First, bobbank spends his entire comment complaining about Obama's campaign not talking about the issues, but bobbank himself never once raises an issue about why Clinton would be a better president than Obama. The reality is that, since Clinton has been behind for this entire race, beginning in Iowa, and since she does not have more experience (please go to the Washington Post and look at their legislative records - Obama's is by far more impressive in one less term than Clinton and he also has a great record in Illinois), better judgment, more integrity or a better character than Obama (he is better in all of the above, just look at her negatives and her votes on Iraq, Iran, the bankruptcy bill, the Bosnia snafu)and since their policies are very similar (except on health care which she abysmally screwed up and dropped 15 years ago and never even made an attempt to address as a two term senator)CLINTON HERSELF has made this campaign about the campaign. She complains about the press, she complains about sexism, she spins how the race should be won, she flip flops on whether Michigan and Florida should be counted, she moves the goal posts constantly on what winning really means, she even now has Evan Bayh, Senator in Indiana, begging superdelegates in Indiana to vote as their district votes, even though he endorsed Clinton BEFORE his district voted, and even though the Clinton campaign line has been that superdelegates should vote their consciences. I could go on and on but I wouldn't want to exhaust bobbank. Since Clinton can't win on policies or her character or judgment, SHE HAS MADE THE RACE ABOUT THE RACE! I am so sick of her talking about electability and her glass ceiling. You never hear Obama talking about how he is a black candidate and how great it would be for a black candidate to be president - only Hillary talks about this when she lumps him into her "isn't this historical" comments.
So, please, don't blame Obama for talking about the style of the campaign. If he didn't defend himself when people attack him with distractions and electability arguments, you all would call him wimpy. When he talks about ignoring the distractions, he is trying to redirect the discussion. This is good negotiation, and good politics.
As for Wabash Sphinx's arguments, it is clear that you haven't really read about their legislative accomplishments. Please do some googling on this issue and you will see that in Illinois and the US Senate Obama has been quite accomplished - he has passed ethics legislation in both Illinois and the US Senate, he passed death penalty reform, child health care and many other bills in Illinois. In the US Senate he also aggressively pursued and passed very early in his first term the nuclear non-proliferation bill with a Republican. He was right on about going into Pakistan to chase terrorists if the Pakistani government wouldn't do it (and our CIA followed his advice and led a brief but effective campaign into Pakistan about six months after he suggested it and Clinton made fun of him)and he was obviously right on when he objected to the war in Iraq - everything he predicted might happen has happened. Go back and read his speech. Now, Clinton has decided we should go nuclear on Iran and use massive retaliation against anyone who harms Israel. This is so far beyond the pale that most pundits with any sense are talking about it as a huge gaffe, although the MSM has pretty much ignored it.
(How about that, bobbank, is that enough of the issues for you?)
Finally, Sphinx, Clinton is the wife of a two term president with 16 years of name recognition and the democratic party establishment behind her, including the governor and several mayors in PA, and she was up 25 points 6 weeks ago, so that fact that Obama was able to reduce that lead to 9 points in 6 weeks, just by giving people an opportunity to know him, flies in the face of your "weak base" argument.
I'm glad you all are reading this publication, as it is a very good one. But, please, educate yourself with a wider base of knowledge before you give an opinion.
Thanks for making it to the end of this lengthy missive!
Responding to a few comments above:
First, bobbank spends his entire comment complaining about Obama's campaign not talking about the issues, but bobbank himself never once raises an issue about why Clinton would be a better president than Obama. The reality is that, since Clinton has been behind for this entire race, beginning in Iowa, and since she does not have more experience (please go to the Washington Post and look at their legislative records - Obama's is by far more impressive in one less term than Clinton and he also has a great record in Illinois), better judgment, more integrity or a better character than Obama (he is better in all of the above, just look at her negatives and her votes on Iraq, Iran, the bankruptcy bill, the Bosnia snafu)and since their policies are very similar (except on health care which she abysmally screwed up and dropped 15 years ago and never even made an attempt to address as a two term senator)CLINTON HERSELF has made this campaign about the campaign. She complains about the press, she complains about sexism, she spins how the race should be won, she flip flops on whether Michigan and Florida should be counted, she moves the goal posts constantly on what winning really means, she even now has Evan Bayh, Senator in Indiana, begging superdelegates in Indiana to vote as their district votes, even though he endorsed Clinton BEFORE his district voted, and even though the Clinton campaign line has been that superdelegates should vote their consciences. I could go on and on but I wouldn't want to exhaust bobbank. Since Clinton can't win on policies or her character or judgment, SHE HAS MADE THE RACE ABOUT THE RACE! I am so sick of her talking about electability and her glass ceiling. You never hear Obama talking about how he is a black candidate and how great it would be for a black candidate to be president - only Hillary talks about this when she lumps him into her "isn't this historical" comments.
So, please, don't blame Obama for talking about the style of the campaign. If he didn't defend himself when people attack him with distractions and electability arguments, you all would call him wimpy. When he talks about ignoring the distractions, he is trying to redirect the discussion. This is good negotiation, and good politics.
As for Wabash Sphinx's arguments, it is clear that you haven't really read about their legislative accomplishments. Please do some googling on this issue and you will see that in Illinois and the US Senate Obama has been quite accomplished - he has passed ethics legislation in both Illinois and the US Senate, he passed death penalty reform, child health care and many other bills in Illinois. In the US Senate he also aggressively pursued and passed very early in his first term the nuclear non-proliferation bill with a Republican. He was right on about going into Pakistan to chase terrorists if the Pakistani government wouldn't do it (and our CIA followed his advice and led a brief but effective campaign into Pakistan about six months after he suggested it and Clinton made fun of him)and he was obviously right on when he objected to the war in Iraq - everything he predicted might happen has happened. Go back and read his speech. Now, Clinton has decided we should go nuclear on Iran and use massive retaliation against anyone who harms Israel. This is so far beyond the pale that most pundits with any sense are talking about it as a huge gaffe, although the MSM has pretty much ignored it.
(How about that, bobbank, is that enough of the issues for you?)
Finally, Sphinx, Clinton is the wife of a two term president with 16 years of name recognition and the democratic party establishment behind her, including the governor and several mayors in PA, and she was up 25 points 6 weeks ago, so that fact that Obama was able to reduce that lead to 9 points in 6 weeks, just by giving people an opportunity to know him, flies in the face of your "weak base" argument.
I'm glad you all are reading this publication, as it is a very good one. But, please, educate yourself with a wider base of knowledge before you give an opinion.
Thanks for making it to the end of this lengthy missive!