama argues for an ideal, he is either a hypocrite because nobody is perfect or see #2 above, 4) Robert Murdoch rules

[earthlover]

84. Little band of supporters? I thought she was the prohibitive front runner! HA!

You brightened my day! Always good to get a good chuckle. Good for one's health I think....

[ripple]

55. Oh, really?

The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and the oldest to have been published continually as a daily.<3> Since 1976, it has been owned by Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and is one of the 10 largest newspapers in the United States.<4> Its editorial offices are located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, in Manhattan.
While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

I'll bet you think Fox News is objective, too. :eyes:

[Tellurian]

59. I'll bet you have reading comprehension problems..

obviously!

[ripple]

88. And you have objectivity problems

You quoted Rupert Murdoch's NY Post and went on to claim it wasn't a RW source. You are clearly incorrect, but I'll bet you knew that.

I think you just like to fling a bunch of shit out there to see if any of it sticks.

[zulchzulu]

45. Thank you

I wish I could K&R a post.

:thumbsup:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

42. so is Obama naive and inexperienced

or a wily political veteran?

can't really be both, can you?

[Tellurian]

61. Obama can.. He supports the environment while supporting policies cooking the atmosphere...

Just ask his supporters.. They can justify it they way they do with reams of spin..

They'll blindly pull out false slime in an effort to validate their point.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

90. like Al Gore does when he flies around in an airplane, right?

gee, where have I heard this line of reasoning before?

And you aren't really addressing how one can be both naive and politically exploitive. Either he's one or the other. He's either perceived as naive, or he's perceived as exploitive. Which one is it in your opinion?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

63. False choice. He is an experienced politician but lacks federal experience

You know, like a certain Texan in 2000...I am glad he did a great job of learning on the job! :puke:

[jefferson_dem]

81. How much less "experience" in elective office does your preferred candidate have...

than Obama?

Since you are now placing such a value on "experience", i'm curious about how you reconcile your candidate's deficiencies here.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

86. Ask voters. Only one candidate has to defend his lack of primetime experience

Only 18% of voters prefer an inexperienced Washington "outsider" (it is funny to see Obama, a senator, being marketed as an outsider). Clearly, most voters think experience matters--especially after the * debacle.

[jefferson_dem]

80. The poster doesn't really have a coherent position on that...

I guess it's whichever makes Obama look bad today... Tomorrow, it'll be something different.

[Odin2005]

85. He's Old School in the FDR sense.

His mindset is not much different then FDRs dictum to just try something and if that doesn't work admit it frankly and try something else.