Comments on: Barack Obama losing ground

By: dlake

dlake — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:40:20 +0000

hillary’s so called experience is borrowed from Bill’s resume. and many have noticed as this link will show you.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/an_antihillary_email_making_th.php

Barack Obama has 13 years of elected government experience and he is called rookie? This was a lie circulated by the Clinton camp and the media was quick to adopt it as truth. But, of course, the media is backing Hillary and have daily cheersleads for her while belittling Sen. Obama.
If they reported the real facts, then Hillary would be drowning by now.

By: Ethel

Ethel — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:15:04 +0000

I disagree with your comment about his experience. He has just as much experience as Edwards and Clinton. I am providing an article from MSNBC commenting on Experience. Hillary does not have more political experience than Obama. The article brings up a good point. Bill is the one that actually have experience not Hillary. If you are a CEO does that mean your wife qualifies your your job? The answer is NO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010704/site/newsweek/
Both Clinton and Obama have called on foreign-policy heavyweights to educate them on the issues and help shape their approach to world affairs. But neither candidate would bring much in the way of hands-on foreign-policy experience to the Oval Office. Their efforts to promote their credentials can seem strained. Clinton’s aides point to her extensive travel to more than 80 countries as First Lady and her 1995 speech at a U.N. conference on women in Beijing. “She helped represent the United States abroad throughout the ’90s,” says Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director. “Obviously, that’s an important qualification. She went to China and gave a very famous and important address when she declared that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. That electrified the world.” But these sanitized, ceremonial trips abroad are hardly preparation for the middle-of-the-night call from the Situation Room. After all, Laura Bush has also traveled extensively as First Lady, taking in 68 countries either with her husband or on her own. No one is saying she has the experience to be commander in chief.

By: Ethel

Ethel — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:09:23 +0000

Obama is not losing ground. The latest polls shows Obama moving up in the polls. Therefore, I disagree with your comment of him losing ground.

Iowa
Democrats
Clinton 30 (-2 vs. last poll in June)
Edwards 21 (-8)
Obama 15 (+2)
Richardson 13 (+8)
Undecided 15 (+1)

Republicans
Giuliani 22 (+4 vs. last poll in June)
Romney 21 (-4)
McCain 17 (+4)
F. Thompson 13 (-1)
Gingrich 4 (-1)
Undecided 15 (+1)

New Hampshire
Democrats
Obama 31 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 31 (-3)
Edwards 14 (+3)
Richardson 7 (+1)
Undecided 13 (+2)

Republicans
Giuliani 27 (+8 vs. last poll in June)
Romney 26 (-1)
F. Thompson 13 (+3)
McCain 10 (-11)
Undecided 13 (-1)

South Carolina
Democrats
Obama 33 (+12 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 29 (-8)
Edwards 18 (-4)
Undecided 12 (+1)

http://americanresearchgroup.com /

By: Lin

Lin — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:26:13 +0000

Obama’s comment was not a gaffe. His stance is similar to that of Eisenhower in the 50s. I wonder why any comment Obama makes with which an author disagrees is immediately put down to “inexperience.” The same charge is being made in regard to his statement on sending troops to Pakistan.
Well, to answer my own question, it’s because that’s all his opponents have to use against him. As Steve points out, Obama actually has more experience than most of the candidates, and certainly more than the reporters and commentators.

By: Brie

Brie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:29:22 +0000

Further evidence that Obama is GAINING, not losing, Ground:

ARG is out with a new round of ‘08 polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. All surveys were conducted July 26-30. Headlines on the Democratic side: Obama has moved into a tie with Clinton in New Hampshire and surged ahead of her in South Carolina, while Richardson is up and Edwards is down in Iowa.

Iowa
Democrats
Clinton 30 (-2 vs. last poll in June)
Edwards 21 (-8)
Obama 15 (+2)
Richardson 13 (+8)
Undecided 15 (+1)

New Hampshire
Democrats
Obama 31 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 31 (-3)
Edwards 14 (+3)
Richardson 7 (+1)
Undecided 13 (+2)

South Carolina
Democrats
Obama 33 (+12 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 29 (-8)
Edwards 18 (-4)
Undecided 12 (+1)

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/07/new_polls_ia_nh_sc.html

By: Brie

Brie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:12:50 +0000

Dawn- no worries, glad to have the agreement!

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:54:27 +0000

These comments about Obama’s experience are ridiculous. What about Edwards’ experience during one Senate term that was nothing less than a miserable failure by a spineless Senate rolling over for Bush’s every desire? Does Romney’s four years as a governor make him “experienced?” In fact, the only legitimate candidate in this race with more time in office than Obama is McCain (if you want to call him a legitimate candidate). Obama has held office for 10 years - find me one other person who can say that.

And to the thought that campaign gaffes, being a good campaigner does not make you a good elected official - it usually means the opposite. But the truth here is that there was no gaffe in the debate. Obama said “I’m a big fan of hamburgers. I like them with ketchup and mustard” and Clinton said “That’s naive! Ketchup and mustard are the key! And I believe you should eat them with hamburgers.”

By: Nadia Hassan

Nadia Hassan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:53:32 +0000

You imply that Obama’s attributes are essentially aesthetic, whereas Clinton’s are more substantive and consequential. You refer to John Dickerson’s piece in Slate to back that up. “Given the proper qualities, temperament, and political savvy, the right candidate could overcome any prejudices based on gender and race. As recent events have shown, the voters are focusing on that one attribute that can be identified and quantified: experience.” Actually, Gender and Race may matter a lot. Hilary Clinton’s lead in many polls is exclusively among women. For example, if you look at the University of New Hampshire’s survey in their state, Obama and Clinton run about even among men. As for race, historically Democratic nominations come down to beer-track candidates vs. wine track candidates. Obama is a wine track candidate, however as Chuck Todd noted on Meet the Press, Obama’s race may enable him to succeed where other “candidates of the elites” have failed.
Secondly, you talk about the public as preferring Clinton. The data seems to indicate it’s Democrats who prefer her. Obama does as well if not better in head-to-head’s among Clinton. As for experience, it’s not readily apparent the public particularly values it. In three of the six times since 1960 in which the White House has changed parties, the less experienced candidate won(1976, 1992, 2000). The other three were roughly draws (1960, 1968, and 1980). There hasn’t been a single time since the 50s where the more experienced candidate lead to changes in party controls of the Presidency. That makes the idea that voters judge on one attribute that can be identified and quantified rather dubious. Secondly, experience is a very poor proxy for actual performance in the White House. There is no clear relationship between level of experience and level of success in the White House. You can see Ross Baker’s USA Today op-ed on this point. We’ve had incredibly experienced Presidents fare exceedingly poorly: Richard Nixon and James Buchanan. The “great” Presidents are not nearly the most impressive in their pre-White House CV’s. Abraham Lincoln’s experience was quite minimal. FDR and George Washington’s experiences were much more modest than those of other Presidents. In short, neither in the electoral nor historical record does experience have a stellar track record.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:37:07 +0000

Sorry, Brie, I put your name in the wrong field.

By: Brie,

Brie, — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:36:29 +0000

Your absolutely right, but it doesn’t matter–she’s the media’s candidate. And to a public grossly incapable of making informed independent decisions, they are the true ‘decider’.

By: Mr. Unite Us

Mr. Unite Us — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:44:08 +0000

Agreed Brie,
Just like the cleavage thingy.

A Washington Post female fashion editor mention Clintons clevage, and the Clinton camp,
basically said see what we woman have to go through.

By: Brie

Brie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:18:07 +0000

I think the fact that the Obama-Clinton “feud” is still in the news a week later is more because of the media’s preference for Hillary, rather than the idea that Obama’s comments were a big mistake. The NY Times and NBC in particular have been active in their support of Hillary a the presumed Democratic candidate. Obama’s comments were measured and well thought out. He did not guarantee the meeting with those leaders, but said he would consider it. Of course a million other things would have to be worked out first, Obama isn’t just going to invite them all over for a beer and let them have their way with the U.S. The Hillary campaign decided to make an issue out of a non-issue, and the media followed their lead like the lapdogs they usually are. Just another reason to vote for Obama- the media have cowered under the Bush administration, scared to write the tough stories, and are apparently willing to do the same with a presumed Hillary administration. How about some fairness in reporting?

Obama is actually gaining ground, especially in South Carolina and New Hampshire, as two polls suggest this week, and his recently announced plan for the war on terror will only push him further forward. Not to mention his consistent lead in fund raising, something Hillary still can’t figure out. Obama is not losing ground, and it’s annoying to have that sort of idea pass for “news.”