From TIME: Obama Nomination Out Of Reach?

[wyldwolf]

Obama is not the first thoughtful Democrat to capture the fancy of the party's upscale élites, convincing them he represents a new direction for their party. There was Gary Hart in 1984, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean four years ago. But the outcome has always been the same when these phenomena have come up against more conventional rivals who appeal more explicitly to the populist voters that make up the Democratic Party's base. So while the Obama brand has a certain cachet--celebrities like Halle Berry have been photographed around Los Angeles wearing Obama T shirts--Obama the candidate is having a hard time breaking out.

Part of the problem lies with Obama's low-key speaking delivery, an approach that surprises listeners who know him best (and often only) from his roof-raising keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. "His style is so cerebral and so cool that it just doesn't appeal to a wide segment of the Democratic Party," says an adviser to a rival campaign. "They want to like him, but he just isn't connecting with them." And Obama has had a harder time cultivating a down-home image than his opponents. A few weeks ago, he skipped a candidate forum sponsored by aarp in Iowa--a state where 64% of those who attended the Democratic caucuses in 2004 are over 50--to appear at a fund raiser in Atlanta with R&B recording star Usher. Afterward, Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen wrote: "There wasn't a big winner of Thursday night's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, but there was a clear loser--Barack Obama." At a rural-issues forum on a farm outside Adel, Iowa, Obama sympathized with the plight of farmers this way: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and seen what they charge for arugula?" (That high-end grocery store chain doesn't have any locations in Iowa.)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262-1,00.html

[wyldwolf]

1. arugula??

Wonder how many Iowans eat arugula. Wonder how many have ever heard of it? I'm married into an Italian family and I'd never heard the word before.

[Colobo]

17. It tastes like crap.

[WCGreen]

49. Yea but it is really good roughage...

Cleans ya right out....

[Kelly Rupert]

59. I kinda like it.

But spinach is one of my favorites, so maybe I'm not the one to ask.

[Nedsdag]

30. That's unfair.

My major market grocery store sells arugula and I wouldn't say I'm in a fancy neighborhood.

Also, Hillary's people have nerve making Obama out to be an elitist. I don't live in Chappaqua and I didn't go to a fancy Ivy League school. How dare she?

[killbotfactory]

50. They sell it at my local farmers market

I'm not sure why it's an issue that Obama mentioned arugula.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. I know, I mean how many people go wind surfing like that out of touch Kerry guy

[wyldwolf]

2. just gotta kick one more time

[wndycty]

3. I see you had to reply to yourself twice to keep this particular passive aggressive Obama slam. . .

. . .up there. I love people who spend more time posting negative items about other candidates than they do posting positive things about their candidates. . .keep up the good work. . .LOL

[wyldwolf]

4. hey, thanks for the bump!

[William769]

8. Could you be referring to something like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3558359&mesg_id=3558359

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. I just can't get over how you can eagerly support a candidate

While your avatar is a picture of her HUSBAND.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. While not wanting to put words in wyld's mouth,

I would guess that would be due to approval of the eight years of peace and prosperity of the Clinton presidency, and a desire to support the candidate that is to the greatest extent a continuation of that administration.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. "Evita!" n/t

[Dawgs]

43. Boy, I hope Hillary supporters aren't that stupid.

[Kelly Rupert]

46. You're kidding yourself if you think Hill and Bill have any differences between them. n/t

[jenmito]

47. So she lied in the debate Wed. when she said she disagreed with Bill on the torture scenario? n/t

[wyldwolf]

48. No, Russert lied when he misquoted Bill Clinton.

[jenmito]

52. Really? So the NY Daily News lied last year when Bill said that and she agreed with him?

And now she DISAGREES with him? And Bill didn't say Russert lied during his interviews yesterday. He just said Hillary gave a good response. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

53. yep

Bill did not say what Russert said he said. This has been well documented on DU with actual transcripts from last year's appearance on MTP by President Clinton.

[jenmito]

54. Nope. Bill ALSO didn't say Russert misquoted him. And he would've said so if he had misquoted him.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

55. The transcripts don't lie.

Here is the transcript of Russert’s “gotcha” question from the debate:

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on “Meet the Press” made, and I want to read it, as follows: “Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”



CLINTON: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.

I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.

Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies.

But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.

RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

CLINTON: Well, he’s not standing here right now. (applause)

Now, here's the MTP transcript with President Clinton:

MR. RUSSERT: As you travel around the world, what do people say about the image of the United States?

MR. CLINTON: Well, different people say different things. But I think that the real problem—it’s generally assumed, I think, in Washington, that, that the problem the American image has is that a lot of people disagree with President Bush, and it’s basically about Iraq. I, I think it’s a little more complicated than that. That is, I think it—it’s true that in the Middle East and many places out the un—in the independent, unaligned countries, they don’t necessarily agree with our Iraq policy, but I think it’s more the feeling that that’s just the most severe example of a country that is more committed to doing what it wants when it wants, and not listening to other people and working with them whenever possible. And the bigger you are and the wealthier you are and the more traditional power than you have, the more you have to be sensitive to how you’re perceived by other people, the more you at least have to want to have people think that even if you don’t agree with them, you’re kind of on their side. And I don’t think America has any significant image problems that couldn’t be turned around rather quickly with a different way of dealing with people.

I also believe that, in the Muslim world, at least, if there were a resumption of serious Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, that would help a lot, because everybody knows that in the end, that situation can’t be resolved, in all probability, unless we’re involved in a supportive way in what happens after they sign the deal.

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think when Colin Powell said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism”?

MR. CLINTON: I think he was referring to the, the questions that have been raised about the original evidence, which plagues him and in which he was, I think, unwittingly complicit. I don’t think—I think it’s pretty clear, based on what all the people that worked for him have said. I think he was most worried about the question of torture and the conduct of the prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And of course, he weighed in in this debate about the extent to which the CIA or others could engage in conduct which clearly violates the Geneva Convention.

Now, we—as you and I talk, and we hear that they’ve reached an agreement, the senators and the White House, and I hope they have. But Colin pointed out that, you know, we’ve got soldiers all over the world. If we get a reputation for torturing people, the following bad things are going to happen: We’re as likely going to get bad information is good, just for people to just quit getting beat on; two, we’re likely to create two or three or five enemies for every one we break; and three, we make our own soldiers much more vulnerable to conduct which violates the Geneva Convention. That is, we can’t expect our friends, much less our enemies, to accept the fact that because we’re the good guys, we get to have a different standard of conduct. And most people think the definition of a good guy is someone who voluntarily observes a different standard of conduct, not someone who claims the right to do things others can’t do.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you outlaw waterboarding and sleep deprivation, loud music, all those kinds of tactics?

MR. CLINTON: Well, I—here’s what I would do. I would figure out what the, what the generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention are, and I would honor them. I would also talk to people who do this kind of work about what is generally most effective, and they will—they’re almost always not advocate of torture, and I wouldn’t do anything that would put our own people at risk.

Now, the thing that drives—that, that gives the president’s position a little edge is that every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him? But keep in mind, in 99 percent of the interrogations, you don’t know those things.

Now, it happens like even in the military regulations, in a case like that, they do have the power to use extreme force because there is an imminent threat to the United States, and then to live with the consequences. The president—they could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing ex post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wire taps.

So I, I don’t think that hard case justifies the sweeping authority for waterboarding and all the other stuff that, that was sought in this legislation. And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to—but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake.

Bill Clinton on Meet The Press told Tim Russert that it “is a mistake” to have an advance policy of torture. Hillary said about torture “As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.” There is no difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton on torture policy, contrary to Russert’s assertions. In fact, Hillary seemed to track closely Bill Clinton on the mistake that is torture. Hillary noted her conversations with various military generals (as did Obama), all of whom stated to her that regarding torture “there is very little evidence that it works”.

[jenmito]

56. From the quote you put in bold print:

"And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could."

And at the debate: RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

So he DID say that in "certain circumstances" it's ok. And Hillary agreed. A year ago.

[wyldwolf]

57. yeah... FROM the quote I put in bold. But here is the WHOLE quote I put in bold:

"So I, I don’t think that hard case justifies the sweeping authority for waterboarding and all the other stuff that, that was sought in this legislation. And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to—but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake."

:rofl:

What? Are you Russert, Jr.? STILL taking a quote out of context? :rofl:

Here, I can chop the quote up, too:

"So I, I... claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention."

Russert is a pathetic loser. Anyone who uses his dirty trick is, too.

[jenmito]

60. You're trying to justify that he said

"we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could." That's allowing for torture. Dress it up however you want. :eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

61. When the very next statement is

"But to—but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake," it pretty clearly isn't.

[wyldwolf]

62. you're even taking THAT line out of context

:rofl:

Speaking of a scenario where there's a bomb about to go off with a limited amount of time to stop it - and having the culprit in custody - Clinton says we could not torture him for the info no matter how much we would want to:

I don’t think that hard case justifies the sweeping authority for waterboarding and all the other stuff that, that was sought in this legislation. And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up —we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to— but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake.

[jenmito]

68. Um, no I'm not...

just because you don't put it in bold print doesn't mean he didn't say it. He therefore agreed with the Repubs. who believe that torture is ok under the "ticking time bomb" scenario. But it's not. And Hillary said it doesn't work, clearly disagreeing with both her husband and herself a year ago. :rofl:

[Kelly Rupert]

70. Dude, the *very next thing* he said was

"to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake."

[jenmito]

72. I'm female, "dude"...

it doesn't matter what the very next thing he said was. He DID say we'd do what we had to do in order to stop another 9/11, even though it shouldn't be our policy.

[Kelly Rupert]

74. Right. With the sentence before and after that one, what he's saying is

that torture should never be a policy, but that if it would prevent another 9/11, people would probably take the initiative to make the exception. And the fact that people will take the initiative and violate the rules if they find it necessary means that there cannot be a positive to making torture a legal policy.

Do you understand now?

[jenmito]

75. Doesn't matter...and I understood before you tried to justify it...

He clearly implied torture could be done if it will "stop another 9/11" even though everyone says torture doesn't WORK.

[Kelly Rupert]

76. Yes, he did, because realistically, any officer who thinks he will save lives by doing it

will do it regardless of the policy. Therefore, the RW talking point about needing torture to prevent 9/11 is bullshit and you should ban torture.

Look, Bill Clinton is a very smart man. Sometimes he makes very complex arguments. It's okay to skim over it and not catch all of it, but continuing to insist that he's arguing the opposite of what he's actually arguing in real life does not make you look good.

[jenmito]

77. Not true.

He believes in a ticking time bomb scenario torture should be allowed because, obviously, he thinks it could work. It doesn't make HIM and his WIFE look good finessing his statements like that. He should've just said that torture doesn't work so it should NEVER be acceptable, even in that scenario, since it wouldn't work. Just more Clinton triangulation.

[Kelly Rupert]

81. He is rather specifically saying

that torture should never be allowed, because in a ticking-time-bomb scenario an officer will likely violate the rules anyway. He does not say that it should be allowed in that scenario--he says it should *never* be approved of beforehand.

You are really, really reaching here.

[jenmito]

84. You're wrong.

Here is his words: "And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could."

What was he talking about-baking cookies?

[wyldwolf]

71. uh, yes you are. And the more you argue this point, the more foolish you look

[jenmito]

73. From a Hillary supporter I take that as a compliment...

since you support someone who has said some pretty foolish things.

[wyldwolf]

83. oh, this is the part where you try to divert from the point because you've been proven wrong.

[jenmito]

85. No. This is the part where I see there's no getting the facts through to you

so I have to return your comment with a similar one.

[Carrieyazel]

91. Yes, but many people believe that just having any Democrat

would likely continue most of the Clinton admin. policies. It shouldn't and doesnt have to be Hillary.

[Ethelk2044]

5. Nope. The media is trying to push Hillary. However the voters will decide this election

[Dawgs]

6. Just like Kerry in 2004 - (low-key speaker, way behind in the polls, etc...)

[Tellurian]

21. How so..please explain..

[William769]

7. Self delete. Posted wrong place.

[wyldwolf]

9. arugula??

That has to be one of the oddest things ever said to an Iowa audience - the price of arugula at Whole Foods.

[William769]

10. I hate arugula!

But then again, I actually know what it is.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Excuse me, but why would you think that Iowans aren't familiar with arugula?

Elitist much?

[Kelly Rupert]

15. He's not claiming Iowans haven't heard of arugula.

The problem is that few Iowans grow it, and there aren't any Whole Foods in Iowa. It's a non-issue anyway; he was actually trying to be anti-elitist by pointing out how much money those big-city types with their fancy stores are exchanging, and how little of that finds its way into the hands of Iowan farmers. His problem (judging by the cool reaction he got) was his wording; most Iowans, it seems, are actually unfamiliar with Whole Foods and their price of arugula.

[Tellurian]

20. Obama is too lazy to do homework. He campaigns on his looks and hope..

[Kelly Rupert]

22. I don't think that's fair at all.

His campaign is largely based on his charisma, yes--but if you've got it, you'd be stupid not to take full advantage of it.

I don't think you'll get very far calling the youngest editor of the Harvard Law Review "lazy." I mean, that's just not going to fly. His campaign and his policy positions are no less nuanced that any other person's. He's less experienced (and so is his staff) so he'll make a few more mistakes than Clinton, but that isn't laziness. Take your George-Bush-created smears elsewhere, please.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. Hmm, didn't a Bush official say a similar thing recently? Good job passing on the new R/W meme

"Obama is lazy" "Obama is lazy"

I dunno, the man has a pretty impressive list of accomplishments for being so lazy.

[Tellurian]

27. I have nothing to do with Bush..

arugula and whole foods in Iowa anyone?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. Imitating a Black preacher in a southern church anyone? n/t

[Tellurian]

35. Yes, good analogy of Obama...

right on!

[Kelly Rupert]

36. They're saying Hillary's had her stupid moments too.

Everyone has.

[Dawgs]

44. No, but Hillary campaigns on her sex and husband.

[WCGreen]

51. I am sorry, but I don't think the average person at a political rally

would be able to discern the subtleties of your tortuous explanation as to how mentioning arugula and Whole Food in a speech is actually anti-elitist...

[Kelly Rupert]

58. Neither do I. It was a boneheaded comment.

All that matters is how it's taken, not how it's intended.

[WCGreen]

67. That is why candidates have to be carefull..

YOu literally never know who is listening...

[Tellurian]

19. Imagine the reaction..

to Obama last night (watching the streaming video) after he tells NYorkers he's rooting for the Chicago White Sox.. The expected Boos were deafening..and him acting surprised..what an oaf!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. WTF? You are expecting us to believe:

That a large crowd of supporters showed up to see Obama, and then abruptly decided to reject him because he *gasp!* supports the baseball team from his home city.

[Tellurian]

28. Sometimes in trying to score points with the crowd

you end up shooting yourself in the foot as Obama repeats the same mistakes over and over again.

[Dawgs]

45. Dumbest post I've read today, and I've seen a lot of really dumb posts supporting Hillary.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

64. Okay, I am a complete ignoramus about sports

But even I understand how people often rib each other in a mock serious fashion about their sports teams. Recently I was at an event where the speaker was a Univ. of AZ alum. Many of the people in attendance went to ASU. He made a joke about being a Wildcats fan. Believe it or not, the Sun Devils fans in the room did not set upon him with pitchforks. He actually made it out alive and everyone enjoyed his presentation.

Gee, I'll bet a similar thing happened with the Obama event.

[Kelly Rupert]

66. Don't be silly. Nobody will vote for him now unless they're White Sox fans too.

Unfortunately, now only Cubs and Yankees fans (amusing that she flip-flops on sports teams based on location) will vote for Hillary, too. Kerry lost badly in '04 after only Red Sox fans voted for him (and nobody else), right?

Does Edwards have any MLB affiliations? Maybe he'll be our nominee.

[Kelly Rupert]

11. I have to agree, unfortunately.

He simply isn't fulfilling his promise, and he's running out of time to do so.

[Ethelk2044]

14. He has a lot more support than you think. Like the voters are stating they are not being polled.

It will be another 2004.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Ah, right, because

that much-vaunted hidden reservoir of unpolled support for John Kerry led to a stunning upset victory, right?

...no, wait. Actually, the final election results ended up being spot-on to what the polls showed. Turns out the Great Unpolled--if they actually exist--don't vote, either.

[Colobo]

25. That's what you want. Sadly for you, the nomination will be his and

you will have to celebrate with us.

[William769]

29. If only you had the facts to substantiate that statement.

:rofl:

[Nedsdag]

31. Keep laughing William.

That smug attitude will get you President Mitt Romney next year.

[Colobo]

32. The arrogance of many Hillarites has no limits.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. Hillary crushes Romney in the head-to-heads.

Not worried about that quite yet.

[Colobo]

Obama will crush the Republican nominee, so don't worry.

[Kelly Rupert]

39. Obama's doing worst of the Big Three in head-to-heads, but

only by a point or two; really within the margin of error. I'd have faith in him as the nominee, too.

[William769]

41. To bad he can't crush Hillary.

So that will be a moot point.

[Colobo]

38. Obama will crush the Republican nominee, so don't worry.

[William769]

42. To bad he can't crush Hillary.

So that will be a moot point.

[William769]

40. I'm a happy person, what can I say?

And if you thin mitty boy is going to win, you have my sympathies.

[BeyondGeography]

33. This "late in the day" stuff is such total nonsense

If Obama isn't moving his numbers up by December, I'll pay attention to it, because that's when voters in the early states really start to pay attention and make decisions. For now, these articles are little more than MSM space fillers.

[freestyle]

63. Where's my BMW?

I don't make nearly enough money to be a member of the upscale elite, and I support Obama. The MSM seems to want a Clinton v. Giuliani election because there would be more good stories. If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her in the general, but can we not declare the primary over months before the first votes are cast?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. Anyone who thinks Obama's appeal is mainly upper class elites

Needs to get their head out of the MSM's ass.

[oasis]

69. I too would rather hang out with Usher than a bunch of old AARP fuddy duddies. Cut Obama some slack.

B-)

[smalll]

78. Hart, Tsongas, Dean, Obama --

the "wine track" always ends up as a bridge to nowhere.

[AZBlue]

79. Does this seem racist to anyone?

Maybe I'm just looking for things - but I don't usually do that, so I'm not sure that's the case. I'm not big into conspiracy theories usually and don't look for the hidden meanings in everything.

But, why is it when an African American doesn't listen to rap, wear gangsta-clothing, or talk with street slang, they are "too erudite"? Why are they are "too smart" or "too upper-class"? I mean, if Hillary or John Edwards said the same thing about arugula, would Time magazine comment on it? I'm not so sure they would.

Not trying to start anything - just asking a honest question.

[chill_wind]

80. Oh, I get it. Not a good ol boy "you'd like to sit down & have a beer with". Feels real familiar.

Close you eyes and listen. They could have been RNC talking points about Kerry in 04. We're never at our party best than when we're ripping literal pages right out of the RNC play manual and parroting phony old campaign soundbytes peddled by the excreble anti-liberal, anti-intellectual corporate whore media.

"(...)

Part of the problem lies with Obama's low-key speaking delivery, an approach that surprises listeners who know him best (and often only) from his roof-raising keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. "His style is so cerebral and so cool that it just doesn't appeal to a wide segment of the Democratic Party," says an adviser to a rival campaign. "They want to like him, but he just isn't connecting with them."

(...)"

[Perry Logan]

82. I will VOMIT if Obama gets the nomination! I will quit the Democratic Party!

Not really. Just trying out some anti-Hillary rhetoric.

[chill_wind]

88. ?! Lol. Had me goin for a second there.. :-) n/t

[Ethelk2044]

90. Quit then. He is what this country needs and he will win.

[saltpoint]

86. The NYTimes yesterday covered an Obama appearance in lower Manhattan.

Looks to me like quite a hell of a lot of folks showed up for it, too.

TIME magazine is suspect. They do a kind of Wal-Mart drive-through of news events, throw a catchy photo or two at you, and assume that will keep you mollified.

I think anybody who underestimates Barack Obama's appeal to voters is a fool.

[PATRICK]

87. Adlai Stevenson

springs to mind but I can't compare. Eisenhower, despite possibly having the worst speaking abilities in memory was connected to the people without having to campaign at all.

Stevenson got the nomination although no one had a chance of winning against the General.

[Carrieyazel]

92. Hart should have been the nominee. He ended up beating Mondale in the primaries and caucuses.

Only superdelegates put WM over the top.

[Carrieyazel]

93. Weren't many also saying that Carter, Dukakis, Clinton had no shot at the nomination

But yet all 3 were nominated.

Al Gore once said in early 1992 that Clinton "would never" be President.