« 
Craig Files New Appeal | Home | Report: Talk Of Indictment Of Rudy's Man Bernie Kerik Is "Premature" »
Craig Files New Appeal | Home | Report: Talk Of Indictment Of Rudy's Man Bernie Kerik Is "Premature" »
Quote Of The Day II
"If I believed in polls, then five years ago I would have backed the war in Iraq like she did."
-- Barack Obama, quoted by The Hotline commenting on polls showing him trailing Hillary.
Advertisement
Cue the "it's unfortunate to see Senator Obama abandon the politics of hope . . . flagging campaign . . . polls . . ." in 3, 2, 1....
October 15, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to say that true though it may be, this was too snarky to come from a candidate. The more I thought about it, however, the more likely it seemed to me that it was a carefully calculated decision. Whether correctly calculated, time will tell.
October 15, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it when candidates say they don't believe in polls b/c they all have pollsters working for them 24.7
Why conduct polling then if you dont believe it?
October 15, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can expect many comments saying that it was "easy" for Obama to have been right about the war in his absolutely prescient 2002 speech. These comments will beget a number of questions. Do folks who say this mean to imply, for example, that Clinton and Edwards voted as they did because it was harder for them. . . i.e., because they lacked political courage.
The fact of the matter is that when Obama gave his speech to the far left anti-war group ANSWER only 18% of IL residents opposed the war categorically. Furthermore, Obama faced a tough primary challenge and what looked to be a strong Rep candidate in Jack Ryan. The easy thing to do would have been to mealy-mouth it and avoid forums like ANSWER rallies. Instead, Obama spoke his mind.
October 15, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
in contrast to jeremy's point about IL, NY was opposed to the war, and hillary voted for it anyway. so, like obama, she also stood up to popular opinion. good thing she did, huh?
October 15, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
js wrote on October 15, 2007 3:32 PM:
Primary campaigns are like living breathing resumes and cover letters. Candidates ignore and dismiss weaknesses and talk up strengths. Almost universally, that's precisely how people get ahead, or convince other people they're capable of the opening in question. This is the very fabric of any sort of self promotion, and therefor the very foundation of any political campaign. In fact, we hear from the Obama campaign that his Iowa poll numbers are a reason to believe in the continued viability of his campaign. That Obama employs pollsters and promotes favorable poll numbers while dismissing Clinton's poll numbers is anything but surprising or controversial.This statement is interesting as a reflection of the Obama strategy to dethrone Clinton, and his developing critical campaign rhetoric. This particular attack doesn't seem like it will be particularly effective. Quite honestly, Hillary has done a stunning job of deflecting criticisms of her Iraq vote from opponents (much to their chagrin) by controlling the debates, and maintaining that commanding tone. To my ears, she sounds arrogant, vague and uninterested in answering any direct questions, but the majority of voters apparently hear things differently.
Obama really ought to move onto other more persuasive arguments. If that particular criticism was going to convince the typical democratic voters to drop their support for the presumptive nominee in droves, they already would have done so. He's mentioned the criticism enough already. Obama, Edwards and other trailing candidates should find a more effective focus for their criticisms, since this one isn't sticking. I hope they do so, because I'm getting pretty tired of this unfortunately predictable one (wo)man stroll to the nomination Clinton is enjoying.
October 15, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think his (Obama's) point is less about the Iraq and more about Clinton's propensity to make decisions based on the prevailing political winds.
October 15, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put Obama.
Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
October 15, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 4:02 PM:
True, but the only specific issue he mentions is her Iraq vote. Maybe the argument, in context, is more nuanced. This sentence alone though, sounds like the exact same line Obama has been using throughout his entire campaign. It's the exact same line that he's repeated at every debate, while Clinton's campaign extends its lead and fortifies her commanding position. The underlying argument isn't a bad one, and may prove to be persuasive, but the meat of his statement (Clinton's Iraq vote) had clearly failed to resonate with voters. Clinton has just been too effective in dismissing criticism of that vote.October 15, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seanh:
I don't know if I agree that this is an ineffective strategy since he's not deployed it before today. The Iraq War has always been about HIS judgment, not her lack thereof (at least not until very recently). And he certainly has not talked about (whether directly or cryptically) her proclivity to go with the prevailing wind. She's particularly vunerable on this point and the thinking may be that her campaign will dismiss this line just as you have and provide him the opening he needs. Think Trojan Horse.
Obviously I'm biased when it comes to him, but there is fertile ground here for him or Edwards (who I believe raised this issue more directly the yesterday or today).
October 15, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response from Obama.
It reminds me of his response to that Australian who claimed America couldn't abandon Iraq and Obama told him that he should send 20K more troops if he really felt that it was such a great war.
Good job!
October 15, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seanh:
Turns out my guess was right:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_po/obama_clinton_3
October 15, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I'm not a Hillary fan, but one tires of the constant poll-bashing. It seems as if every politician out there is running against polling. It's really quite astonishing that there are any pollsters left.... Maybe they've made it to the Endangered Species registry.
And, after poll-basher-numero-uno, Prez Shrub, I confess to kinda LIKING the idea of a president who thought popular opinion was meaningful.
Honestly, Hillary's imperial posturing (I can't possibly answer the question because Presidents are privy to information that the rest of us don't have, etc) is more disturbing to me than her supposed fondness for polls.
October 15, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink