August 6, 2007
The Good and the Bad for Obama (A.B. Stoddard)
Like his candidacy, itself a Rorschach test for anything Democrats want or fear from Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the six-month mark of his campaign has brought the candidate a mixed bag of reviews — some to want more of and much to fear.
Clearly Obama tried to bounce back from the debate squabble with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Ill.) over engaging with leaders of rogue nations by insisting the United States must strike at al Qaeda in Pakistan if its leadership won't, but after trying to get to the right of President Bush he let it slip that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons there. Looking weak on national security? Not good for Obama.
Then there is the New York Times story about the tension between Clinton and Obama that reveals she turned icy and stopped speaking to him the day he announced an exploratory committee. She looks deeply threatened. Good for Obama.
The YearlyKos conference gave Obama (and John Edwards) an opportunity to bash lobbyists, and Clinton fell into the trap of defending them. Plus the liberal bloggers want much Clinton-era law repealed, including NAFTA, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act and welfare reform. Good for Obama.
However, Obama's proud Clean on Lobbyists record has received a closer look from The Los Angeles Times, which found he has taken money from people whom associates lobby. Not good for Obama.
David Brooks wrote last week that he would choose Obama's anti-poverty policy over Edwards's, and Paul Krugman just knocked Sen. Clinton for failing to deliver a healthcare plan, writing, "[I]t worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance." Good for Obama.
Mitt Romney made Obama his Democratic Enemy No. 1 at the Iowa debate, mocking his foreign policy pronouncements by saying Obama had gone from being Jane Fonda to Dr.
Strangelove in one week. Good or bad for Obama?
Obama can see what he wants to see. And so can we.
***
ASK A.B. — Please join me for my weekly Q & A video posts by sending useful, interesting and entertaining questions to askab@thehill.com. We want to talk politics and have a few laughs. Spare us the offensive, unGoogleable, unthinkable or otherwise useless. I look forward to hearing from all of you, often.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 12 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Ruling out nukes in Pakistan is 'weak' on national security? Lame.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — August 6, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Yes, YKos is just the ticket for Obama to captivate the national audience. But look, Mr. Geek is now convinced about Obama's national security credentials! Personally, I think Obama just keeps proving himself to be one of the "not ready for prime time players".
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Obama seems to be desperately throwing everything and anything against the wall.
Whatever doesn't stick, and most of it doesn't seem to be sticking, he's trying to spin as "I meant to do that" and the rest of us are all just too conventional (read: stupid) to understand how brilliant he and his ideas are.
Comment by JoeCHI — August 6, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Obama is now starting to dictate the terms of the race. He's rolling out more and more meat that Hillary isn't matching, he's started winning debates in the eyes of focus groups, he's ahead in cash (lower burn rate), and he's up or tied in IA, NH, and SC, i.e. the states that count.
Having more substance is giving the MSM more things to complain about, which is hurting his standing in national polls consisting largely of registered voters not paying much attention.
Comment by Nissl — August 6, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
John F. Kennedy possessed a unique combination of good looks, keen intellect, battlefield experience, and poetic charm that mesmerized anyone in his presence,and ultimatley inspired an entire generation. Obama's got an interesting biography, but he's no JFK, he's not even an RFK or a Teddy K or even a Joe K Jr… In fact, he's a utterly corrupt political hack from Chicago, who takes his orders from his (stock broker buddies) and from his wife, and THANK GOD is being utterly trounced throughout the USA by Mrs. Forgiver, who may not inspire anyone, but is at least a competent and professional politican. Obama will never win in NH and will never carry New York, or Florida or California and has little chance to carry Michigan or Illinois or Ohio. In fact, I see him losing every primary except for Washington D.C. Bye Bye Barak!
Comment by David Erlichman — August 6, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
So AB;
Ruling out using nuclear weapons is a bad thing? Tell me why? Using Nucs is about as sane as taking Igor and RR seriouly. The fallout from the blast could rain down on our allies and then all bets would be off. Do you know what would happen if all those with nucs decided that since we used them, its okay to do the same. After all those nucs went off, it would take another 250,000 year for the land to inhabitable again. I believe Sen. Obama to be right, don't use nuclear weapons when diplomacy and special ops would work.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 7, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Mike,
If the CIA received actionable intelligence that 0sama Bin Laden and all of the other Al Queda honchos were meeting tonight at 10:00 P.M. in a concrete bunker 200 feet below a remote Pakistani village, but the only way to be sure to terminate the target would be to use a tactical nuclear device, are you saying that President Obama would be justified to terminate the operation because the missles are armed with nuclear and not conventional explosives?
Comment by David Erlichman — August 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Mike, like you've proven yourself as such an authority that you should be taken seriously. So far you've advanced every liberal position without adding any value. Who the heck are you that anyone should pay attention to your opinions?
Comment by Igor R. — August 7, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
David;
If they are meeting in a bunker 200 feet below the surface, then what you would do is survey the site using our satelites to determine, entry and exit points, air intakes and other points that would make it possible for us to seal them in. Then you would use the most effective smart bombs to destroy those points. I would say a few 5000 pounder could do the job and there wouldn't be any nuclear fallout. See how sensible that is David.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 8, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Igor;
After reading a few of your post, I can say that I'm smarter than you.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 8, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Mike, the intelligence demonstrated by your post speaks for itself. In my opinion, you're best suited for raising hell at the local bar after a few beers. You seem to have the disposition and lack of higher mental function of the people who tend to do that.
Comment by Igor R. — August 8, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Igor;
Did I hurt you little feelings.
Tough.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 13, 2007 @ 11:00 am