Obama: Step One – File Papers, Step Two – Win Over “Casual Voters”
EmailABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., shouted in the shadows of the New Hampshire statehouse after officially registering to appear on the New Hampshire ballot.
In what is equally a symbolic task and political necessity, Obama visited the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office in Concord, N.H., to put his John Hancock down and drop off the official check for entry as an official candidate in the state.
Obama added a message to his signature: "It is time for real change."
Obama said he is confident he can do well in the early primary voting state and predicted voters who are paying close attention to the Democratic race will choose him over his top opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
"For the casual voter, many of them are going to be partnering their vote with Senator Clinton, because that is a familiar brand name. But when they start paying attention, I think that will only be to our advantage," Obama said.
The Senator said his campaign is doing better than expected in New Hampshire, saying that some polls put him ahead. Though he said, the next president, "Can’t just be driven by polls, they must be willing to lead."
When asked by reporters whether his race will be a factor in the predominately white state, the Senator responded, "People are less concerned with my race than my ideals."
Obama said he asked himself if, as president, he could do something that no other candidate could do. Answering in the affirmative he added, "The times are too serious and the stakes are too high to just be driven by ambition."
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
BO is not far off the mark, but Hillary will find most of her votes coming from the Clinton lovers and the socialists. Beyond that, how many other votes she casually recieves will depend on who the non-socialist candidate will be running against her.
Posted by: TexBork | October 22, 2007, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
Casual voters who want very badly to believe Bill Clinton was truly a great President will toss their votes to Hillary Clinton for the obvious reasons. Too bad for Clinton that there are too few casual voters. Barack is right and the voters will bear that out.
Posted by: PJ | October 22, 2007, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
You know- each time I listen to Barack Obama answers- We can see there is something special about that man! He is so honest and that’s so desperately needed in our next leader
Posted by: Ralston | October 22, 2007, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm
Barack Obama is not going to win, it’s that simple. Hate it or leave it he is not going to win. Hillary all the way…
Posted by: Maurice | October 22, 2007, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
“But when they start paying attention, I think … they will be voting for Hillary and wish they could vote twice for her!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jackson | October 22, 2007, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
Apparently, “the politics of hope” allows Sen. Obama to distort Sen. Clinton’s positions on Kyl-Lieberman and unconditional negotiations with Iran and everything else. But I think he should confine himself to maligning his opponent without suggesting that her supporters are thoughtless or “casual.” I have been a Democrat since I was 12 years old: incidentally, the length of time I’ve been paying attention to politics. I am a serious supporter of Sen. Clinton’s because: (a) I find her policy positions compelling, and (b) I believe she has the strength and experience to effectuate a significant number of them. Sen. Obama will never win me over by trivializing my considered and well-informed decision.
Posted by: dawn | October 22, 2007, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm
This is a quote from Time Magazines (Joe Klein) interview with Obama:
I asked Obama why he didn’t support an energy-tax increase married to tax relief for working Americans in the MoveOn speech or in The Audacity of Hope. “I didn’t think of it,” he replied, but sensing the disingenuousness of his response–talk of a gas tax is everywhere these days, especially among high-minded policy sorts–he quickly added,”I think it’s a really interesting idea.”
How do I vote for a candidate with this kind of answer. Read the whole article and pay attention, see if you feel compelled to vote for him.
Posted by: shell fish | October 22, 2007, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
How much longer are you going to twist the Clinton rhetoric to make it “make sense”? It was Clinton who first called Obama “naive” when he said he’d talk to Iran’s leaders. Then when she noticed the wisdom of what he said, she tried to co-opt his talking point. And then she decided to vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, showing just how inconsistent she is. At least Edwards had the decency to apologize for his vote on Iraq – Clinton remains stubbornly unapologetic like GWB. BTW, Obama has 8 years of legislative experience compared to Clinton’s 6 years. And Obama is right – just like people casually voted for GWB because of his dad’s name, we’re seeing the same nonsense with people going for HRC because of she’s Bill’s husband. And just like people THOUGHT that voting for GWB meant getting the experience and hand of his dad and were sorely disappointed, Americans are in for the same rude awakening if they continue to vote based on family name.
Posted by: Mike | October 23, 2007, 1:20 am 1:20 am
Seom are going to vote for Hillary no matter how all over the map she is on the issues. Her level of inconsistency in all matters except sinking the contry further into socialism. That’s about the only known quantity of her. As far as her and the Iraq war, she has no consistent message. Her votes are far off from her speech. Some cling to her speech while others value action.
Posted by: TexBork | October 23, 2007, 10:07 am 10:07 am
If Obama wins then it would be a good idea for European Americans to start looking to live in either Europe or Australia. A nation of high taxes, excessive regulations, and a “get-even-with-’em-sim” government is not a nice place to live.
Posted by: Bill H | October 23, 2007, 10:14 am 10:14 am
Casual and Stupid people will vote for Hillary. Socialism is alive and well in the Democrat/communist party.
If elected you’ll soon see giant paintings of Pres. Hill hanging from the White House and other public buildings in the fashion of chairman Mao’s in Tianimen Square. Just imagine Hillary’s scowling face looking at you from every billboard…Eyes following you where ever you go. The heck with Big Brother, get ready for Big Sister!
OMG, please help me!
Posted by: Bluecat4usa | October 23, 2007, 10:23 am 10:23 am
@ Bill H: And you think that this type of nation won’t happen with Mrs. Clinton? Like most supporters of Clinton – of just about anyone, to be honest – there’s no problem in deriding opposing candidate’s flaws but never speaking of your own favored candidate’s problems.
As for everyone who keeps pointing at the Democrats for being “socialists”, you’ve CLEARLY been ignoring the absolute degradation of the Constitution by the current Executive branch. We are on the road to tyranny disguised as an Executive Branch adamant that they need all of their whims adhered to for the sake of “national security”.
Our own government is spying on its people at an unprecedented rate and all anyone is complaining about is ‘raised taxes’? It would seem that our priorities are skewed to a point way past dangerous.
Posted by: Micah T. | October 23, 2007, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Micah T. With out tax increses the goverment will not have all of the money it would need to do the spying on its people. Even with computers it still cost a lot of money to spy on the number of people the present Executive Branch members want too.
Mark
Posted by: Mark | October 23, 2007, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm