I just cannot believe that journalists can be so simple or so naive. America will never elect a Black President, most certainly not one with a Moslem background. Obama may not be very black and he may not really be a Moslem but it does not matter. A nation that stood silently bye while we attacked a Moslem country and allowed GW Bush to be twice elected is not about to change overnight. Cannot you press people get real.Obama is a straw man which the Republicans love to oppose in the general election. A nation who would not elect Kerry is not going to elect his anointed one. Are you all so blind.To make Obama the Democratic candidate is to hand the White House over to Bush types for 8 more years.Look at the racist breakdown of voters in the Democratic Party. What do you expect in a general election? Blacks and fringe left wing Liberals against the rest of the country. Who do you think will win that battle? If Democrats could not win with two white candidates they certainly will not win with a black one.Sadly I beg you get real.

Senator McCain: The king ready to be crowned!

No, strike that. The king who would wait, wait, and wait until his opponents beat themselves to death (figuratively). Let me explain.

From a logical standpoint, it appears that Senator Hillary Clinton may have dealt the Democrats a big damage that would most likely deny them the presidency in November, ceeding it to the Republicans. Instead of focusing on the issues, the senator decided to be negative by highligthing three important areas that would actually give Senator McCain the advantage:

1. Senator Clinton claims she deserves to be the nominee and therefore the president because of more experience than Senator Obama. We shall revisit this claim later, but assume the voters buy this arguement for now and choose her as the Democratic nominee. Then Senator McCain can use the same arguement against her that he has more experience and he should be the ultimate nominee, i.e., the President, come November. If the voters are logical, if the voters are rational, and, indeed, if the voters are not flip-floppers then they should follow through and put the one-Senator McCain-with more experience in the White House (WH) in November. (First Lady white house stint is not an elected position. It is assumed by default. As such, there is no compelling reason why it should be given any weight as adequate experience for the position of President of the United States.)

2. Senator Clinton claims she's more ready to be the Commander-in-Chief (CinC) than Senator Obama, perhaps because she was in the WH as the First Lady for 8 yrs when President Bill Clinton was the CinC. This does not appear to be a legitimately reasonable claim. Seeing something done while you're close to it and then ascribing it as part of your experience is similar to fluffing up of beefing up one's resume which doesn't sit well in the corporate world. But before digressing too much, here again is an obvious advantage to Senator McCain come November. This honorable candidate has fought gallantly for America in a real war, he has been a prisoner of war where he was more likely to have been tortured, he has been on the armed services committee longer than both Senators Obama and Clinton. If this election is truly a search for, and a hiring decision of, the most qualified CinC then, without a doubt, the job should go to Senator McCain because of the aforementioned real-life, hands-on experiences and relationship with the US military machine.

3. Senator Clinton wants to be nominated because of her promise to pull out the troops from Iraq. She authorized to send them in, in the first place. Granted, the decision may have been a mistake because of "false information". But is it reasonable to now cut-and-run w/o repairing the damage that has already been done? On this issue, here is why Senator McCain may look more dependable than her in November: Yes, Senator McCain also authorized to send the troops into war based on the same "false information". But the difference that makes (would make) the difference is that he, Senator McCain, appears to be more consistent, he appears to truly want to help bring the war to a successful resolution by staying on to clean up the mess and help repair the damage caused. He authorized the initial decision, and he's standing firm and will stay until America succeeds. On the other hand, Senator Clinton authorized the same war, but she now wants to cut-and-run. This Senator McCains's consistency may endear him to the voters than either Democrat in November.

So, you see, Senator Clinton may win some battles sporadically on occasions that negativity resonates with some voters, but she may actually be supplying enough ammunitions to the Republicans to win the war, to give voters clear-cut comparative reasons to begin to see Senator McCain as the "man who should be the king".

If the damage to the Democrats is beyond repair before November and Senator McCain wins, it is possible that the next time the Democrats can win the Presidency is at least 12 years away (math: likely 1 term for Senator McCain and two terms for his VP).

David Brooks is saying you can't act like an adult and deal with a tantrum-throwing toddler at the same time.

Of course you can.

I would like to be able to make a fair judgement of Obama and Michelle. The Kennedys Ted and Caroline have referenced to a camolot of days gone by. I would like Michelle to release her thesis. I believe it would give us an ideal who she is. You can stand on a podium all day and talk. What America would like to know is what exactly she wrote in her thesis that stirred some controversy a few weeks back. It has all been washed under the rug. Not Mind!! And also I would like to see the documents on Obama's tax returns for the last 5 years and the land deals he has been involved in. This country can go around with there Heads in the ground but I'm not.

proud GOP must be proud to have used the filibuster, something that they were ready to end of course until of course they took power to block PAYGO Can you spell hypocrisy.

Didn't hear anything GOP about your 3 trillion dollar war and your 800 billion dollar Medicare bill. Must be that GOP and Tom DeLay now have egg all over their faces when they laughingly talk about fisical responsibility.

In comparison to the 3 trillion dollar war and 800 billion for medicare part D $176 to keep bridges from falling on you is chump change. 3.8 Trillion that your party has spent now that is real GOP spending should make you proud.

THIS is exactly the problem:
>>GROW UP.
This is politics, not Pollyanna time.
Politics is basically the same in every age, in every country, in every culture. It's not for wimps.
Obama wants to be in politics? He should have tried campaigning on a realistic premise: that he can fight a political battle.
There's no way he can attack now and win. There's no way he cannot attack now and win.
Posted by: expatriot

See, the problem is that people seem to equate sleazy politics with "toughness". Let's think a little more about Presidents who were REALLY tough:
Abe Lincoln - least experienced, quiet, above the fray, changed history.
FDR - never raised his voice, but was able to bring about unity and sacrfice by the American people to help our efforts in WWII.
and yeah, Reagan - because, although I did not agree with his policies, he was "tough" enough to bring the parties together, to speak with Gorbachev one on one and hastened an end to the cold war.

"Tough" is NOT lying, distorting, posturing, playing to racists and xenophobes, and repeating something enough times to make people believe it is fact. "Tough" is not basically saying "if I don't win the nomination, then vote for John McCain" - she's taking her toys and going home.

I have never been as disillusioned by a politician than I have been by Hillary Clinton. It's time for the super delegates to stand up and say ENOUGH!

We don't need a corrupt Clinton to replace a corrupt Bush. And when someone as brilliant as Barack Obama is WILLING to put himself out there and help us change this mess, let's be brave enough to support him!

I'm so alarmed at the direction that I perceive the Democratic nomination race to be heading. I'm concerned that the hope that I thought we shared to heal divisions in our country and repair our standing in the world is being daily diminished by a lowering of the discourse by the Clinton
campaign. I'm distressed, naively perhaps, that nasty seems to be so effective. It makes me so discouraged.

The ongoing & upcoming ugliness is having a terrible effect on my political will. I have to say, I have always voted, always. But if somehow the Clintons (& I use the plural deliberately) manage to gain the nomination by any means possible, I will be staying home in November. I am not going to
be two-faced in hoping for something greater than politics as usual & ultimately voting for the opposite. I just won't do it.

I'm not alone in this sentiment. And it's not sour grapes. It's disappointment in believing that we can actually rise above our baser natures, but then ultimately be shown that no, I guess we can't.

I think Senator Obama is handling himself well, especially when the Clintons are trying their weird mind games with him. His reply is perfect! As for Texas, isn't Senator Obama going to end up with at least 3 more delegates than Senator Clinton? Why aren't we getting this news? Instead, everyone keeps saying Clinton won Texas.
Mr. Brooks is a wonderful writer, but he's been wrong a lot, too.

"Ever here of paygo?"

Ha! That's a good one! Chalk that up to the "We tried, we failed" policy of the Dems since winning the majority in '06.

The Ds have failed to live up to their promises. In just the first 10 months, the D Congress passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.

The Dems promised fiscal responsibility, but they failed. They have used gimmicks and loopholes to add $179 Billion in entitlement spending, and despite pledging to halve the number of earmarks to 6,746, the Dem Congress has included 11,351 in the spending bills thus far.

We simply can't afford any more Dem promises. Pelosi and Reid have shown their true colors, and are leading the way when it comes to reckless D spending.

Media, media: Could we please distinguish between "attack politics" and "pointing out facts?" An attack is when you say make insinuations without basing it on proven realities ("He is not ready to be commander-in-chief"; "All he can do is give a speech"; "He is a Muslim") - Pointing out facts, as Obama is, means stating things like "Hillary Clinton did not negotiate the peace treaty in Northern Ireland, as she is suggesting; Hillary Clinton is not releasing her tax returns." Don't be fooled - Hillary is attacking; Obama is facting.

hey GOP you post quotes from Nancy Pelosi but don't bother to use " " or her actual words. Nice touch, just make stuff up and act like they are her words. Ever here of paygo? That is Pelosi's policy and something your fine GOP has filibustered every time it comes up to pay for a GOP spending spree. Ever hear about Tom Delay's Medicare Part D bill that costs $800 billion over ten years based upon a vote the GOP in an uncprecedented move kept open for 10 hours. Ever hear about Iraq? last time I checked its costing b/w 1 and 3 trillion dollars. Now I call that a real spending spree Mr.GOP.

"The poobahs of pork in both parties as well as their Senate leaders suddenly found themselves on the spot after stalwartly defending lawmakers' practice of steering federal dollars to their home states.

Speaker Pelosi had signaled privately to fellow Ds that she supports an election-year break from earmarks.

Just wait until 2009, she said , then we can start our spending spree again!

the so called New York earmarks that McCain rails about were in response to making New York more secure with port security and a 911 commemoration at ground zero. Lets see him diss New York's response to 911. As W famously said bring it on.

Seems like there needs to be some dueling between the 2 Dems, as there is hardly any difference in policy between the two, including following the leader (John McCain) in making policy pronouncements.

The Associated Press reports today:

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain and a small band of GOP senators in making a run this week against the billions of dollars in home-state pet projects Congress funds each year.

Obama, locked in a head-to-head battle with Clinton for the D nomination, was the first to declare through a spokesman Monday that he would support a one-year moratorium on so-called earmarks when it comes up for a vote later this week. Clinton followed shortly afterward through a spokesman.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5goOfAhUcl4B7Muf5clVilvIrhewgD8VAR96G3

A McCain adviser wrote this response: "We welcome the election-year conversion of Sens. Obama and Clinton, two politicians well versed in the art of pork-barrel politics."

Your strategy is a certain repeat of the failed Dukakas strategy who was ahead of Pres. George H.(typo) Bush by 18% points at this time.

jac since you missed my point I will say it again NO ONE CARES who Bill pardoned, and apparently you haven't noticed, BILL is not on the ballot as much as your side wants it to be. We will welcome that comparison: Obama talks about nonissues, Hillary talks about kitchen table issues that voters really care about. Your strategy is a certain repeat of the failed Dukakas strategy who was ahead of Pres. George W. Bush by 18% points at this time.

Please don't put words in my mouth, leichtman.

I did not say those were the most important issues. I said those were unanswered questions that Obama should put to Clinton, which she has thus far skated without answering. And, based on the Clintons' eight years in the WH, you'll understand if I suspect they're hiding something (like perhaps a libraray contribution from the pardoned Marc Rich).

its not negative campaigning asking where the real $5 million came from,its stupid. Don't remember anyone questioning John Kerry when he loaned his campaign million. She has already said the money came from her book sales that should end the discussion. Voters have a few real issues on their table like how to pay for healthcare, keep their home from being foreclosed, losing their job in a recession or filling up their gas tank. Minor distractions to the Obama campaign.Your side can play on the margins, that is fine beacuse it is a sure strategy for a losing campaign just like Michael Dukakaks.

mark we used to have 15 at our caucuses so the numbers were up this time definitely but its a waste of time and resources especially after we had an actual primary vote with a week of early voting.

asking for Sen Clinton to release her tax returns since 2000 should be the job of the media

she leant her campaign $5million very easily - obviously great wealth has been amassed

How Chris can compare this request from the Obama camp with "negative" capaigning shows the media doesn't get it

Sen Clintons's personal comments and those of her surrogates seem to get a pass (today the Geraldine Ferraro vile comments)

Obama is not going to get in the mud with Clinton - she is much more comfortable there - but if the media is now cowed into submission by the Clinton campaign - who is going to get the issues out?

leichtman, I've got no problem with doing away with the caucuses. As one who caucused from 1964-1988 and then again this year, I was amazed at the turnout. In 1968
135 Turned out in Westlake Hills 305 - but from 1976-88, @40 was the largest turnout I ever saw.

The NPR reference:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

I agree with you that 1Mil/2.9Mil is an extraordinary fraction. Perhaps it is wrong. I did not make it up.

Senator Obama his admiration for Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney and his admiration for Ronald Reagan. Where the money flows from..www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

dave --

We've got 9 R's and 3 D's all vying for Peterson's seat. It's going to take me the next six weeks just to figure out what all their names are, much less their positions. ;)

OT:

Ah! the end of another great American product! Of special interest to those from Chicago, who already lost Marshall Field's Frangos and Fannie Mae.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/835322,CST-FIN-cooky11.article#VOTE

the cosponsor of my resolution to end the Texas caucus incidentally was wearing an Obama teeshirt and SEIU sticker.

mark I really doubt the 1 million caucus number yo keep siting especially since only 41% of delegates have even been counted as of today. There were 3.2 million primary votes and you are telling us that 1 in 3 in Texas turned out for the caucus.I have my doubts about that number.
My Bellaire precict had 1400 votes and 165 at the caucus. I noticed that my caucus was primarily young people and boomers. My 92 year old mom who absentee voted for Hillary couldn't leave her nursing home to attend(I presume your side would say that is right, durn those old people), neither could the disabled, poor, people working the night shift and many teachers who were administering the TASK test on Wed. People do have real lives mark and the early vote system is a better indication of Hillary's Texas support b/c everyone was given an equal opportunity to attend. Note: Rep Silvester Turner an Obama supporter disagrees with you, has said the caucus was atiDemocratic and will end it going forward. My pct resolution to ened future caucuses mark was cosponsored by a 21 year old Law Student who believes it violates the 4th Amendment and it won unanimouapproval from the Clinton and Obama caucus members. So please don't lecture us how wonder ful it is, you sir are in the minority.

leuchtman, TX did turn out over 1 mil for the caucuses. I posted the NPR citation for you on another thread. That was an average of about 120 per precinct, statewide.

Barton Hills Elementary in Austin pulled 800+.

My tecchie northwest precinct pulled 399. I do think the energy was amazing.

I will be keeping tab of all of the hatefilled decriptions of Hillary by the campaign that wishes to inspire.

Insane can now be added to evil, mmacahvellian, monster,witch, hag. Have I missed anything from the campaign of a different type of politics.

As to Kennedy and Kerry inisisting that Hillary bow to their wishes, interesting comment from President Kerry and Ted Kennedy. As I recall your guy didn't do to well in their homestate, so much for their brilliant strategy.

One thing most have not noticed. No one is using words like "cult" or "Messiah" when discussing Obama any more. This is an excellent side effect of the Ohio/Texas primaries. Obama is now fully human in the public's eyes and can now build upon that. A necessary step....and one Hillary provided, unintentionally, and I think to her ultimate regret.

brooks is right, all Obama has to sell is his idea of being above and beyond politics. there is a market for him beyond that, but not one that can win the general. his record is unspectacular, and it is only the suggestion that he is somehow singular or exceptional that can win him the big show.

If Hillary answers the phone at 3:00am it will be someone telling her where Bill is that night.

She reminds me of my 5 year old grandson who would rather not let anyone have something if he can't have it. That is Hillary to a tee. If she can't have the nomination she will make darned sure that Barack cannot win by smearing him in any way possible, whether truthful or not, well knowing that her constant attacks will be recorded and replayed by McCain and the Republicans.

Never mind that Hillary is not electable because she is Hillary. I have been active in Democratic politics for the past years, but if she wins the nomination there will be no assist from me... no "Clinton" sign will ever appear on my lawn! No vote for Clinton will ever be cast by me, or by any member of my family (that would be about 50 or so votes that I know of, spread around 5 states).

I hope Mr. Dean reads these things. He and the Super Delegates need to consider what is going on. Obviously Ted Kennedy was not able to reason with the Clintons. My conclusion - she is insane. No way does she meet my threshold as commander in chief, or as anything above buck private!

Rove did accurately predict -- days before the primary -- that the 3:00 AM ad would work in TX.

I am a registered Democrat. Know this--I will never, not under any circumstances, ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

Luckily, I think Obama would make a great President. His is a classy act all the way through. He is waiting to counter her charges the best way he knows how. He has already started the process.

Hillary would rather see her party lose in 2008 (just like in 2000 when the Clintons thought Bush would only be a one-termer like his dad), so it would improve her chances at national office. I will not be a party to this.

Hillary Clinton still has a chance to be a Democratic Party hero and drop out of the race. All this mudslinging is being recorded by the GOP to use later against Obama when he becomes the nominee.

I mean, come on, wouldn't Hillary like to be a Supreme Court judge or something instead? (Since we're offering jobs here today).

When Obama attacks here race, or gender of sends his surrogates out to call her a terrorist, you let us know.

She is playing the Rove/Bush playbook.

He is using facts.

Same thing Foster did to Oberweis. That is not slinging crap, like the Hillary slime machine.

mnteng - Makes sense - all politics are local! Good luck with your choice. Unlike many instances this cycle, Peterson's retirement seems to actually be about health and his seat appears safe for R's.

OK... so I am Machiavellian. In the extreme.

There is no 'new' or 'old' politics. There is only... politics.

And it is the dirtiest, low-down, game in town. It can be deadly. In fact, so many times have we seen it turn deadly. I don't need to recount political assassinations -- you can immediately conjure up many in your head, right?

So... with that as a premise, I say Obama has been playing his cards right. He should keep doing exactly what he is doing.

Hillary had a gigantanormous lead, didn't she? Did she not look like a shoe-in? Weren't we all waiting for the Coronation?

Is it not amazing that Obama overcame her and is now the front runner?

Obama (here's the Machiavellian in me), came along with a Glorious Message of Hope (it has been done before BTW: FDR & JFK anyone?).

With this lofty message he cannot APPEAR to be mean-spirited, but behind the scenes, tough-as-nails must he be to win.

We saw what happened to Kerry when an attack is not swiftly responded to (pun unintended kinda).

So, Obama must repsond IMMEDIATELY to any HRC (and later, McCain) attack. This response can, and should, include some form of counter-attack.

But Obama must always APPEAR to be the Super Nice Guy always taking the high road. Because this is at the core of his Message.

So, I say to the Obama campaign: keep doing what you've been doing -- it is working. Take the High Road, but always respond immediately and forcefully to any attack. Look like the Nice Guy, but wield the hammer and lower the boom when you must.

I usually find Brooks to be a fairly transparent sophist, but this particular column includes some real insight. Despite the denials of some posters here, Obama's campaign IS based on 'a new kind of politics'. And while it is true that Obama is best to avoid the knife fight, his challenge now is captured by the last line of Brooks column, where he infers that Obama needs to translate the 'new politics' into benefits for people in Youngstown and Akron. Communicating such benefits in the simple language of a campaign may be challenging, but then communication is Obama's strength. If he can accomplish that (and I believe that he can), it will show the kind of political growth and maturity that launches great presidencies. He mustn't overthink this and play half knife-fight, half high road. He must be all high road, preaching Hope vs Fear, but in a way that plays around the kitchen table, not just at the Starbucks counter.

It is a pity that 2 candidates from the same team have to tear each other down in order to climb to the top. However I don't think Mr. Obama should be judged on whether or not he turns the other cheek. How many of us would really do that in a nasty brawl? What I dearly hope is that, once he is elected president, Barack Obama will not allow himself to be bought by special interests, that he will reduce the military budget while increasing the education/healthcare one, that he will reduce our dependency on foreign oil by creating millions of jobs here in the USA in "green" industries, that he will choose to "fight terror" by providing some hope and some relief to those around the world who feel they have none. Et cetera. That is the kind of unusual politics that I hope Barack Obama will have the audacity to bring to Washington and that is why I support him, even if he has to get a little down and dirty with the Clintons, whose methods have terribly disappointed a former supporter. And come on now; he's not ready to be president BUT he is ready to be a "heartbeat away" from the presidency! Who do they think they're foolin'?

You are now quoting David "the Putz" Brooks? Why not William Kristol who is David Brooks in drag. You miss the real point Mr Fix. Clinton has a ton of 90's baggage that Obama dare not bring up for fear of creating a revolt amongst the virulent pro-Clinton victims brigade, aka the DLC types: from Schumer to Ferrarro.
If he does not slap back, he is accused of being Obambi from the Maureen Dowds of the world. Time to get a "fix" on reality and stop quoting right-wing pundits whose connection with reality is typified by our war in Iraq.

mteng, thanks for your comment.

As a fellow Indie, I would skip a deadlocked presidential race that will be decided by someone else far away for an interesting local race, where my vote and my local contacts could make a difference, every time.

Dave, take your tongue out of your cheek, you are making a permanent lump.

jac says these are the most important issues facing voters, asking legitimate questions about Clinton (such as: why don't we have her tax returns? why won't Bill release the documents from her White House years?

No wonder their campaign is imploding.
Folks I speak to care about the economy, home foreclosures, $4 gasoline, universal healthcare, and a recession are trivial in comparison to the Clinton Library.

In their delusional way Obama supporters think that the Clinton Library and the tax returns which you will be getting are more important. Strange.

dave --

I am excited by the historic (D) presidential primary. But winning the (R) primary in PA-5 is tantamount to winning the election and I want a say in who ends up being my representative.

Obama's most effective strategy at this point would be to line up Hillary's latest attacks at the beginning of his stump speech and then patiently knock them down and point out where they differ on the stuff that really matters.

And then after five minutes or so of that, move on to articulating what he would do to undo the damage caused by Bush/Cheney and why he's better than McCain. Haven't seen video or transcripts of one of his stump speeches lately, but I hear he's backed away from the soaring oratory. He needs to have some of that in there, especially at the end, but he definitely does need more than just that.

But it's definitely a mistake to allow so much of the conversation to revolve around Hillary. Everywhere I look these days it seems like everything is Hillary Hillary Hillary, like she's Britney Spears in a pantsuit. Obama needs to start looking more presidential. He needs to make the pivot to McCain, and just use Hillary as a convenient foil.

And I swear to God if this tells me my submission has failed again, I'm going to scream.

Hillary wins Texas by 100,000 votes and Obama supporters call that a win.
John Kerry loses Ohio by 80,000 votes and he is in fact the President by their covulted arugemnt.

Once again only 41% of the Texas caucus votes have even been counted as of today that you will not acknowldge and State Rep. and Obama spokesman Rep Silvester Turner calls Texas caucus system unDemocratic and yet they inists that losing by 100,000 votes is a win. As I recall Gore lost Fla in 2000 by 550 votes and he did not even have your audacity.

Once again Obama supporters should stop coming here and spreading bald faced lies about the Texas vote and refusung to even acknowldge that only 41% of the caucus votes have been counted, that Hillary is ahead of Obama in Texas according to the AP 95 to 91 delegates currently and that the final count will not be decided until our June state convention. Those are facts not just something made up. Again you refuse to refute any of those facts but continue to spread incessant lies about the Texas vote.

Sounds like W. If you say it enough times then it must be true.

Brooks writes an occasionally good column, but in this one he comes off as a hyperbolic Pollyanna. But then, he is a timidly conservative columnist, not a man-on-the-street journalist.

CC's gushing is a bit much.

There a difference between hitting hard on legitimate issues and personal attacks. I think Barack is threading that needle pretty well.

Hillary on the other hand seems cruder by the day...she makes George W seem Presidential.

Obama is certainly not abandoning his 'new politics' philosophy, nor is he fighting on Clinton's terms (yet).

Obama has always been capable of -- some could say adept at -- the very roughest of politics when provoked. Anyone remember how he won his first state senate seat?

The difference is, like any true Aikido master, he turns to violence as a last resort, and only in self defense. Clinton has pushed him to do so, and his riposte was swift and incisive.

How this is perceived by the general public depends of course on what comes out in the spin cycle. With his rhetorical advantage and the superior discipline of his campaign staff (The NAFTA-Canada and 'monster' missteps of the campaign cannot be repeated, of course) he should come out of this in a stronger light -- a man who's tough enough to fight, but confident enough not to fire instinctively at every shadow.

Up front, I am an Obama supporter.

I am concerned about his campaign's agility and ability/willingness to get tough and start asking legitimate questions about Clinton (such as: why don't we have her tax returns? why won't Bill release the documents from her White House years? why won't he release the names of the donors to his library? what, in detail, IS her "35 years' experience" comprised of [besides 17yrs doing corporate work at the Rose Law Firm]?)

I am also concerned about what the NAFTA, Iraq and "monster" flaps say about the Obama campaign's management/organization -- which appeared, up to now, to be relatively error-free, especially compared to the Clinton campaign.

As for whether the mud-slinging just before OH and TX worked: look at the late-deciders, and there's your answer. HRC got them 2 to 1. Over the course of less than a week, Obama went from being up a few points in TX and within 4 or 5 in OH to losing the primaries in TX and OH by a hair and 10 points, respectively. Looks to me like it did work. The NAFTA crap didn't help -- and nobody will ever remember that Goolsbee says the Canadians misquoted him.

If I'm not mistaken Gandhi kind of lost in the end. It's kind of hard saying you won when someone shoots you.

--------------------
Yeah. Guess ol' Abe Lincoln failed too.

Can't wait for your next brilliant analysis.

David Brooks has interesting comments but honestly folks its not the bible truth. The media tries to fit everything into its little cookie cutter models of what "should" happen. What Obama needs to do is to nicely marginalize Clinton the way that she has very nastily tried to marginalize him.

Clinton will have to lay in the bed she is making for herself, the divider, the disagrable, the power hungry b****. Sometimes I really wonder whether its the Clinton supporters who are drinking the kool-aid here

How can the suggestion that Hillary should be transparent with her financial records be equated with sticking a knife in someone? This is ridiculous!

Obama must respond. If Hillary punches Obama in the gut he needs to punch her in the mouth. Having said that, Obama must let his surrogates attack attack attack and stay above the fray.

Let's put aside the vitriol for a few seconds and give a cheer for The Fix's hometown team (washingtonpost.com is based in Virginia, not DC), the GEORGE MASON PATRIOTS, who will be participating in the Big Dance again this year!

leichtman,

Yes, I am in Texas. Secondly, opinions about our chaotic caucus process are irrelevant; that's what the candidates and we had to work with. Lastly, I reiterate my statement:

If anyone wants to wait until we're absolutely certain on the exact number of delegates, fine. But don't continue the lie that Clinton won Texas.

You can not on the one hand say, "We don't know who came out ahead in total delegates," and say "Clinton winning Texas isn't a lie" on the other. Either you accept that Obama is the projected winner of Texas (yes, we are known to project winners in elections before the final tallies are in, based on results so far), or you assert that the outcome is unknown. Either way, "Clinton won Texas" is a LIE. No apology necessary on my part.

Great analysis. The reason we have the "old style" politics is because it's effective. The reason hammers are made of steel and not feathers is because it works. The reason frying pans are made from metal and not wood is because it works. Obama's "new style" politics only works when everyone else decides to play nice. Hard-core politicians (like the Clintons) only play nice when they're winning and it won't hurt anything to polish the image a little bit. But if it's a choice between playing nice and wiinning, they're gonna go for the win.

Honestly, I laughed so hard when the press said that Hillary should quit because Barak was unstoppable after Super Tuesday. Clintons never quit. Democrats loved that when Bill was the leader and battling republicans. Now Hillary is the leader and battling a Democrat. So what? She's still a Clinton and she will quit when she's dead (may that sad day be long in coming). And not before.

I can't predict a Clinton win. But I can prophesy (predict with absolute certanty) a Clinton battle to the end - whereever that end may be - and perhaps beyond that, a la the Florida hanging-chad recount.

It's gonna happen.

Full disclosure: I think Hillary and McCain would both make fine presidents.

I utterly fail to understand how seeking disclosure of tax returns, which so many other candidates long ago provided, is out of the Clinton book, rather than out of the one about transparency in the American public sphere.

In my opinion, he did paint himself into a box, and he knew it. He did it on purpose, and I'm glad. It becomes more obvious everyday just how much different he is. His reaction to her sly suggestions that he'd be her running mate bares that out yet again. I just hope he gives the Aikido treatment to her comments about McCain's being more prepared than he very very soon. That is traitorous behavior, in my view. On what level is she willing to deploy that strategy to get what she wants?

There was a time when I was really excited about this campaign because I would've been OK with either Democratic candidate becoming president. Now, I'm just disgusted all over again, only this time it's not a Republican making me feel so dirty. It's Billary Clinton.

The was an errror in the link I used in my previous comment. The correct link is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/bill-clinton-severs-ties-_n_82616.html

Dirty? Look, since when i it dirty politics to point out that both Clinton's have a long history of keeping dirty secrets from the public? It goes back to the earliest times we know of and can be charted through Hilary' work with White Water and the Rose Law Firm, continues and gets worse with her sin as First Hag at the White House. It lives on in continuing investigations of illegal campaign contributions from foreign government being laundered through minimum wage earning dishwashers and store clerks. And, Chris, it's not just Obama and the tax returns. People wan to know how much money she got for the pardons her brother negotiated the sale of, how much money they made from their business that provides job outsourcing services Indian and Chinese H1-B workers, etc. Look, both of the Clinton's are corrupt, they are criminal, they are a pair of sociopaths that have no business with the publics trust, and anyone with half a brain needs to know as much about them as possible.

David Brooks' argument that Obama's strategy for a cleaner politics has failed is wrong (it is the NY Times stategy to push for Hillary that failed).

There is nothing wrong in asking for the Clintons' records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors for their foundation, etc.). These records will most probably highlight many scandals that will make Hillary-Clinton radio-active anywhere near a ticket. The NY Times (and other medias) should stop being complaisant with the Clintons and do their jobs in looking in these matters. Here is one example I found from a blogger:
__________________________________________
There is the Ron Burkle factor, an international mutual fund fronted by Bill Clinton, Dubai, and a 20 million dollar payout to the Clintons if the fund hits its mark due to Clintons credibility and fame.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22...82616.html

The Clintons now have the same investment counselors as Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of Dubai.

And whaddaya know, the Yucaipa fund hit its mark and the Clintons got 20 million in Dubai dollars coming there way.

Let me ask y'all... ARE YOUR MUTUAL FUNDS HITTING THEIR MARK THESE DAYS? I look at the list of funds that Fidelity offers me for my 401k and I don't see "Yucaipa" or Ron Burkle or Sheikhs or Dubai. I see a long list of funds that have a -15 to -30% year to date on them.

Guess Joe Citizen like myself is outta luck.

Democrats long maligned Cheney, Bush, Carlyle, and Halliburton and the system of US politicians taking their payout after they leave office (the major ideological difference with dictatorships is they get their cash up front and in full view while IN office).

Clintons are part of that same system. Hillary was hoping this tax stuff would out when she was up against McCain and the race would come down to the better of two corporate lackeys..

How can anyone cast a DNC primary vote with these tax/assets issue unresolved?

The hints are that Clintons and Bushes share money management with the Middle East while we pay almost 4 per gallon the pump and out retirement accounts tank.

Meanwhile back in Obamaland. He over exerted himself in his use of his Senate income and his wife's university medical center paycheck to buy $100,000 more backyard for his two girls to play in.

For me, Obama life's seems a little more like my reality.

My only transaction with the middle east is when I put gas in the tank of that Ford Explorer I am desperately trying to sell.
____________________________________

If reporters do not do their jobs, then they should be replaced. David Brooks among them!!!!

*****************************
If I'm not mistaken Gandhi kind of lost in the end. It's kind of hard saying you won when someone shoots you.
*****************************

I won't get into a long discussion about this, but Gandhi led a nonviolent movement which led to Indian independence from the Brits. I'd guess that we have some folks in our Revolutionary history who were killed, but there's no doubt that we won that.

One more time for the cultist. Hillary is running for Pres. She is trying to win. I know that brakes the traditional role or women as Mother ect. But you cultist have to deal with this.

Also because you have a Man crush on a Pol does not mean no one can run against them.

Like Obama "I pray to Jesus Every Day."

I think there is a middle path between not responding & getting in the gutter. A big part of this is calling her on her tactics & how she has run the campaign, and how this reflects on how she would govern.

Remember Bush's thing of "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider"? (What he didn't say was, "I'm a liar"). Anyway, I think it's a very fair point to make more vigorously that Hillary is divisive. This is how the Clintons campaign, & this is part of why Bill did not get as much accomplished as he did; their politics is all about dividing and winning, but not building bridges. It is hard to imagine that a Hillary presidency would not engender the same divisions which were evident during Bill's terms. If she won, she would win narrowly, and it would be more of the same gridlock. The voters' desire to avoid this is what the whole change thing is about.

Speaking of Bill, Obama needs to bring him up more too. A tempting line would be, "I'm not sure who would sign up to be her number two, because isn't that what Bill would be?" I'm a Democrat, & I at least previously had some degree of affection for the man, but the idea of bringing back those Clinton dynamics make me sick to my stomach. I don't think it's unfair or below the belt to refer to "the Clintons", because they are in fact a package deal, and thats something we all need to think real seriously about.

mnteng - "So, I'm torn between the (D) presidential nomination and a more interesting (R) primary to succeed our retiring Rep (PA-5)."

How could anything be more interesting than the closest most exciting presidential nomination race to hit PA in years, perhaps ever?

Is there anyone who doesn't believe the Clintons are that Machiavellian?

Yes

Lets see Hillary is evil, a witch,a monster, a Republican and now Michiavellian and Sen Obama is jesus delivered to us from all high and as pure as the driven snow. That is called rationalizing and paranoia. Keep up those slanderous comments and she will in fact be the nominee b/c the country is really sick of hearing this from the inpsirational campaign that is supposedly bringing us together.

re: "New politics is all he's got," -

But, there is no new politics! It's all the same; it's all been done before!

There's nothing new about his liberal agenda, there's nothing new about his 'change' theme. Every election is about change!

Obama tapped into the next generation of voters who WANT something new; they don't know what that is, but they want it. The problem with that idyllic thinking is that Obama has no history -ZERO- of working across the aisle or bringing people together to solve political problems.

Only one candidate has that. John McCain.

jimd52 - You're absolutely correct. Sinbad is trying to destroy Obama by saying he's not ready to be commander in chief but Walnuts is. Meanwhile Rove et al are sitting back, feet on the desk, cheering her on. She's doing their work for them and she knows it. She cannot allow Obama to win in November and will do everything she can get away with to prevent a Democratic victory if she is not the nominee. Mark my words. Her and Bill's tepid support of Kerry in 2004 gave us all a hint of her how low she will stoop for personal ambition.

Trying to destroy a fellow Democrat for personal gain is sacrilege in this Democrat's book. I'll remember her betrayal in November. I don't know how I'll vote, but part of me is thinking if it takes 4 years of Walnuts to end the Clintons' stranglehold on the Democratic Party, it might be worth it. I don't know right now. We'll see come November.

Hillary is an Older lady. When she is Old no way she can run for pres. That is just they way it is for women and the Clintons know this. Add 10 years.

So her plan is to win this year - if not try for health care with Obama.

If we lose the Dems are going with a white guy in 2012.

There's the old saying by Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Posted by: rpy1 | March 11, 2008 10:41 AM
----------------------
If I'm not mistaken Gandhi kind of lost in the end. It's kind of hard saying you won when someone shoots you.

In some towns/cities in PA, BHO might want to surround himself with union people while he campaigns in public. The visuals would be important, I think. The scrubbed young 'uns we saw in WI and TX would look out of place in Donora, I would guess. But I would like to hear a native Pennsylvanian on the issue, before I stick my other foot in my mouth.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 11, 2008 08:52 AM

Mark,

I'm not a native of PA, but I've lived here now for a few years. I think your strategy will help in western and maybe northeastern PA, but BHO is really swimming upstream overall here. He has to contend with demographics as well as Rendell's well-oiled machine.

His best hope is to pull close (like in OH) and garner as many delegates as possible. He's got some strength in Philly, and can make inroads in the suburbs there. Plus, the Obama campaign has already sent out staffers to the myriad of colleges and universities. But I think he'll still lose the popular vote. PA just doesn't set up well for him, which is probably why the Clinton campaign is emphasizing "our" importance.

As an (I), I can't vote in a primary unless I register. So, I'm torn between the (D) presidential nomination and a more interesting (R) primary to succeed our retiring Rep (PA-5).

I think the Clinton strategy is that if she loses the nomination this year, she has no interest in Obama winning the election, so she runs him down enough and fractures the party thereby destroying his chances. Then she can return in '12 with an "I told you so" campaign. Should McCain win, the odds are very good that he wouldn't run for re-election at age 76. If Obama wins the election, he is, barring some disaster, the nominee in 2012 and his VP would have the inside line on the '16 nomination. That pretty much shuts Clinton out. Is there anyone who doesn't believe the Clintons are that Machiavellian?

The radio ad in Mississippi is not misrepresenting Sinbad's diss on the sate, leichtman, and you know it. Sinbad had no plan after Feb. 5 so she figured go ahead, ingratiate herself to Iowans at the expense of Mississippi. But she lost Iowa, and her obnoxious condescension to Mississippi will make her lose there too. Deal with it.

Obama will be fine as long as his attacks are tough but fair. Sinbad's have been nasty and unfair. There's a big difference.

Posted by: JohnY63 | March 11, 2008 10:46 AM

She is a Monster look at her.

CC - "That move is a major mistake, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks in a fascinating, must-read column that frames the dilemma Obama faces better than anything we've read since last Tuesday."

What, you didn't read me? I believe that in response to your entry on "Obama's Blueprint for Victory", my advice on what to do was ..."nothing. Don't change a thing. Protect the Obama brand at all costs. You are winning. You have math on your side. The future states seem to favor you. What you have been doing for six months has put you in this position." I then proceeded to tell you why fighting back was a bad option - "Another horrible idea. It's the "Yeah well same to you" approach that is more politics as usual than new kind of politician."

Granted, it's not as eloquant as Brooks. The problem for Obama is that deep down he really isn't all that different than any other pol and that the image that he has crafted is catching up with him. Think about it. If he really REALLY was a different kind of politician, his campaign would not be debating which strategy to follow, as they appear to be and Power, who simply managed to say what she really felt, would not have said what she did. Brooks essentially agrees with my main point - Protect the Obama brand at all costs. Maybe he read me...

Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP
Obama VP

Obama's strategy is 2 fold. Give inspirational speeches and run positive tv commercials and then run Radio spots, and distribute flyers that attack and misrepresent Hillary and then have his surrogates like Bill Bradley and Tom Dachel go on the attack. A radio spot still running in Mississippi and replayed on POTUS,misrepresented a quote by Hillary claiming she called Mississippi voters second class citizens, his Ohio flyers made similar misrepresentations.Miss. newspapers have already told Obama that charge is false andd to stop running it. The media needs to understand that Obama is running a 2 tract campaign and stop acting like he is practicing a new kind of politics. The attack strategy already exists it just beneath the radar or being picked up by the media but it does already exist, but of course Senator Obama gets another pass.

Obama has responded to Sinbad's sliming of him by defending himself like he should. His calling her on her presumptuous notion that voters could get to vote for both of them in the fall - if only they voted for her now - was pitch perfect and killed that dangerous ruse instantly. It also reminded voters that Hillary is losing and is in no position to start making demands.

Obama will be fine as long as his attacks are tough but fair. Sinbad's have been nasty and unfair. There's a big difference.

'Dont's forget, today's pundits are a Bush-era-trained punditry. That's the athletic equivalent of a couch potato.'

I have to agree with you there. I can't find much value in anything most of them say. They live in a bubble, an echo chamber, making ponitifications from on high, having no idea how anyone beyond the Beltway actually lives or thinks, and when they make spectacularly wrong pontifications -- let's just start with Iraq -- they 'move on' -- pretending it never happened. And continue to do the same thing over and over. Why people continue to read them I cannot fathom.

Ah Obama lost Texas. More people voted for Hillary. He did get more dels. but that just proves he has been winning with the far left in the Caucuses (save for the Cultist). When Hillary get the popular vote that is all she wrote.

This Primary season is going to be decided by the White Man. They tend to like fighters, you know men, not people who B and moan. When Hillary makes her Tax return public than Obama will - act like someone just wiped there D on his wifes curtains in the house that Rezko built. Lose Penn, Mich, and Florida and that will be that.

We saw Obama doing well then Lie and Lie and Lie and Lie about the Canada meeting. He got B slapped by Mac after the debate he 'won'. And of course don't forget his groupies - Monster - look at her- OMG.

Mark Penn looks smart now - go for strong not nice if you are a women.

Well according to the Ohio paper the Plain Dealer there were over 16,000 republican crossover voters who voted for Hillary.
They were told by Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary, so maybe that had an effect on her win there and they will not come out and vote for her in November.
Obama won more delegates on March 4th than she did.
Hillary will do anything at this point to win she thinks she is entitled to the Presidency.
As a live long Democrat, I will not vote if she is the nominee.
I would also like the media to check into Bill's dealings and money coming from the Saudia's, most of Clinton's advisers are also part of the Carlyle Group.
The media needs to start checking into some of the foreign donors to the Clinton's.
So do your job!
She is trying to steal this election away from the people and the media is letting her get away with it give me a break!

I'd agree with folks above who argue that Brooks has overly simplified Obama's point with regard to campaign tactics. I agree that Obama should not go negative, but so far there's been little of that from his side. When it did come up (with the whole Samantha Power thing), the person responsible resigned from the campaign.

The reason I don't think that Obama needs to change his tactics right now is that his organizing continues to work. There's the old saying by Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

You have to wonder when these two will finally put down their weapons for the good of the party. McCain, despite his silly economic comments, is sitting pretty and gathering the moderates and indies fed up with the Dem bickering. They need to act fast.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

To The Truth:

Samantha Power wasn't a campaign staffer but an unpaid adviser, albeit an important adviser and an Obama friend.
The idea the Obama campaign deliberately set Ms. Power up to make her unfortunate comment...well...that's preposterous. To assume such things is not only cynical but delusional.

Chris ,it actually was Obama who first "went on the offensive"( as the MSM would say) early in the campaign. He called her divisive and not trust worthy. when Clinton hit back she "attacked" (as the MSM would say about her).
Now that was a long time ago. This is now. I don't think calling into question a candidate's readiness for the presidency is out of bounds. I don't think questioning Obama's NAFT pledge is out of bounds( especially in Ohio). Now we find out that one his policy advisers said that his pledge to pull troops out did not have to hold when he was in office. These are all responsible qestions to ask. And, finally the MSM asked them, (after how many months?).
The article to read is Ryan Lizza's in the New Yorker( Hillary: Iron Woman).
Obama wants to bring a new type of politics to Washington. I like that. But you first have to get elected, and campaigns are not gentle. Obama came from Chicago politics( as he like to say) so he should know how rough campaigns can get. If he can't make it through the primary, how does he expect to take the heat in the general election? The republicans aren't going to play nice like the media has made the Hillary play.They have protected him, until Ohio and Texas.
Ryan Lizza finally states;

"But No one is entitled to a Presidential nomination. As ugly as it looks now-and
as ugly as it is likely to become-if Barack Obama becomes the Democrats'
nominee, he may thank Hillary Clinton for making him a better candidate."
I couldn't have said it better.

The old-style politics is basically a form of lying, by innuendo, by false or exaggerated accusations, by ignoring later exculpatory evidence (as in the case of so-called "NAFTA-gate"), and so on.

Obama can respond with truth and humor and expose Hillary as a liar, "hoodwinker", "bamboozler", etc. He remains virgin if he does not promulgate any falsehoods. It is entirely legitimate for him to raise the spectre of Republicans mobilizing their base with Monica, with File-gate, with Whitewater, with Travel-gate. He can explicitly say he finds little actual wrong-doing in such things (although Bill did commit perjury), but he does not get to judge how the Republicans will respond to ripping the cover off all of these scandals. He can make the argument that he is more electable than Hillary, not because HE thinks these scandals have merit or DEMOCRATS think these scandals have merit but because Republicans and many independents do still think these scandals have merit and Hillary is too polarizing a force.

angryamerican, I would be angry too if bloggers want to come here like you and spread disinformation. You claim you are from Texas but apparently know nothing about our March 4 election or how it works.

1. Hillary won Texas by over 100,000 votes and 4.2% Only in Obama world is winning by 100,000 votes a loss.

2. She won the delegate count 95 to 91.

3. The caucus count unlike your shear misrepresentation is nowhere near complet. Only 41% of caucus votes have yet to be counted, 41% but yet you know that Obama has won the caucus by a landslide.

4. The precinct delegates after being fully counted will then go to their District Convention on March 29 and their state convention the first week of June to finanlize the caucus distribution just like California which will apportion an even larger share to Hillary.

5.Obama Texas spokesman State Rep Silvester Turner has publicly called our caucus system unDemocratic especially to the elderly, poor and Texas teacher having to administer the Texas TASK test on March 5 and has told the Houston Chronicle that he will be presenting legislation in our next session to illiminate it.

So until our Texas State Convention in June and the Precinct delegates move from 41% to 100% you really don't know what you are talking about and should not deliberately come here and spread the following disinformation:

"CLINTON DID NOT WIN TEXAS. Obama is the projected winner of Texas. We have two valid parts to our process of awarding delegates: a primary which Clinton narrowly won(by over 100,000 votes-Obama won Missouri by 10,000 votes which you alude to as a landslied), and a caucus which Obama won by a landslide. Net effect of both was more delegates for Obama.

If anyone wants to wait until we're absolutely certain on the exact number of delegates, fine. But don't continue the lie that Clinton won Texas."

you owe Chris an apology for deliberately spreading disinformation and calling him a liar.

Well, I haven't seen evidence that Senator Obama has gotten too dirty yet, but let's speculate that what Mr. Brooks contends is the outcome of beginning to go negative now over a five month stretch. If Senator Obama does fall into what appears to be the "politics of old," then yes, I think I would be less likely to vote for Senator Obama in the general election. On the other hand, there's NO WAY I will vote for Senator Clinton in the election. So, there's a potential downside for Senator Obama and no upside for Senator Clinton on my vote. But, then, I'm not a Democratic superdelegate, so Senator Clinton isn't interested in me anyway. My state caucused for Senator Obama. The pledged delegate count will remain higher for Senator Obama. If the superdelegates overturn the will of the party, I personally have no problem voting for Senator McCain in November.

No offense, but David Brooks is a bit of a sophist, generally, and with regards to the article, he's totally setting up a false dichotomy an missinterpreting the whole OLD/NEW debate.

Barack Obama is essentially talking about a politics that works, which would indeed be a NEW occurrence. Rectifying a broken system, is his message, not messianic healing powers as is the idea conjured and held not by Obama's supporters but by his critics. It's a strawman.

Brooks seems to be implying that Obama is only qualified if indeed he is this transcendental lamb of post-corruption politics. But Brooks has also been one to criticized his supporters for thinking this very thing. What kind of damned-if-you-do-and-don't arguments are these?

Like I said, he's a sophist. No one can argue that Obama is not new compared to Bush.

Dont's forget, today's pundits are a Bush-era-trained punditry. That's the athletic equivalent of a couch potato.

Brooks is very very wrong. Obama's new political style is not a Utopian naivety of non-attacking. Obama condemns moral cynicism in politics, namely, smearing, distortions, fear and suspicion evoking, deceiving, etc. Pointing out opponents' moral cynicism is not moral cynicism itself. Brooks is truly a smart what!

Wait, stop saying that Barack lost Texas! He won more delegates in Texas! (He lost the popular vote but won the caucus -- in total, it will mean more delegates.)

Everyone saying Barack lost Texas is like football fans saying their team won since they had more total yards. The object of the game is points, so that's the only standard to measure wins and loses. And in this nomination battle, the only object is delegates.

Thus... Barack won Texas. (Although we won't have the exact total until June.)

I think he's right to a degree. Obama's only option is to play "New Politics" in this campaign. However, I think he's assuming that the definition of "new politics" is finalized. It isn't. Obama was always going to have to respond to attacks, but the only way for him to do so effectively has always been to convince the voters that his responses are encompassed within his "new politics".

If he can do this then his approach will be the launching point for his presidency, and likely a cultural shift in American politics. If not, then it's back to the same old, same old...

The Fix has bolloxed this one up. It's very easy for Obama to stoop to the Clinton level, and his campaign demonstrated how last weekend. Find a campaign staffer who has fulfilled his/her contract and is on the way out, get them an "exit" interview with a sympathetic reporter, unleash a broadside of innuendo and name-calling, then "fire" him/her in the name of niceness. I'm sure the Obama camp was shocked -- shocked! -- by Dr. Power's comments to the Scotsman last week.

I don't know why Clinton didn't do this when she threw Solis Doyle under the bus.

I think Brooks is half right, in that Obama would do himself a disservice to lower himself into the gutter. He is better off sticking to his plan & doing what he's been doing. Its been a spectacularly successful campaign strategy, as evidenced by his being in the lead for the nomination now.

Sorry Clinton supporters.

The math just isn't there for your candidate.

And you know it.

So now it only remains to be seen what depths some of you (incl. Clinton herself, sadly) will stoop to in order to overturn the popular vote. If somehow you succeed, you will end up taking the Democratic Party down with you. Mark my words.

Is it really worth it?

There is nothing wrong with Obama drawing comparisions or asking questions of Hillary...like why haven't you release those tax returns? Or all this "experience" by osmosis!!(On a side note, shouldn't Hillary pick the White House's executive chef for VP; I mean they worked in the White House and must have picked up some things.)
It's all about the delivery and context. Obama just has to be more careful/thoughtful about how he is perceived by the Media and the American people.

I think the Brooks piece brings me to a different question, with the primary process prolonged does this change the way Voters perceive Obama? Does some of the shine come off before the general election?

To me I think it shows exactly why I will vote for Obama (I consider myself Republican) because he believes perception is important. Something the past two administrations forgot.

If Clinton saw a lead of 20 points dwindle to just 3 points in the two weeks that the campaigns were active in Texas - and Obama walked away with as many or more delegates - doesn't that indicate that Clinton's strategy didn't work very well at all? Her lead in Ohio shrank in the weeks before the election too. Simple fact is that the more people are exposed to Obama, the more comfortable they get with the guy.

I'd agree with Brooks that he's somewhat constrained by his nice guy image, but I don't see having a few laughs at Hillary (which is really the best tactic against someone as deadly convinced of her own seriousness as she is) is changing that strategy. In fact, gently poking pins into Hilary's over-inflated resume is the way to best let the public see who she is. If she responds to giggling at her claims with more venom (and she will), then her 3 am ads start working against her, since he can then say "wait a minute - do we really want someone who can get this torqued up over revealing the truth behind their claims to have their finger on the nuclear button?

Orlando Patterson makes a strong point that Hillary's knife fight strategy invokes racial overtones not unlike Bush Sr's Willie Hortton ads.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/orlando-patterson-has-a-point/

Clinton is the one who started to play dirty, she is the one who offended through her husband vagaries the african-american voters, she is the ones who insulted iowa and mississipi states on her own, she is the one who mentionned the SNL joke as truth out of the Bible, she is the one who authorized the obame picture, she is the one who is not sure that he might/not be a muslim*- sort of implying if you are a muslim you cant be americam, she is the one who approved the scare tactics of the 3am call etc etc. As far as we know, Rezko is not obama , BUT CERTAINLY CLINTON DID NOT RELEASE HER TAX RETURNS, CLINTON HUSBAND REFUSED TO BE OPENED ABOUT HIS PARDONS, CLINTON DID LIE ABOUT HER FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTISE, yes there is a lot of truths and lies but sorry mr fix, the picture you describe is the mirror from from the clinton campaignm, not obama. Clinton got muddied by herself, nobody of the obama camp obliged us to insult the magnolia nd the hawkeye state , nobody prevents her from releasing her tax returns but her own free will or stubborness, no one lied about her expertise but herself, she opened by her own mistakes the pandora box and just like the greek talem hope was in the box, and hope is not her theme....

My last post of the morning -

Drindl, pls read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031003012.html

wherein it is said that McC "scorns" King's remarks.

------

David Brooks is an honorable smart conservative who knows Rs well and reports on them with insight. He criticizes Ds from a conservative postion and does not know Ds as well. But if Ds want to understand why there is another viewpoint form their own, Brooks is a good starting point - he generally avoids personal attacks.

Those would be in Ms. Dowd's column.

The totally false premise of this column as well as Brooks' is that Obama has run a "positive campaign". Nothing could be further from the truth. He has had surrogates in the media calling Hillary Clinton every name in the book, names that would make a longshoreman blush. For my money, Obama's campaign makes Nixon look like Mother Theresa. I've seen smear jobs in my time, and this spinning on "Hillary's attacks" is part of it. Obama is doing exactly what Bush did to win against Ann Richards- have his surrogates do the attacking while acting like the poor injured party. And of course, like the dopes who elected Bush in Texas, the Democrats believe this garbage.

David Brooks assessment of the paradox faced by Obama is incorrect. The fact Obama's approached to politics is different and thus ineffective because he chose not to engage in gutter style knife fight endearing to Clinton is untrue and the numbers (delagates, poplular vote, contest won)support him.

An aggressive attack and counter-attack will not undermine this strategy because no one expects him to lie down and roll over. On the contrary, they expect him to respond in a substantive and meaningful way by focusing on the issues and Clinton's glaring short commings.

Obama must not be nasty but crafty.

Obama is no different than any other politician. He is just as calculating and cunning. He uses his little boy demeanor , underneath, he is smug , distorts the facts in his favor. He states and runs on the fact that he has good judgement, but that is what I question. Does he real use good judgement? Look at his relationship with Rezko. Voiced against the war, but yet voted to maintain Bush's blank check. Chair of important committee, but never held meetings, to busy running for President. Underhandedly has used the race card to get sympathy and votes. I personally do not find him trust worthy.

"Clinton did attack, but when it happened Obama parried each and every thrust...." Unlike prior presidential failures, Obama has kept his guard up. And this exercise, new politics as well as old politics, invites an artful cross when your opponent thrusts. Spectators recognize this. Partisans cheer it.

Chris, you're a big reason I keep reading the Washington Post.

Sooner or later it was inevitable that the Clintons would start throwing dirt.

After the swiftboating of John Kerry in the '04 General Election, it is inevitable that Obama had to respond. How could he not defend himself against a candidate with enough skeletons in her closet to populate your average cemetary?

When will people in large states come to realise that she is poison for every downticket race coming in November? She reaches out to the Democratic base. So what! John McCain is going to hand her ass to her when it comes to the support of independents. He is also going to be challenging her for the hispanic vote in border states. She cannot win in states where independents turn out in any number.

The only thing that will happen if Democratic leaders do not put an end to her campaign by positively endorsing Obama is for her to drag the whole party through the mud, damaging whoever emerges from the convention. Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, endorse Obama now or risk loosing the House and the Senate. Nothing garuantees a high Republican turnout in November more than Clinton on the ticket, ask Rush Limbaugh. Reports of Republicans crossing party lines to vote in the Texas Democratic Primary to choose Clinton, a flawed and damaged candidate who will innoculate McCain against GOP apathy.

Latest attempt by Team Clinton to politically outmanouevre the Obama campaign: 'we might ask Obama to be our veep!'. He's in the lead, by all counts! The pure nerve!

Brooks is a right-wing apologist and concern troll who has been repeatedly wrong on Iraq and everything else that the Republican Party have asked him to defend beyond the edge of reason. Chris might as well go ask Rove's opinion on how the Republican Party would like to frame what Obama should do.

Very very lazy column by Chris, when he could be talking about Ferraro comments (deeply disgraceful for a former VP-candidate) or the Clinton's failure to disclose basic information (eg, which Saudi Princes and ex-Soviet uranium/oil despots contributed millions to the Clinton 'Library').

Brooks 'must read'? Hilarious, CC. You are a child.

Exactly what we knew would be coming:

'Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has elaborated on his comments last week that al-Qaida would be "dancing in the streets" if Barack Obama wins, saying that Obama would "certainly be viewed as a savior for them. That's why you will see them supporting him, encouraging him."

Asked yesterday about King's comments, Obama responded that "Mr. King and individuals like him thrive on offensive or controversial statements as a way to get in the papers, so I don't take it too seriously. I would hope Senator McCain would want to distance himself from that kind of inflammatory and offensive remarks."

McCain has yet to reject King's support or otherwise weigh in on the subject.'

You see, this is McCain's strategy. He will have his surrogates attack in the most monstrous ways, and he will stay silent, neither rebutting nor denouncing them. Do you folks really think this is somehow morally superior to anything Hillary has done?

Do you really think there is anything more indecent or vile than to say that Barack Obama is a 'savior' for mass murderers? Implying the AntiChrist again...Satan.

All of you who are attacking Hillary, when are you going to realize what's going on and denounce McCain for these savage surrogate attacks?

more thoughts on this...it would seem that the media and the democratic party are afraid of hillary...what hold does she have on you guys?...is it that this is guaranteed fodder for the next few weeks?...and at the colossal expense of tax dollars....is she holding the backs of certain superdelegates to the wall with some sort of blackmail?...what is going on?...are memories so short, as to forget the past unneccessary distractions of clinton's terms...and before you credit him with the economy, think of the times...dotcom, ect....that had more of an influence...wake up and smell the catfood.

Neither Obama nor Clinton will win the general election. It is a waste of time to discuss the democrat's internal cat fights. In 2004, John Kerry lost only because one single statement he made. Both Obama and Clinton have too many self contradicting statements for the media to repeat again and again until everyone believe they are unelectable. Fortunately McCain is much better than Bush, and it will be nice to have a republican president and a democrat congress, which is the American norm--with checks and balances.

>>>>>"until the Ohio-Texas Two-Step"

Jesus Christ. Why is the media so determined to bury the existence of the Texas Caucus?

It's NOT the "Ohio-Texas Two-Step". That wording implies the two steps are Ohio and Texas. It's Ohio AND the Texas Two-Step. (And what Clinton won was Ohio and the Texas primary; the jury's still out on the Texas Two-Step.)

obama's counterpunch is not one that says hillary's bad and i'm good; it doesn't abandon hope. a politics of hope style counterpunch is rather one that takes up her argument on its merits and then shows that it's incoherent. expressing that incoherency in a simple soundbite message is the hardest part of all this, but one obama can achieve in his rousing speeches.

it's really hard, but that's what obama's doing with a little help from the press. the press disseminated clinton's idea that she's the one who should be answering the phone at 3am, which patently stated that obama is too weak to stand up to the challenge. the press will disseminate obama's idea that it makes no sense for the clinton campaign to say that obama isn't ready to be commander-in-chief but could be vice-president (i.e. a heartbeat away from the presidency). they will take that incoherent argument up and show that the clinton campaign is deceptive and desperate as they play on people's worst inclinations without saying that the clinton campaign is deceptive and desperate while playing on people's worst inclinations. this is the politics of hope: when people get hooked by another political message, you show how that message is ultimately bankrupt in order to posit your politics as a viable (and the best) alternative.

Chris,

CLINTON DID NOT WIN TEXAS. Obama is the projected winner of Texas. We have two valid parts to our process of awarding delegates: a primary which Clinton narrowly won, and a caucus which Obama won by a landslide. Net effect of both was more delegates for Obama.

If anyone wants to wait until we're absolutely certain on the exact number of delegates, fine. But don't continue the lie that Clinton won Texas. Wait for the results or accept that Obama is the projected winner of Texas.

Lastly, Brooks? Seriously? Sorry, but I don't agree that he is capable of a must-read analysis. Obama has answered attacks and drawn distinctions without resorting to the personal attacks used by Hillary and her supporters. This has been consistent with his message and resonates with voters.

Clinton's campaign, however, has been dysfunctional at best. Oh, and how about supporter Geraldine Ferraro's latest quote: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Obama needs to [fill in the blank], bs. Let's look at Hillary's campaign approach.

Cillizza shows his bias, again. Leave it to him to call the Right-Wing pundit David Brooks' column a "fascinating must-read." The American media is just putrid.

Obama has attacked Hillary Clinton on a personal level many times, while pretending to practice a new style of politics. Remember his vicious attack on Hillary on the Wall Mart relationship during the SC debate.
Posted by: vaidyatk | March 11, 2008 07:03 AM
-----------------------------
I recall Obama saying that Hillary was on the board of Wall Mart, is it vicious because he said it or because she was?

As I have often stated, I will vote for either Hillary or Obama, McShame is just continuance of a nightmare of what we have now.

While Brooks is a GOP mouth piece I do sense a turning in the election. The wind seems to be coming out of Barak's sails. Whether it is the media getting tired of the story or looking for a new one, it is there.

The whole 'hope' thing was never a big draw for me, I do think he's a decent politician but then again I thought the same of my Governor Spitzer. Is this latest scandal the link to the turning point?

Don't you wish you could get handed between $28 to 52 million for 18 months of 'work'? This is where your taxpayer money goes under republican administrations:

'WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department announced guidelines Monday to prevent the sort of conflict-of-interest accusations that followed its decision to steer a private contract worth tens of millions of dollars to former Attorney General John Ashcroft to monitor a large out-of-court settlement.

The announcement came on the eve of scheduled Congressional testimony by Mr. Ashcroft to explain the circumstances of the no-bid 18-month contract, worth $28 million to $52 million, that calls for him to monitor a settlement between the government and an Indiana medical supply company.'

Chris,
Senator Barack Obama made it clear that he is running for the Presidency and not going to be played by Clinton and her slight of hand manipulations.
It would be helpful if the press would pick up on just how secretive Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have been re: their income tax returns and Mr.Clinton's presidential museum donors. What do the Clintons owe back in terms of political favors and to whom are they owed? Americans have the right to know.
Why is the press allowing the Clintons to manipula