I don’t think “swift-boating” works as well as it used to. Too many are wise to what’s going on and don’t trust it anymore. A far worse problem is vote fraud. Then it doesn’t matter what we swallow or not.

FF:

Actually, your comment is far too simplistic.

Gore was defeated as a result of at least three things.  First, as you note, Rove’s courting of the evangelical vote.  Second, Nader’s presence in the race, which siphoned more votes from Gore than from Bush.  This, Gore’s lackluster performance toward the end of his campaign.

It was the gestalt of these three things (primarily) that gave us George W. Bush.

Peace.

Greg P:
Get a clue. The only way your present president was elected (besides illegalities) is that Evangelicals came out in force. After elections ,twice, this idiot basically ignored these constituents. So do you really believe that only a man of color would be controlled by his pastor? I tend to believe that you do; and that is why I believe that Obama will not be nominated because Americans are still duplicitous at best and bigoted at worst.

Unless I am mistaken, Clinton has now retracted his “fairy tale” slur; did Karl Rove ever retract any of HIS slanders, even when evidence showed them to blatantly false?

You have done the Joe Conasson push poll.From y0our previous columns I gather you are on tap for press secretary in The Hillary White House.The old they will do and list all the negative things you could think about Obama and still have a defensable"I was just lookinhg ahead “defense was cute.Of course for Hillary it was just reruns.I have no ax to grind my guy is Edwards.Joe I used to read you like you were God.Now I read you and say God dammit.

Rove and a senior White House official are beginning to plant in lazy minds the stereotypical images for African-Americans: lazy, trash-talking, and basketball.

Karl Rove’s op/ed in WSJ yesterday:
1) Rove wants Clinton to be the Democratic nominee - easier for a Pub to beat.
2) Subtle racist stereotyping: Rove lines—“His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.” ...Harvard reference covers up the stereotyping.
3)"He is often lazy...”

Remember Rove was managing W’s campaign when McCain was smeared as illegitimately fathering a black child (his adopted Bangladesh daughter)

Rove is a slick, malevolent snake.

While I’m not a politician, there are plenty of people in my life who’s input/opinions I consider to be valuable, but who hold some views I don’t agree with. I would be concerned if Obama only consulted with fellow-travelers, for then his could easily get lost in his own ideology (like the current White House occupant), and ignore reality.  So yes, if Obama doen’t agree with certain viewpoints, he should say so -but that doesn’t mean he should trash his friends, and shutoff contact.

The best thing Kennedy learned after the Cuban missile crisis, was to assemble a team of experts of varying opinions. You are much more likely to come to a good policy if you allow a diversity of input.

I don’t feel that way at all, and since we live in a secular society, we don’t much give a damn what church he goes to, or who is pastor is.

Now for backward thinking people who concern themselves with such things, he could do the same thing that JFK did, when the conservative right was all worried about him being Catholic. He made a clear and definitive statement, that he would not be taking orders from his Pope, and that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States, and there’s no reason for any of us to doubt that Barak Obama would do the same.

Did anyone have the same concerns about Lieberman’s Rabbi? Does anyone have these concerns about whatever Mormon spiritual advisor Romney talks to. (the Mormons have only recently deviated from their own long history of racism, and Romney has never made any sort of an explanation for that).

So Greg, maybe you shouldn’t be so troubled about what other folks do or don’t do with their spiritual selves in a secular government.

Now, if Obama were to do the unthinkable, and decide to convert to atheism, I’d vote for him based on that alone.

By Maani, January 10: “But neither Obama nor Edwards would agree to be Hillay’s running mate..... question is: who do you think she would choose?  Personally, I think Richardson would not be a bad choice...”

A Latino(+Jordanian) VP could be just as useful as any of the others, Maani. Actually, I was thinking about that earlier, too.

He has quite a lot of experience and, as you say, is a likeable guy. Its a thought that may well prove to be the most successful combination.

I notice that he is more into sports jackets than suits. Still rather dated but less so.....

Getting rid of the terrible twins, the two over-amped schoolboys, simply means leaving them to their own devices. They will trip themselves up.

I’m not so sure Obama (or Clinton) for that matter will have to personally go negative. Either of these candidates engenders significant identification from a group of citizens (blacks/women) who feel they haven’t gotten a fair shake. Which ever is the candidate, they may end of with an army of jealous protectors, who will react to an attack on their candidate, as an attack on their identity group.  The best counterattack is one that a college makes on your behalf without any prompting from yourself.  If we can get this dynamic working it could be effective.

Doug:

I agree with you, of course.  However, I doubt very much that Obama would agree to be Hillary’s VP - much less vice-versa.  Rather, what is likely to happen is that Edwards will cozy up to Obama to be HIS running mate, which would, quite possibly, throw Hillary out of the picture.

But neither Obama nor Edwards would agree to be Hillay’s running mate.  So the question is: who do you think she would choose?  Personally, I think Richardson would not be a bad choice, given that he has both domestic and foreign policy experience, is pretty much in line with her positions on major issues, and is a very likeable guy.  Just a thought.

Peace.

By Jacks, January 10: “Forget the Swiftboaters, Let’s Get the Facts...... At the end of the day Obama is no better than Clinton--at all...”

The facts are that, at the end of the day, you will have TWO of them to vote for, Jacks. ONE wil be the presidential nominee and the OTHER will be the vice-presidential nominee.

People don’t seem to be able to count past one, though, in this race yet. The worst part is that, by doing so, they could risk another Republican presidency by such naive favoritism.

So far, Obama is odiously a protege of both the Rev. Wright AND of John Kerry. He doesn’t need to attack his colleagues but, by the same reason, he doesn’t need to be nice to the GOP enemy.

Thus, he is effectively a Neocon decoy splitting up the vote for a winnable Democratic candidate while rabbitting on about “I wanna be president” without any real experience to back himself up with.

“GET ELECTED!” means WITH a running mate. Hillary won’t be Obama’s nanny, though, uhh! She is the only Democrat who can produce “hope,” “change,” “turn the page,” “yes we can,” out of the mess that will be inherited from the Bush administration.

Edwards and Obama are both relative “babes in the woods” yet. They must accede to the senior “most experienced and most qualified person” in their party as the ultimate leader or be picked off by the Right either in the campaign or in office.

That is the package that has to be presented to voters by election time. You can’t have three stooges running around each deleriously demanding that “Its MY campaing for president”, uhh. That is a recipe for disaster.

Why the hell hasn’t his strong connection to DC lobbyists been discussed more?  Why hasn’t his statement that he passed the strongest ethics law since Washington be revealed as a joke since that bill was absolutely toothless?  Why hasn’t his voting record, which reflects those corporate interests (see: CAFA), been scrutinized more?

At the end of the day Obama is no better than Clinton--at all!  Foreign policy, corporate lobbyists, etc.  They’re political twins.

“The First Rule of Politics has nothing to do with policy or even management.  It’s just, GET ELECTED!”

And this is exactly why Obama will lose the general election if he wins the nomination: at the risk of sounding cynical, he is simply “too nice.” And niceness is a good thing.  But as you point out, it doesn’t win elections.  And he has to win before he can govern.

This is why he made such a HUGE mistake at the beginning of his campaign by saying that he would not engage in the “politics of attack.” Really?  Then how on God’s great earth does he expect to get elected?  By playing “nice” with the GOP?

Please!  He is either sweetly naive or hopelessly clueless.  And now, of course, if he DOES begin engaging in the “politics of attack” (which he must), he will be seen as “flip-flopping” on this, and lose at least some of his supporters.

Peace.

What Hillary has acquired from her “battle-testing” is the ability to deal with opposition (Democratic or Republican) with raw, cold-hearted ruthlessness.

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/11/german- view-of-our-political-theater.html

Remember, the First Rule of Politics has nothing to do with policy or even management.  It’s just, “GET ELECTED!” Hillary knows how to follow that rule; so, whatever we may think about her, she may well end up the next person to take the Oath of Office in January of 2009.

In the first place, I do not think Obama will win the nomination once people realize there’s no “there” there: he campaigns on the fumes of admittedly inspiring rhetoric - nice words like “hope,” “change,” “turn the page,” “yes we can,” etc.

Yet these are ultimately empty words without any substance.  Indeed, neither Obama nor any of his supporters have been able to articulate - clearly and succinctly - what any of these words mean to him, his candidacy or his potential presidency.

A president has to deal with Congress and foreign leaders, among other things.  S/he cannot simply walk into the White House and “change” everything, no matter how admirable, noble or well-intentioned that idea is.

That said, if he does win the nomination, the right will eat him for breakfast.  He bristled way too easily even from minor attacks by candidates in his OWN party.  And although he certainly has strength of character, does anyone REALLY think he will be able to withstand what will unquestionably be the most blistering, withering, negative campaign ever engaged in by the right?  Even if they did NOT “swift boat” him, he is a lightweight vis-a-vis the tactics of the right.

On the other hand, Hillary is about as “battle-tested” as anyone can possibly be vis-a-vis the right.  She has taken everything they have to give, and weathered it: she’s still standing - and running for president.  As well, as one pundit put it, all of the skeletons in Hillary’s closet have been taken out and publicly flogged ad nauseam: they are all old news.  However, if the right IS able to find any skeletons in Obama’s closet, they will exploit them mercilessly.

Obama and Clinton have virtually identical positions on all major issues: Iraq, Iran, Israel, health care, economy, even civil rights and civil liberties.  Their voting records in the Senate were identical 94% of the time - on every conceivable issue, INCLUDING defense/military issues (BOTH of them voted Yes on the November 2007 bill authorizing additional funding for the war).

Yet Hillary has articulated her positions on the issues far more clearly than Obama, who continues to hide behind his sweet-sounding rhetoric, without being called to account for what that rhetoric actually MEANS.  And when his supporters realize that he is ultimately not that different from Hillary as his rhetoric would have it - that his voting record is the same, that his positions are the same, and that, despite his good intentions, a president can only do so much - they are going to be very disappointed.

Peace.

Joe Conason: “Wright is depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan. He is prone to polarizing remarks about a wide range of topics, from Jews and Israel to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway...”

That is perhaps why Obama went to some length to pander in his speech to AIPAC. Sadly, though, politically supporting raving Zionist nationalists is a sure way of ensuring that the USA remains forever bogged down in the Middle East (West Asia).

But perhaps the most telling thing about the Rev Wright as regards the “black value system” and “black liberation theology” is his evolved view of racist white society. It is that which most probaably frightens white right-wing voters the most:-

We’ve been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we’ve been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we’ve been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.

We don’t have to say the word “white.” We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America.

Wright’s seven honorary doctorate degrees don’t actually make him a spiritual person. In some ways, he is more a political figurehead than Obama and he has qualified “Commitment to God” as extolling the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.

Although these values are essential in maintaining a sense of self-respect and worth in African-American society, and affirming them is important, they are not quite what constitutes “spiritual” in the transcending or mystical sense from the viewpoint of any culture. They are more a system of social values and limiting “worship” to recounting them is rather avoiding the next step.

Not to say that is something where white society has not failed too. The march into materialism and the war gods of imperialism have ruined the possibility of white people retaining any semblance of honesty and integrity. Thus, they are values outside of the mainstream lifestyle in America and spirituality has become obscure.

Hopefully then, leaders will emerge like Obama but they still do have to live in a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic society and there is something that the Democrats have to learn in managing that. Attacking each other as candidates is NOT productive and it would be far better to find a way to present a united team effort in the long run instead of catering to separate blocs.

Facts “based on truth” can defeat a claim in the objective world of argumentation; but political campaigns are run in the world of rhetoric.  Rhetoric departed from logic back in Plato’s day and has not returned since!  Perhaps the most interesting thing about the documentary ... SO GOES THE NATION is the amount of Monday morning quarterbacking hauled out by the interviewees from both parties; and pretty much ALL of their after-the-fact recommendations had to do with rhetorical strategies.  The Democrats have had a history of attaching more value to truth than to rhetoric.  This may be an admirable personality trait, but it is rarely effective in winning elections!

Regardless who the dems candidate is; if they can effectively fight the “swiftboat” tactics and they are coming (I agree), then it will hurt the repubs and boost the dem candidate.  Blowback! (Its the new buzzword)

How successful Republican smears are depends on whether the Democratic candidate will fight back strongly.  Massachusetts Democrats Michael Dukakis and John Kerry preferred to lose rather than fight back.