Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
I agree that the media attention Obama has received has definitely helped him, but you have to remember he was polling in double digits from the day he announced.
The media covers the front runners.
Paul didn't get alot of media attention, but he got some....he was on meet the press for crying out loud. If his poll numbers would have gone up they would have covered him more....but they didn't, so the media didn't pay alot of attention to him.....the same way they didn't pay alot of attention to Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.
As for the "holding a candle to him" comments.....nobody is better at the opposition research and mud slinging game than the Clintons, if there was something in Obama's past that could hurt him they would have used it by now.
I'm not worried about anyone finding a skeleton in his closet.
|
I agree to some extent about Paul, but he was the only candidate that despite the grassroots movement and the ability to raise so much money so quickly online, still got not support. Dodd, Richardson, Gravel etc never had any movement at all of any kind. Cnn, NBC, MSNBC etc all laughed at him and pretty much discredited him without a bat of the lashes, which didn't give the public much of a chance to take him seriously and listen to his thoughts. Not that he would get nominated still as his ideas are pretty outside the box and calls for a total reset in the way we live in a lot of ways. And as much as we talk about wanting change, the reality is we want very little change.
As for Obama, the Clintons really haven't hit home except for Bill saying his iraq war policy was shifty and the media was creating a fairy tale. He couldn't pursue further cause the media jumped to his defense and roasted the hell out of him. And the reality is his argument for not supporting the war is true, but it also is much easier to say that when you don't have to vote, listen to any intelligence from the pentagon and CIA that dictate the security measures were dire and the threats real and then have to cast a vote which indeed does dictate the policy of the nation. Sitting in the state legislature in Illinois and having no detailed intelligence and having no consequences to his opinions is not even close to that of what a senator had to do for those votes.
That I think Hillary should be hitting on over and over again. Also should be hitting on his claim to get everyone out in a year when he has not logistics or data from any insider that can actually tell if that plan is viable or not. If the pentagon says that it would take 18 months to get them out the day he takes office he is kind of in a bind as he said 12 months. Does he break that promise the first week in office? Or does he irresponsibly keep his word and put a lot of things in harms way. And its lack of experience with foreign relations and defense of the nation that causes him to make such a bold timetable which he may or may not be able to keep.
The other factors are the country is moving to the middle in both parties and the reality is Obama is the furthest left Liberal in the whole senate based on his voting record. There is not a single person left of him. That doesn't get brought up much and the republicans will hit on it hard.
The Clinton Campaign also has to be careful of digging and pushing so hard to disfracture both of them and destroy the democrats chances at winning in November, while the republicans don't have to hold back at all. In fact some say they would rather have Clinton to face in the general election, and will go at Obama starting right away to try and have that happen. What they find or rattle his cage with will be intersting. Maybe nothing comes out, but his flaws and weakness will get hammered on very soon and he will have to start to discuss his substance in far more detail than relying on his stump speeches of hope and change while saying almost nothing. Doesn't mean he doesn't have good ideas and things that could work, but he doesn't share them at all on the stumps, he just inspires with vague references.
Time will tell but I sure would like to see both Candidates have everything out in the open and have both equally dissected by the press on the core issues, backgrounds, full voting records, and experience on actually being able to get things done. For example what exactly has Barrack done that has actually resulted in change or having the ability to get change done? I have no idea.
With Hillary she has been ripped open from all sides for the last 16 years so you have a much better sense of who she is, what she stands for, what her faults are and what her strengths are. Obama really still is for the most part a mystery man, who talks a big game with inspirational speeches that are very exciting but every time I hear it, I keep thinking he said a lot about nothing, yet I am still excited. Why?
In the end as long as the Dems get back into the office I am happy, I just want one who is somewhat realistic and can spend the first 6 months making things happen, not learning the ropes and finding out how diplomacy and foreign relations actually work. And with Obama I feel that would be the case base on the things he says during the debates he is fairly clueless and borderline careless with the things he says he would do right away. In my opinion. That's not to say in time he would get the grasp and end up being a terrific leader as I do believe he is talented and smart enough once the charm no longer gets him by.