The Danger Zone - Bob Herbert on the Obama campaign

[JoFerret]

But more important than the Wright comments — and sundry gaffes by Mr. Obama himself, his wife, Michelle, and campaign aides — has been Senator Obama’s strange reluctance to fight harder in public for the nomination. He may feel he doesn’t need to, that he has the nomination wrapped up. But there is such a thing as being too cool.

Hillary Clinton may be behind, and she may lose. But she is now widely seen as the tougher of the two candidates, the one who is more resolute, who will fight harder and longer (and, yes, more unscrupulously) to achieve her desired ends.

An edge in toughness is hardly a good quality to cede to your opponent.

The big issue in this campaign is the economy and jobs. But if you were to ask most voters how Senator Obama plans to fight for them on this crucial matter, you’re likely to get a blank stare.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion

[Bread and Circus]

1. I think it's as simple as "you can't hit a girl"

Unless you are a Republican.

[JoFerret]

2. But you can hammer on the economy

.

[tyne]

8. IOW....

Never do or act any different from the norm. We MUST keep things as they've been in the past. Don't act or react as if a distraction is actually a distraction. Don't act or carry yourself as if you're confident in the intelligence of the American people. Instead, act pissed so that the American public can continue to "cling" to idiotic manufactured distractions.

Don't ever address the American public in a way that assumes that they have a potential for higher intelligence. Just keep doing the same ol thing or something might change and that's just too damn scary.

[calmblueocean]

17. After 2004, are you "confident in the intelligence of the American people?"

Barack has a lot more confidence in the American people than I do.

2004 changed what I thought about the wisdom of the American people. The choice was so stark, so obvious. Bush came off like a buffoon in the debates, while Kerry cleaned his clock. Bush's whole administration had been one nonstop rolling disaster, perhaps the most colossal demonstration of incompetence and lies the world had ever seen.

And yet... 4 more years.

I'd genuinely like to know if you still have confidence in the American people, and what evidence you use to draw that conclusion from. If you've got it, don't hold back. It's valuable stuff.

[housewolf]

32. I think you're spot on...

Can you imagine the hullabaloo if Obama is perceived as "going for the kill" against Hillary. OMG, can't you just imagine headlines like "Black man attacks white woman", "Angry black man goes after senior woman", "Bitter black goes for the kill against small white woman", and worse. It would play into every racial stereotype ever imagined.

I take a guess that that's exactly what Hillary is waiting for and is trying to provoke. Then the Clintons would feel justified in playing the "race card" for real and incite a real race war within the party and the electorate. Fifty years of trying to bring equality into race relations would be thrown out the window.

In addition to that, Obama's whole concept of "needing a new kind of politics" would go out the window too.

It's a sad commentary on our society that negative advertising and campaigning works so well. But Obama can't win against Hillary by "going for the kill". He needs to take a different approach.

[nichomachus]

3. Well, Bob

If you value toughness over principle, why don't we just leave the Republicans in office? They seem to have a lock on unprincipled toughness. As for me, I'm looking for principle and scruples.

[JoFerret]

5. I think "Bob" ALSO wants the democrats to win.

and he is urging Obama to get on with that job.

[QC]

30. Yes, but he has spoken of Obama in an insufficiently worshipful manner

and is thus a wicked, wicked man.

Sure, sure--he's one of the loudest and most eloquent progressive voices in the American media, but none of that matters anymore.

[JoFerret]

41. I did not know that.

I know he has been critical of Clinton and damning about McCain but I did not know he had committed grievous sin. I thought he was rather even handedly pointing out a truism. But now I know he is an heretic I must shun him completely.

[QC]

42. You must not be seen with him,

lest you also end up in the hands of the Inquisition!

[JoFerret]

44. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Their main weapon is surprise...

[CanonRay]

4. I heard an interesting theory on this question

on Ed Schultz a week or so ago...a black guy called in and said Obama can't attack Hillary directly as it would be considered "sassin" a white woman, a complete no-no in the south, and he'd lose any and all white support in the southern states.

Now, not being black, I can't really comment on this, but it sure seemed to make some sense. Maybe he just doesn't want to contribute to wrecking the Democratic party, I don't know.

Once Hillary is no longer a candidate, he'll be free to attack McCain without restrictions.

[JoFerret]

6. He doesn't have to attack her. He has to attack

the issues. That is Herbert's point I think.

The other stuff is just excuses.

[Adelante]

24. He can't campaign against Hillary in the ordinary ways of rough and tumble

He'd be the "angry black man" garnering fear and distrust, while she'd be the "abused woman" garnering sympathy and outrage on her behalf. But while it's partly racial, it's not quite about "sassin'" in my opinion. When it's him and McCain, male against male, it will be different, I agree, race won't matter. If you look at the reaction to KO yesterday, practically accused of murder for using a run of the mill metaphor in politics, when referring to Clinton, it's clear it's not only the race, but very much the gender, as well, that complicates the situation.

[RazBerryBeret]

7. and if you ask most voters how

Senator Clinton will fight for jobs they are likely to say more NAFTA-type trade deals.

[still_one]

9. "tougher"? What it has shown me is that it is second nature for her to lie

She knew Obama wasn't a Muslim, and yet her campaign kept providing doubt regarding his religion

In her 60 minute interview when she said she would "take his word" that he wasn't a Muslum showed how devious she is. I don't want another devious individual in the white house

Her not so subtle links of Wright with Obama were used to question his patriotism, and implication that he might be anti-Jewish. That is a complete fabrication

Her statement that she and mccain are qualified to be president, but Obama isn't, demonstrated how she would elevate a republican over her Democratic opponent. That isn't a sign of strength, but of dispicable behavior, and poor judgement. If Obama is the nominee, mccain could use that commercial as an indirect endorsement of him

Of course her sniper fire lies, which were propagated on at least on four different occasions, either demonstrated how insecure she is of her own credentials, that she has to puff it up with lies

The more we get to see the Clinton campaign in action the more we realize that she is inherently dishonest

[Arkansas Granny]

31. The phrase "take Senator Obama at his word" was Steve Kroft's and

not Hillary's. She replied: "Right, right." I've always been under the impression that when you take someone at their word it implies that you believe what they say and no other proof is needed.

As you well know, when words are taken out of context they can be twisted to change their whole meaning, such as the comments made by Rev. Wright (God damn America), Michele Obama (for the first time in my life) or Obama himself (voters are bitter).

For your enlightenment, here here are her answers to the questions from the 60 Minutes interview concerning Obama's religious beliefs:

The fact is, if you look at Clinton's exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo. Eight times:

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

[housewolf]

33. Giving her a pass on this makes me SO angry

:rant:


The fact is, she KNOWS that he's not a Muslim. They attend Christian prayer breakfasts together. What she should have said is "No, Senator Obama is a Christian. He is not a Muslim."

The fact is, she had an opportunity to kill a slur against a collegue outright and she refused to do it. She weaseled her way out of it with "I take him on the basis of what he says." That's a far cry from "I know that he's a Christian. He is not a Muslim". "there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" is a far cry from something like "Senator Obama is a practicing Christian, I know because we have both attended Christian prayer breakfasts."

But no, she refused to take a strong stand and instead, weaseled into "I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time" that does a great big NOTHING in terms of counter-acting the rumor. Saying "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time" does nothing to either answer the question presented to her or to dispell a rumor that she completely knows is false.

I would have thought, based on all her bad experiences of being slurred with scurrilous rumors, that she would be the first one to stand up against such treatment of others, be their her political opponents or collegues.

In my eyes, Senator Clinton showed a level of cowardice that is most unattractive. She severely disappointed me by that display of politics above principle.


:rant:


Sorry for responding to your post with a rant. I hadn't realized how very angry I still am about that incident. :grr:

[GarbagemanLB]

10. He's doing what he is doing to not piss off Hillary's supporters any more than he has to.

He will need them to win in November, and making ads about her Bosnia lies, like she would definitely do if the tables were turned, just doesn't help in bringing her supporters to his side once the nomination is settled.

It is smart politics.

[JoFerret]

14. Too late for that

in some cases.

[SKKY]

11. Obama has obviously been pulling his punches in the Primary...

...he's said as much. He also said that he will NOT be as "measured", nor will he show as much "restraint" against McCain. Like any good leader, he has a committee up right now for the sole purpose of identifiying McCain's weak spots. He'll do fine. McCain is stumbling all over himself right now (Having Lieberman correct you? How embarassing!) and he's not even running against anyone. What happens when he gets into the pressure cooker of a GE? We'll see. I'll tell you this, Obama is ready.

[Orsino]

12. Obama apparently comes across as tough enough to win.

Toughness, or the appearance thereof, may not be quite the virtue Herbert thinks it is. Getting, or seeming, any tougher may not actually be good for either candidate.

[joeybee12]

13. OMG! The Bots are turning on Bob Herbet, one of Barry's strongest supporters!

Just because they don't agree with him today. Amazing. Who would have thunk it? Actually, anyone could have predicted this reaction.

No, all he's saying is people need to believe he's on their side. It happened with Kerry who ignored the Swiftboat attacks and people saw him as a person who wouldn't fight for himself, so how could he fight for them?

[JoFerret]

15. Stop with the "Bots" and "Barry"

That said - it is true that the minute a favored journo says something more complex than the usual cheerleading then the tide turns viciously. Or some such twisted metaphor.

Herbert clearly still likes/ favors Obama. He just wants a democrat to win.

[joeybee12]

16. Sorry, can't help myself...I agree that I win no friends with that...

...but I ain't stopping until others stop with Shrillary.

[ginnyinWI]

26. If you stop, then maybe they will stop name-calling.

Someone needs to set a good example. I don't call her any names, nor do I call her supporters names. It's childish. You might argue that "Barry" isn't a "name" but it is obviously meant to demean him. He hasn't used it since he left home for college.

So I challenge you to rise up above the fray like many of us already do. No more name-calling. People who resort to this lack confidence in their ability to make a convincing argument without it. Again--makes you look childish.

[joeybee12]

27. I think there's more history to BO's use of Barack instead of Barry

rather than just going off to college...his family was quite upset when he told them not to call him Barry...to me, it was the sign of someone trying to curry favor with his new "group." In any case, I doubt the names will stop even if I do, but you make a good point.

[JoFerret]

37. You may be right

- part of his taking on his new identity.

But so what?

It's usually best to call people by the names they prefer.

[housewolf]

34. This sounds like an argument on one hears in a kindergarten playground

Well he said...

Well she said...

But he said it first...

No she said if first...

I won't stop till he stops...

I wont' stop till she stops...


infantile arguing

:grr:

[JoFerret]

43. Indeed it does

But it is hard for people not to sink to that level when there is so very much aggravation and incendiary abuse tossed around.

[JoFerret]

36. Rise above it. Don't allow yourself to be dragged to that silly level

.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Come to think of it, Kerry later proved he WOULDN'T fight. Think Hillary will let the Rethugs steal

the Presidency from her? It's something ALL democrats need to think about.

[joeybee12]

22. And you gotta remember how Al Gore won and then Bush was sworn in...

...come on, he appointed Warren Christopher as his spokesman, a fine, upstanding man, but not a fighter. And in al's defense, none of the Dems in Congress exactly rushed to his side and fought for him. It was really disgusting.

[JoFerret]

38. No way that is happening to Hillary

....if we give her the chance.

[annie1]

45. exactly.

[TragedyandHope]

18. Hillary's plan was to cast Obama as the Angry Black Male

by goading him into a knife fight. Fear mongering anyone?

Obama didn't bite, so now they're trying to emasculate him. "He's not tough enough."

BS.

Obama's refusal to play their game and let his opponent push his button shows a far greater strength of character than Clinton's mud-slinging, kitchen sink strategy.

[GoldieAZ49]

19. A blank stare from the blank slate?

:rofl:

how appropriate!

[Straight Shooter]

21. Barack Obama - the complacent candidate.

As has been noted by Krugman, Barack is not competent on the issue of the economy anyway, so he's just following Mark Twain's advice by keeping his mouth shut so he won't be thought a fool, as opposed to opening it and removing all doubt.

As for "sassin'" Hillary, what an ignorant comment by that caller. Anyone who holds that antiquated opinion probably believes a woman has no business running for president, anyway, so it's a wash as to whether Barack confronts her on the issue of the economy. I say that as someone who lived almost 20 years in the South.

[Nedsdag]

23. Your comment is unnecessary.

First of all, there is an image in the community about "menacing black men attacking white women." You may not believe it but it is a lasting stereotype. It has nothing to do with a woman being president. How ignorant of you! Just as ignorant as your signature stating Obama has a chip on his shoulder.

If anyone has a chip on her shoulder, it's Hillary.

[Straight Shooter]

28. I lived in the South.

You want to make everything about man-woman, black-white, it's a free country, so go right ahead. Some people have moved on from that. Other people still enjoy pigeonholing Southerners, like that caller, whom you apparently are all too happy to agree with.

I see my sig pic touched a nerve.

[Nedsdag]

35. Since when does Obama have a chip on his shoulder?

If anyone is insecure, it's "your girl" with her changes in messages and her ego.

As for your "living in the south," that's like saying you have a "black friend." It's nice, but it masks the truth.

[Straight Shooter]

46. Saying "I lived in the South" is like saying "I have a black friend."

I'm sorry, but your logic went through too many wormholes in the Universe for me to follow that line of reasoning.

[wileedog]

25. He's so incompetent on the economy that

he has been endorsed by two Nobel Prize winning economists and the Financial Times.

But what do they know compared to Paul Krugman?

[Straight Shooter]

29. Endorsement as a candidate or endorsement of financial creds?

Apples and oranges.

[wileedog]

39. You think two world leading economists and a world leading financial newspaper

endorsed him for his basketball skills?

[Ronnie]

40. If Senator Clinton had been the nominee in 2000 or 2004,

do you think she would have sat on her hands while the Republicans stole the Presidency? Can you actually imagine her saying, "Oh, well..."?