The Obama campaign says...

[Colobo]

It is clear that just as voters are becoming more engaged in the campaign in the early primary states that Senator Clinton and her campaign have abandoned the politics of “let’s have a conversation,” in favor of purely tactical posturing.
Questioning and challenging what principles, if any, each candidate is standing on when they take a position or change that position is the normal part of the political process. Our campaign regularly fields questions on significant policy issues, even as we did when Hillary Clinton attacked Barack by calling him naïve and irresponsible for a position which she has agreed with him on 2 of the 3 occasions she has addressed it.

Our campaign will continue to speak openly and honestly about the challenges facing Americans and on our nation on issues as vital as Social Security, torture and international diplomacy and Barack Obama will continue tell Americans not just what they want to hear, but he believes they need to hear as well. Granted, we can see why she and her campaign might continue to get irritated by tough questions about her changing positions – they must be very tough to answer.

On Social Security, Clinton had been saying that nothing was on the table in terms of how to repair and strengthen Social Security. But in a conversation with a voter that the AP overheard, it appears to be clear that raising taxes is on the table in a very real way.

When it comes to diplomacy, Clinton moved from thinking it “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve” for a president to offer a meeting with someone we don’t agree with to saying: “Here’s what I would do as president: I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions.” In all fairness, that was the position she seemed to have before launching her attack on Obama for his commonsense policy of not fearing meetings with anyone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlyYtJxaio; Clinton Event, Canterbury, NH, 10/11/07; WP 10/10/07>

On her torture position, first she was for some forms of torture then she opposed all forms, then she refused to tell the Washington Post whether the administration’s policy was one she would continue.

And then, of course, she did hedge her bet on the pledge she made to the early primary states. It hasn’t been exactly popular in the states with early contests for Clinton to break her word to them.

And, in response to some of the rather breathless political assertions in their memo today, we would make the following points

· In the one state where the race is engaged, Iowa, the last four public polls show a race within the margin of error between Obama and Clinton, with Edwards in third. This is not because it’s the one state in the union immune to Senator Clinton’s appeal. It is because the voters are paying close attention, they know the most about Barack Obama and are responding to his message. As other early states get more engaged, we will see a much closer race.

· We just started advertising in New Hampshire two weeks ago. Even before that, Obama has a solid vote foundation of 20%. We will build on that in the coming weeks thru additional advertising and candidate visits, like the trip this week where Barack unveiled his energy plan.

· South Carolina is a very close two way contest between Obama and Clinton already. We have a solid base and will expand on that as the election draws nearer.

· We have the strongest precinct organization in Nevada, which will be paramount. Organization will win the Nevada caucus. There is no existing list of prior caucus goers at the precinct level and turnout estimates vary wildly.


Senator Clinton in all these states is the quasi-incumbent. In Iowa, where the race is most developed, over 70% of the electorate is not choosing her, producing a dangerously low ceiling.

More at:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_obama_campaigns_memo.php

[hedgehog]

1. Exactly!

[William769]

2. "over 70% of the electorate is not choosing her"

He fails to mention that same percentage is not choosing Obama either.

[rinsd]

9. Worst logic ever.....

Especially since she kicks his ass when its just the two of them!!!

[SaveElmer]

3. He acts like just going after Hillary is all he has to do...

People know this is just the next political maneuver he is trying because everything else has failed...

Plan A: Politics of Hope
Result: Falls behind

Plan B: Lobbyists
Result: Falls further behind

Plan C: Attack time
Result: Falls further behind

Plan D: Attack even more
Result: My guess is more of the same

He has no credibility in these attacks because first,his and Hillary's positions are largely the same on most issues...and second, his criticisms on Iran are completely undercut by the fact that his own mentor Dick Durbin voted for it, Wes Clark and Joe Wilson favored it, and Obama clearly did not lead on the issue before he decided it was fodder for criticism...as the Clinton campaign accuratly pointed out today...

Memo: Seasons of the Campaign

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
RE: Seasons of the Campaign

SENATOR OBAMA’S “NEXT PHASE”

This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. (See: Huffington Post) He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.

If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?

So perhaps something else is at work: politics. (BINGO)

As Senator Obama’s closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said, "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no."

[Colobo]

4. SaveElmer and William don't agree with the Obama campaign?

Oh Lord! I'm... shocked! :)

[William769]

5. So then I guess it safe to assume you agree with the Clinton campaign?

[Colobo]

7. LOL! I agree with the Clinton campaign as much as you agree

with the Obama campaign.

[SaveElmer]

6. If you have some example of leadership on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...

By Obama before it was passed...I'm all ears...

[Capn Sunshine]

8. we're doing things in Iowa that don't show up on polls

After the primary, I'll let you know if it was an effective strategy, but suffice it to say Clinton's organization is not even on the radar within these voter groups who coincidentally, fall outside of Mark Penn's voter group windows.

I hate to be so cryptic, but have to. I just get so tired of polls.

[calteacherguy]

10. Disappointing, I was hoping.

This a complete, blatent distortion of the facts:

When it comes to diplomacy, Clinton moved from thinking it “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve” for a president to offer a meeting with someone we don’t agree with to saying: “Here’s what I would do as president: I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions.” In all fairness, that was the position she seemed to have before launching her attack on Obama for his commonsense policy of not fearing meetings with anyone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlyYtJxaio ; Clinton Event, Canterbury, NH, 10/11/07; WP 10/10/07>

Obama was talking about a personal meeting; Clinton is talking about real-world diplomacy.

I had high hopes for the Obama campaign, but it appears the short-lived era of the politics of hope has ended. That's unfortunate.

[illinoisprogressive]

11. I love the part about coronation and what happened to the politics of let's

have a conversation! clever. very clever.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. Capn, I have heard the Iowa organization of Obama is very impressive