Mar 27, 2007 10:02am
Obama in the Grindhouse
EmailThe questions are coming for the junior Senator from Illinois — and they are not pleasant.
Is he all sizzle and no steak? ASKS THE AP.
Does he make rookie mistakes? ASKS THE ROOKIE POLITICO.COM.
Is he too aloof and not enough of a fighter? ASKS THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
For me, in the answers seem to be NO, YES, and as of right now YES.
What say you?
– jake
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Wow, Obama’s already being hit with the dreaded ‘too aloof’ charge. That’s a really bad sign of things to come.
Posted by: Expo | March 27, 2007, 10:36 am 10:36 am
Very inneresting.
Now, I get how Obama doesn’t connect with blue collar voters, but Hillary? How does she have the advantage? Did she borrow some of her husband’s goodwill or something? I see Edwards as being the most viable in that regard.
Posted by: cordelia525 | March 27, 2007, 10:38 am 10:38 am
Why is it that every MSM outlet seems to garner its talking points straight from the Neo-Con memos? Is it laziness, orders from the Top, fear of being different? How is it possible that every major news source always carries the same dribble as everyone else?
Posted by: JoeMama | March 27, 2007, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
Sen. Obama’s been actively campaigning for about a month and a half and already there are numerous charges of “all style and no substance,” “rookie campaigning mistakes,” and “aloofness?” To borrow unashamedly from your colleague, John Stossel, “Give me a break!” The campaign is just starting and I see absolutely no fatal mistakes made by either the candidate or his campaign.
The charge of “all style and no substance” is one only made by people who are taking a cursory look at the candidate and not, for example, what he did in the Illinois legislature. The charge of “rookie mistakes” is hardly a new one, since this campaign (and those of other candidates, too) is still fairly new; as the candidate and his staff gain more experience, less miscues will happen. And the charge of “aloofness,” is, I think, in the eye of the beholder.
What I don’t understand is the tendency of some reporters to apply permanent attributes to characterize a campaign that is still in its infancy by focusing on every nuance and subtlety of its operation. While I think scrutiny of a campaign is for the better, the idea of characterizing it after only a few weeks of operation strikes me as patently absurd.
Posted by: chuck | March 27, 2007, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
neoodoad
neoodoad
Posted by: neoodoad | March 28, 2007, 2:31 am 2:31 am
I totally agree with the first comment about Obama. The man has just begun and all with the comments of, no sizzle, no experience on the issues, no substance, etc… will all be surprised sooner than later. If one will just use there time more wisely and read up on Senator Obama they would be more clued into his inner workings and experience. This country is rushing this race and we need to slow it down abit. I know alot of us have had enough of Bush and this war – but didn’t some of these canidates rush into making the decision into war? Like Senator Obama said, he was like a hawk when it came to this war and he opposed it, by taking the time to really see that there was truly no real backbone to going into Iraq. I see a man wanting to gather the facts and make a wise and intelligent plan then a rushed one to please the media. Slow down, it will be worth it.
Posted by: RPH | March 28, 2007, 7:45 am 7:45 am
I submitted this comment more than 40 minutes ago and have not seen it appear. Here is a resubmission:
***
I sent the following letter this morning to David Plouffe, an operative for the Obama campaign:
– On Saturday, March 24, I submitted the following through your candidate’s official Web site:
“I just called the campaign toll-free number and was told that all they could do was take donations and not answer questions.
“1) I am a gay man, with AIDS, in a same-sex marriage (we are married in Massachusetts and hold a civil union that is recognized in my state). Why has the Senator not come out strongly in favor of gay MARRIAGE (not the far inferior and discriminatory civil-union), and how does the Senator intend to restore the devastating cuts in AIDS funding that have just come down from the Federal government? Is he being pressured by having to pander to the rabidly anti-gay African-American church network whose support he sorely needs?
“2) I have just read several accounts of the Senator’s high-school friend who is on the outs in Los Angeles, who was mentioned in the Senator’s book (without any permission or royalty considerations for the Senator’s use of a portion of his friend’s life story), and who has been rebuffed by the Obama campaign in the most humiliating language possible, practicing “drive-by compassion” by offering to refer his old friend to “social service agencies” (useless), by implying that his request for money for simple survival (and maybe consideration for the Senator’s unauthorized use of his story) was just another attempt by a homeless drug addict to scam somebody, and by not engaging him in any realistic, compassionate way that would provide tangible results in his old friend’s life today.
“I was bombed out of my own home in Lower Manhattan on 9/11. I can relate to Obama’s old friend’s story in ways that none of your campaign staffers are able. This kind of treatment and national humiliation in the Senator’s name are *NOT* the qualities that I deem suitable for an individual who aspires to our nation’s highest office.
“3) Speaking of 9/11 – What does the Senator intend to do to address the long-ignored needs and concerns of the RESIDENTS (the Red Cross-designated “Affected Residents” who lived within a 10-block radius of the WTC site) whose trials and suffering since the terror attacks have NEVER been acknowledged?
“Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I look forward to your timely response.
“Joseph Smith ”
— This past Monday, I received an email from you that did NOT address my concerns, but was rather an auto-generated fundraising letter (that, by the way, crashed my computer twice!). You can be _sure_ that I have no intention of contributing funds to this man – or voting for this man – until I get a satisfactory response to my queries. In addition, if you are in the business of harvesting email addresses without the express permission of the sender, that constitutes conduct that in my estimation is shady, unprofessional, and quite possibly illegal campaign activity.
Your candidate has gotten off on the wrong foot in many ways. I look forward to your prompt and personal response.
Joseph Smith
***
If this is the way Obama is running his campaign, I have serious doubts about the competence of this man as a viable candidate.
Posted by: Joseph Smith | March 28, 2007, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Saying that Barack Obama is aloof, or “all sizzle and no steak” or any of the other “cutsey” sayings the media has come up with lately are nothing short of ludicrous. Anyone who has seen him in person or heard him speak can attest to his magnetism, his compassion and his integrity. This man is inspiring millions inspite of the petty hack job he’s getting in the press. The people will decide this. And the majority of us are sick to death of the media’s opinions (which are rarely based on fact) and your innuendoes. Enough.
Posted by: Linda | March 28, 2007, 11:20 am 11:20 am
When you take into account the enormous amount of campaign experience Sen. Clinton has, particularly at the national level, it’s actually quite breathtaking how well Sen. Obama is doing. And unless I’m missing something, Sen. Obama’s numbers are improving day by day — especially among black voters, who had previously been locked up by the Clinton campaign. Sen. Obama seems to by a very quick study while Sen. Clinton is tough as nails – which means this is going to be a very interesting campaign!
Posted by: britethorn | March 28, 2007, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm