Don't look now, Hillary...

OK, spinning, I got it.

Obama isn't a good public speaker, and I'd know that if I saw Chris Dodd speak more.

Do I have that right?

 

Joe Biden's got to find better people to steal from.
Blowhard who's choked at every big moment of his career.

 

WTF?

All I'm saying is, the country isn't even close to being ready to elect a black president whose middle name is Hussein. It's not gonna happen. On top of that, having seen him in every debate and in numerous speeches, I'm not sure exactly what he believes in or what he plans on doing once he gets into the White House.

All Obama brings to the table is this nebulous idea that somehow he's going to unite the country in a new kind of politics that is framed by the fact that he comes from a post-Vietnam generation.

 

And your third gambit. First, Obama wasn't that good a speaker. Then, it was the media who were conspiring to keep the "serious" candidates out of the limelight.

Now, the country isn't ready for a black president and you're not sure where he stands on policy issues.

Keep throwing shit against the wall. Something is bound to stick. or if, you know, you want to know where he stands on the issues, you could always navigate your way toward his Web site and find out for yourself, rather than reguritating conventional wisdom and platitudes.

Your call.

 

Right now, Obama is fighting off Bill Richardson for third in Iowa.

Since Iowa is in his backyard, you'd expect the Obama to do well there.

If you can't win states in your region, do you really have a chance to win the nomination?

 

The Kennedyesque crowds that show up to his political events would beg to differ.

 

Actually, no.

Richardson is the guy you like only because you haven't gotten to know him. Once you do get to know him, he's a pretty big shitbag, at least from my experience. Biden blew his foreign policy expert moments in the sun by repeatedly putting his foot in his mouth. Dodd appeals to a very small subset of Democrats, and Edwards has been covered quite thoroughly. Obama is inexperience and Hillary is unelectable. There, I'm not voing.

And Zeke, I think you were being tongue-in-cheek, but by no means is Ron Paul crazy. He's Goldwater republican for God's sake, and that ain't all bad.

 

I was being tongue in cheek, Point. I got nothing but love for Ron Paul.

I would never in a million years want him to be president of anything except maybe my local hunting lodge, but I got nothing but love for him. At least he's ideologically consistent.

I think he's a little farther on down the spectrum than even Goldwater, but there is certainly a place for him in that primary, and I think it's ludicrous that they kept him out of the "debate" today in Iowa and hilarious that he managed to turn it into the bulk of the press.

 

Obama's campaign manager thinks Hillary has a built in "quasi-incumbent" bounce in the polls.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Plouffes_memo_Hillary_as_incumbent.html

Citing both the new money and the "enthusiasm gap," Plouffe argues that Hillary's support is thin, the early polling is "meaningless," and that Obama is best positioned -- in terms of message and of organization -- to win the nomination and the election. He promises a robust organization in big, early states (specifically, and I'm not sure why, California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Missouri) and says Obama is the candidate with room to grow.

The case is worth checking out, but there's one near-contradiction in there that's central of the puzzle of this race.

The central question: Is Hillary like an incumbent, or not?

"One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses," Plouffe writes. "Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it."

Then Plouffe cites early polling in the 1980, 1988, 1992, and 2004 cycles that had Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Kerry well behind their Democratic primary rivals.

 

How so? I know I've heard that about Richardson before on these boards, but I don't ever recall hearing why.

 

Just keep twisting every post I make. That's your call, obviously.

Look, if Obama wins the nomination, I'm voting for him. But I don't think he can win the presidency, he is not the second coming of JFK, and I think there is some mythology out there suggesting he is that was created by a convention speech.

In two debates, I've seen a guy who could not produce clear, focused, thoughtful answers to specific questions. He rambles and rambles and still leaves me wondering what in the world he plans to do.

While the press fawns over Obama, they chastise Edwards for how much he spent on a haircut. Yet after watching two debates, I have a much clearer picture of how Edwards plans to address the big issues -- Iraq, health care, education, poverty.

 

I love it. You like Edwards because you like his plan on Iraq better?

Did you miss the part of the debates where Obama bitch-slapped Edwards on Iraq?

"You're about four years late to lead on this issue, John..." Ringing any bells?

And my objection isn't to you not liking Obama, it's to the tired and twisting logic you keep using to explain why you don't like him. If you don't like the guy, you don't like him. But don't try and say it's because he isn't a good public speaker or because the media is giving him a free ride. That's just dumb.

And Edwards is dead in the water. If he doesn't hold his lead in Iowa he could be out after one or two primaries. His nationwide numbers are atrocious and his money is starting to dry up.