Political Punch

nafta, china--was obama in office then? cuz he was in the senate when he voted to fund the iraq war all those times. how was he so against the war if he kept voting that way? the only time he voted against funding was when edwards started to put the pressure on the democrats to stand their ground against bush.

obama is trying his best to woo the union votes after losing the union support. he's biting himself in the behind. it's sour grapes, and a holier-than-thou attitude that will not work.

"if seeing is right, then look where you're at."

It's a primary campaign. Obama was definitely talking about his two chief opponents, Clinton and Edwards. He was doing what all primary campaigners do... criticize their "opponent" without using their name.

When has it ever been any differently, in a tight race, two days before Iowa?

I guess I keep failing to understand what's so awful about the Democratic candidates using Campaign 101 out on the trail. TO me, the increasingly bitter Huckabee-Romney race is the only old-school nasty game in town.

Obama was clearly talking about how the GOP bludgeoned the Democrats with the flip-flopper nonsense. Putting something up against that where they can be labeled as a flip-flopper is walking off a cliff. Clinton and Edwards face this.

First, Sen. Obama respects Senator Kerry, so on that level alone this whole premise is wrong.
Second, I and many other people thought Senator Kerry ran a good campaign in 2004 and were saddened by his close loss. Many people still support him and continue to follow his career. Obama is aware of Senator Kerry's 3 million plus e-mail list of supporters and I doubt he would consider saying anything that would anger them.
Third, Obama need not involve Senator Kerry in order to comment on Edwards negatively. Edwards didn't come through in 2004- he didn't behave like a VP candidate is suppose to. He let alot of people down and has been self-serving and has changed so many of his positions on issues- not because of changing amendments on bills but simply because he thinks telling people what they want to hear and making empty promises will get him elected.
So you see, there is no need to drag Senator Kerry into this.

The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.

This is what's happening to YOUR house. All the 'money' and 'equity' you though you had saved - eliminated! The equtiy through falling house prices - and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you're reading about gets created by printing money and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less - where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He's the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.

Obama has really turned out to be quite the arrogant scoundrel. The biggest flip flop of all is Obama's campaign theme: The politics of hope. His attacks of late are pathetic and if this is his version of hope, I say no thank you.

Edwards is a lot better at staying on message than Kerry ever was. Despite shifting his stances on some positions, he's put out detailed plans and policies before any candidate. Obama's environmental policy looks like Edwards and Clinton's universal healthcare policy looks a lot like Edwards' plan as well. He's been a leader on bringing issues to the forefront of this campaign and just because Obama hardly has a record doesn't make him any better than the people who were in a position to cast a vote in the first place. Oh and the Illinois State legislature doesn't count.

The ability to distinguish between an attack and when someone points out difference between them is important.

It's fair to point out difference in issues, and make an argument as to why a candidate's plan is better than the others, but it's not okay to engage in personal attacks - ie. name calling.

I was not aware that Edwards did not vote as the way he has passionately made an argument for.

It boils down to trust. Who do you trust to deliver what he says he will deliver?

I remember President Clinton went on national television - look straight in the eyes of the American people and say 'I did not have sex with that woman', and then I found out later, he did have sex with that woman. I have a hard time believing in what he says these days, although overall, I think he has been a good president and represents this country well.

Tahni,

I am only going to point this out to you once more. I'm sorry if you do not understand the chart, but the numbers you cite are not the "latest figures." The numbers you cite are AVERAGES. They do not represent ANY particular poll. They are a cumulative average of ALL the polls to this point. The MOST RECENT polls are the ones immediately below the average (the number you keep citing). And the MOST RECENT polls are the ones I have referenced.

I have a great deal of respect for Edwards but what Obama says is true. Obama has been consistent all through his political career. That is the point that needs to be made. John Edwards has spent an awful lot of time apologizing for his record. That doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in his ability to withstand a national election..or in his ability to make the right decisions as president.

Drawing a distinction between candidates is what campaigns are all about. When unbiased, careful research and analysis is done, Obama just towers above the others.

I find it sad how pundits and opposition candidates really have to stretch or out-and-out lie to find something to attack the man on. That everyone needs to try so hard is yet another measure of his integrity and electabilitiy.

It is very easy to mistake one's words in politics. I believe that this article is true in that regard. Like all Presidential nominee's, there will be "word battles", however, thats what needs to change. Ideally no president should have to rip on another candidate, but sadly, they do, good, bad, or otherwise. But the main point of my article is this: Do you really think that Obama would not like Edwards as VP? I believe that those quotes were a little misleading.... and get this I am republican from Iowa!

Correction:
Obama did not vote on Iran.
Hillary did. Supported Bush. Obama: Absent!

He has missed over 80% of votes since September.
He has been US Senator for two and half years, and has been absent more times than any other Senator.
Where is he getting his experience? Giving speeches on the campaign trail?
Should he not lending his voice on the Senate floor supporting causes Democrats are for?

I am still trying to find out what Obama means about change? Hiring Hillary, is change?
Does he mean change from one skin color to a different one?
What hope? Hope for what?
Does he mean America will become color blind if he becomes president?

The ship of state needs to change direction. The wealth of the nation has been concentrating on the top one to two per cent of the population.
What characterizes a third world nation: Wealth at the top, a very small or non existing middle class. No labor unions.
The dollar shrinking in value.
Are we moving into a third world nation ranking?

From what I have heard or read, Edwards is the only one addressing this situation.

Double J wrote:

The numbers you have cited are the AVERAGES at this point. As averages they are inflated in Edwards’s case because his numbers 3-4 weeks ago were much higher. If you look at the MOST RECENT polls, this is what you find:

Both Obama and Edwards lose to McCain by the same margin,

Obama beats Rudy by 9 while Edwards loses to Rudy (or is essentially tied),

Obama beats Huckabee by 9 while Edwards beats Huck by a smaller margin,

Obama beats Romney by 18 while Edwards beats Romney by a smaller margin.

Double J,

I think you need to review the RealClearPolitics poll results. I have quoted latest figures which are like these:
Edwards-46.7%
McCain-43%

Edwards-53%
Romney-36.5%

Edwards-53%
Huckabee-37.7%

Edwards-47%
Rudy-43.3%

McCain-45%
Obama-45%

Jake, you write: "UPDATE: I understand some of you disagree with my take....so please explain to me whom Sen. Obama was talking about."

Well, about Edwards, of course. Edwards *was* part of the ticket in the general election in 2004.

As for the phrase "always causes us problems in general elections," that's "elections" plural. That's "always," as in not a singular event. So look beyond the swift-boating of Kerry to prior campaigns. If you think neither Gore nor Clinton was tarred with the flip-flopping brush, you weren't paying enough attention to internet message boards and chat rooms or talk radio. Both candidates were slathered with that same tar on numerous issues.

IMO, Obama would do well to make flip-flopping a non-issue. What he seems not to realize is that intra-party attacks during primary season always cause problems in the general election, to echo his own phrase. He's also buying into the naive conventional wisdom among the electorate that does in nearly every senator who runs for president - the idea that stasis is the optimum condition for any individual and the prime requisite for a presidential candidate. People *need* to be flexible as they acquire new information.

The fact that he seems not to grasp these concepts does not bode well for Obama's career in the Senate. The very nature of the body is compromise. The ability to compromise without compromising one's core is what makes a great senator.

And Jake, it seems unlikely that the candidates are scrambling for Kerry's endorsement. Do you not remember the Democratic candidates fleeing from scheduled campaign appearances with Kerry in 2006 after his little gaffe?

Obama is right. If Edwards cared so much about ordinary people, why did he not fight for them when he was in the Senate. His position on virtually everyone of the major issues - NAFTA, Iraq is different from his position when he was in the Senate. How can we trust that he is authentic?

Obama on the fact has actually worked on bills for campaign finance reform, government transparency and so forth. He actually gave up a lucrative career to fight for ordinary people. This makes him a lot more credible to me.

A person’s view on life and political issues changes and evolves with life and one’s understanding of life. That is natural. Only those who do not have experience in life do not change their positions in life and politics. That is Obama!

I can’t believe that Obama is talking about the electability of John Edwards.

For John Edwards, there are at least 50% of Americans will vote for him, that is more than enough to win a general election, considering the country is so polarized.

As for Obama, more than 62% of people will NOT vote for a black and more than 87% of people will NOT vote for someone with a muslim heritage in a general election. What is his electability?

People surrounding Obama and the media are not helping him. They put so much hype into his head that made him totally lost sense of reality. Hopefully, he will be the one who would learn most after the primary. Media can crush him faster than they created him.

Poor thing. Obama really needs to get some experience.

Tahini –

The numbers you have cited are the AVERAGES at this point. As averages they are inflated in Edwards’s case because his numbers 3-4 weeks ago were much higher. If you look at the MOST RECENT polls, this is what you find:

Both Obama and Edwards lose to McCain by the same margin,

Obama beats Rudy by 9 while Edwards loses to Rudy (or is essentially tied),

Obama beats Huckabee by 9 while Edwards beats Huck by a smaller margin,

Obama beats Romney by 18 while Edwards beats Romney by a smaller margin.

I wouldn’t mind having Edwards win the general election, and I’m not suggesting that he can’t. I’m merely pointing out that his formerly large leads in the head-to-heads have dissipated; and that Obama’s recent claim is accurate based on the most recent polling.

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Simply because, Edwards campaign is modeled for an astounding triamph in Iowa. But this will never be as the poll shows clearly it will be close. But a win for Obama might be the end of Clinton dynasty. Wake up Iowans.

Can someone who is supporting Obama be specific about "politics of hope", "change", "hope for all"..? Are these not just buzzwords? Presidency is not equal to giving an eloquent speech!
And what about stand on the real issues? Why is Obama not supporting universal healthcare? Obama supporters should read Paul Krugman at least once to understand what their candidate is standing for? Obama has taken positions contrary to common man's expectations.

THIS IS A FRIENDLY INVITATION TO SEN. HILLARY CLINTON

The IOWA caucuses goers are just a week away for making their final decision about the hopeful each one chooses. I implore Sen. Hillary Clinton to play her Experience trump Card, by making available on the WEB for US citizens a paper of two pages summing up:
• HER RESUMÉ ILLUSTRATING HER EXPERIENCES AS LAWYER, BEFORE AND DURING HER HUSBAND GOVERNISHIP
• HER PERSONAL PRE- US SENATE, STATE OR NATIONAL OR FIRSTLADY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
• HER PERSONAL SENATE’S YEARS EXPERIENCE

For what concerns the Bill Clinton’s labelling Obama as too green, it is necessary to briefly expatiate on such topic. Bill Clinton did not mean that Obama is unripe or too young, incompetent to become president, but he used the metaphoric racist bigotry, a glass ceiling for black person who would never be allowed to confidently stride toward a promising future in the United States of America . Let me take back Clinton to the time when Rev. Jesse Jackson Senior, _ who had the best experience in terms of politics and civil rights movement _ was campaigning for the nomination by the democratic candidacy for the US presidency, for him the issue had never been EXPERIENCE. He was made to understand that the time was still not ripe for Black presidency. When General Colin Powell had tried to take the same path, he was swiftly scared to a point by the same cynicism and bigotry that he even dropped his drive before starting it.
For what concerns Bill Clinton’s consideration of Barack Obama as too green to become a US President, I’m kindly inviting him and her wife to cogitate the following French wisdom:
Aux âmes bien nées, la valeur n’attend point le nombre des années.
Roughly translated it goes as:
For gifted souls, the core value never waits for the number of years.
If, mistakenly she self-appropriated the two terms of her husband in the White House, every caucus-goer or voter who chooses Sen. Hillary Clinton should be reminded that he or she is choosing the “Siamese Clinton couple” for a THIRD TERM in THE WHITE HOUSE. Electing Barack Obama will open the door for change and of Hope for all.

Double J wrote:

The poll you cite from CNN is from Dec 6-9; there are at least *five* more recent polls that prove what Obama claims. Obama wasn’t making this claim three weeks ago. Also, you are citing only one poll; if you look at the averages of multiple polls, Obama is correct. The best source is RealClearPolitics because they keep a running average of multiple polls. By the way, CNN surveyed, according to their press release, “1002 adult Americans,” whereas others have polled *likely voters,* and I think that makes the other polls slightly more valid.

Double J,

Here's Edwards numbers from RealClearPolitics:

Edwards-46.7%
McCain-43%

Edwards-53%
Romney-36.5%

Edwards-53%
Huckabee-37.7%

Edwards-47%
Rudy-43.3%

McCain-45%
Obama-45%

Obama is not winning in the poll you have asked me to consider.

You tell me, who is beating all GOPs.