Hart (4.00 / 1)

I would argue that Gary Hart had charisma (and an ego, which was what cost him). It's interesting because I hadn't thought of that campaign as a precourser for Obama.

It really feels like the decision makers in his operation were cryogenically frozen for the past 12 to 20 years. Things have changed both in terms of the national picture, and in terms of the process. I would argue that the electorate is increasingly media savvy and with times being what they are, actively looking for something real.

In that context, to borrow another line from the past, the question for Obama is "where's the beef?"

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:06:41 PM CDT

Some differences (4.00 / 5)

I am an Obama supporter, but I too have been a little disappointed by the campaign itself.

I think do it interesting that whenever Obama actually says or does something that is fresh and on target, like saying that he won't Nuke Pakistan to go after bin Laden it is reported as inexperience.  Other things like going after John Tanner in justice as well as putting a hold on the FEC nomination of Spakovsky don't seem to catch as much interest in the blogosphere as one would expect.  There reactions probably combine to make the campaign more cautious that it otherwise would be.

I take Matt's comments about Obama with a box of salt since he clearly isn't a fan and has been very negative about him for some time now.  I do think that we all expect more of Obama than we do of the other candidates and we get more disappointed when he doesn't do what we would hope.  The post you refer to about the telecom immunity is a great example, Dodd comes out and does the right thing a few hours before Obama also comes out against it and half of the narrative is why didn't Obama do that.  There is still Audacity in the Hope that Obama represents, but we want him to be even more audacious.

Obama's campaign is different in other ways besides policy thought, he is more invested in grassroots and relying upon the excitement of the multitudes.  He has more canvassers out in Iowa than anyone else and is building a decentralized network of volunteers around the country.

The campaign is also encouraging very unusual projects for its volunteers.  Here in Pennsylvania we are pushing out volunteers to help out with the Novmeber 6th elections this year.  In Philly and elsewhere we are handing out GOTV flyers asking our volunteers to "Barack the Vote" this November, not a year from now.

There are ways this campaign is different, I think that in some ways his campaign suffers from raised expectations.

Disclaimer: I am a volunteer with Philadelphia for Obama

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:28:52 PM CDT

Problem is .. (0.00 / 0)

Obama has not promised to help filibuster the FISA bill .. like Dodd has .. and why did he just set up a 24/7 rapid response team?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:56:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Field; and expectations. (4.00 / 1)

I agree with much of what you are saying. I think the campaign has been at it's most innovative in the field, really doing some interesting things with volunteers and outreach. My post was more focused on his policy and communications strategies, but I think you are right re the field.
And I think the expectations thing in general has been a problem from the beginning, which has to be expected given the hype going in. I hear all the time from people both of these phrases: "I like Hillary better than I thought I would", and "Barack's not as great as I thought he'd be". But I also think the campaign has some of the blame for that: if you keep telling people that this will be a completely different kind of campaign, and then you run the exact same kind of campaign everybody else has always run, it hurts you. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:59:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is true (0.00 / 0)

One could argue that the campaign is where it is, running a pretty decent second place to Clinton based largely on those expectations.  To some extent he has met them, primary candidates do not usually bring in the kind of crowds and excitement that are becoming common place for Obama.  When it comes to actually reaching and inspiring potential voters, Obama has them al beat.

Personally I do find the post-partisanship very appealing and he does that as well as reaching out to religious voters in a way that seems natural and will hopefully be productive.  This isn't a new campaign driven idea for him either, since that is a large part of what made his 2004 speech so impressive.

Certainly Obama could be more bold in his policy statements.  There is not enough difference between the various campaign statement to reflect what may be fairly major differences in how their presidencies would differ.  On some level all of the campaigns are still asking us to decide based on style, and for wonks and activists that is very annoying.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:18:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's a good thing to hear (0.00 / 0)

that he's mobilizing his field people for things other than his own betterment (even if it works to his advantage long run by building up a bit of a debt to obama from local campaigns). 

I remember someone, kos maybe, suggesting that Obama put his fundraising and field operation to work for a greater progressive cause as well, so this is a sign of that idea coming about.

I'd like to see or hear more about it being used for other causes. 

Maybe Obama's field people in california could show up to help people displaced by the wildfires. 

Not only would it be the right thing to do, but it would undoubtedly earn him great free media.  A thousand or more people in Obama t-shirts showing up to distribute water and food to fire refugees.  If there is such a thing.  I don't know where the people who are fleeing from the fires are even going (I haven't really paid that much attention to the fire).

More broadly, I was an obama supporter until about 6 weeks ago, when I switched to Dodd.  I want to see more from Obama.  I could switch back, but I need to see more from him.  More leadership, more challenges to the status quo.  Just more.

---

by: Jerry 101 @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fear (0.00 / 0)

"The great mystery of the Obama campaign so far is when they have such a unique and compelling candidate with such a fresh voice, why are they running such a conventional wisdom campaign?"

Too much to lose to validate taking the chance of trying something radically different. 

Or, more cynically, hoping that the rhetoric, chatter, and gossip would be enough to provide a lasting impression of what they describe - at least "lasting" enough to get elected.

But, really, Obama does not need a win in 2008 as badly as Clinton.  As long as he doesn't do something outrageous and get himself cast as a fringe figure, he'll be back  - hell, maybe even as the incumbent VP. 

So, call it fear, or shrewd politics, Obama didn't take the tack stated at the outset.  Because in the end - its 2008 and who REALLY wants their first shot at national leadership in year 6 of the Iraq Occupation?  Why take that chance - better to lay low and let Clinton deal with that particular disaster, then see where things lie in 2012, or 2016.

Or, maybe it was all just bluster from the get-go.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:36:32 PM CDT

Re: (4.00 / 1)

Because in the end - its 2008 and who REALLY wants their first shot at national leadership in year 6 of the Iraq Occupation?  Why take that chance - better to lay low and let Clinton deal with that particular disaster, then see where things lie in 2012, or 2016.

If Obama does feel this way, and his timid tactics suggest that he may, then I certainly don't want him winning the nomination. I thought the reason he joined this race, despite the fact that most thinking people assumed he would bide some time in the Senate, was because he truly and passionately wished to be President. If he doesn't want it 100% NOW (not in 4,8,12 years) then he does not deserve and should not receive the nomination.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:03:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm no insider (0.00 / 0)

and I never met Obama, or any other one of the candidates.

I'm just giving a view informed by his actions - or, inactions as the case my be.

I agree that any candidate should want to office they are running for - but, motivation is often a multi-faceted thing.

Whether or not he is running for VP is another question - but, to my mind he has some incentive to do so.  It will definitely help him to overcome the perception of inexperience more quickly than another term in the Senate, and if he has a hankering for higher office, it is an excellent stepping stone.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:50:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I doubt it (4.00 / 1)

His campaign is not being wages as a run for vice president nor as to set the stage for a future run.  I think is it being wages because he honestly believes that he is the best one to handle our withdrawal from Iraq and find a peaceful solution to the problems created by the Bush administration.

True he is young enough that he may have another shot, but that could be many years in the future, or against an incumbent president or vice president.  This year is probably his best shot.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:22:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does Clinton have another shot? (0.00 / 0)

Should she lose the nomination?

I think this may be her best shot at being President.  Whatever the reasons behind the perception of her high negatives - the extremely low level of excitement by and for the Republican nominees, coupled with the complete failure of the Bush Administration more than balance that baggage.

Should she lose the nomination after being so far ahead for so long, it would be crushing.  Losing the general election might not be so bad, but losing among Democrats - especially in the current environment - would be huge.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:57:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is Clinton's shot .. (0.00 / 0)

If she doesn't win the nomination .. she can't run in 8 years .. the VP at that point would have a big leg up .. as long as things are going in a good direction

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:14:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

um. . . (0.00 / 0)

I remain mystified as to why Obama has not followed his own rhetoric and run a truly different kind of campaign, one that has an innovative approach to the big issues, one that embraced bold goals and ideas for how to solve the messes Bush has left behind for the next President.

He's always struck me as a coward, who never saw a fight he couldn't duck, golden gums and an empty suit.

http://www.firedogla...

---

by: Pachacutec @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:58:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's just overrated at this point in his career (4.00 / 3)

Great post.

The evidence so far as I see it is that Obama hasn't learned from past campaigns, doesn't really know what to say in this campaign - doesn't have a feel for this moment, and (I'm guessing) thinks too highly of the effectiveness of his own undeniable charisma.

We could have had a game changing nominee. (Edwards hasn't figured out how to reach non rural middle class people.....)
I'm extremely disappointed, but I've been disappointed before...by Hart, by Bradley....

We'll see, if it's HRC maybe her gender will change the game and give us the 52 to 55% win we need to build on. 

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:44:25 PM CDT

Obama Iowa polls (4.00 / 1)

Mike what is your evidence that Obama has slipped in Iowa.

He is now 2nd in the RCP AVG for IA and has risen steadly in the ARG pOLLS.

Remember Clinton has dominated the MSM from the beginning.
Also she has benefitted from low expectations just like Bush in 2000.

IMHO she has been getting a free pass by the MSM from issues such as fund raising, her vote on the AUF and the Kyle/Lieberman resolution. Other candidates would have been hit much harder on these issues.

I believe Obama is putting all of his egg's in Iowa and if he win's, he has the money to capatilize on that win.

We shall see. My friends in Iowa, who are involved in Iowa politic's tell me he has the best organization of any of the candidates and is the overwhelming 2nd choice over all of the other candidates. 

---

by: BDM @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:25:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Polls. (0.00 / 0)

The polls have been bouncing around all year, some have had him in the lead, most have shown essentially a 3 way tie. Lately, though, Hillary has started to show a small (5-6 points) lead in most of the polling I have seen.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:26:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tsongas and Bradley (4.00 / 1)

I don't remember Tsongas and Bradley promising "tired of partisan bickering" politics.

I remember Tsongas catching on because he articulated the concerns of a lot of people about where the economy and national finances were going, at a time when Bush I was ignoring the economy (remember "Rising Sun" and "America: What Went Wrong"?) and Clinton was trying to buy votes with tax cuts.  Tsongas was up against the best national politican since LBJ, and a punditocracy that would not take him seriously.

I remember Bradley running the kind of cautious lacklustre campaign that Obama is offering, then giving an electrifying speech at the Convention that might have made him a contender had it been his stump speech.  At least he could have gone down fighting for what he believed in.

I keep hearing that Obama is promising an end to "partisan bickering," and I just do not understand.  Is there any other country in the world where politicians run promising to blur the distinctions between them and their opponents?  Aren't elections supposed to be about making choices?  I've always felt that US politics was muzzled by politicians afraid of stirring up opposition from monied interests.  What kind of campaign makes that kind of muzzle the central component in its appeal?

---

by: Taylor @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:47:47 PM CDT

sure there are other countries with blurring (4.00 / 1)

In England, what was New Labor but a blurring?  Blair acted a lot like Clinton (and oddly enough, like Bush later on.) but certainly not like a traditional Labor government.  The Tories are currently following that strategy as well. 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:45:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Different conditions apply there (0.00 / 0)

Blair was allowed to get New Labour off the ground because nobody in the Labour Party (or indeed anybody in Britain not on the hard right) wanted another five years of the lunacy and devastation the Conservatives had been inflicting on my party. He didn't need to run so far to the right, but a succession of election campaigns where we got beaten by an insane baglady and a man who ran away from the circus to become an accountant (this is gospel truth) had left us unwilling to take risks.

Likewise, Cameron was allowed to shift his party a little to the left because they'd had their worst general election since 1832 and not made noticeable progress since then, were informally known as the Nasty Party and had failed to poll above around 32% for the best part of a decade.

There's a slight extent to which Blair was influenced by Clinton, but in general the situation is likely to be considerably more relevant to the Republicans come 2009.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:57:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Distinctions (0.00 / 0)

These are two separate ideas:

(1) Stealing your opponent's winning issues.

(2) Trying to pretend there are no differences between you and your opponent.

Clinton and Blair were disciples of (1). 

Lieberman and it appears Obama are disciples of (2).

If Obama tried his "can't we all get along" schtick in Britain, he'd be laughed off the national stage.

As someone who grew up in Europe, I've always been puzzled by this obsession in the US with "bipartisanship."  I assume it has something to do with an Eisenhower-era consensus on economics and foreign policy.  Guess what, that consensus broke down a long time ago (supply-side economics, anyone?).  Time to grow up.

---

by: Taylor @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 18:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Both of them (0.00 / 0)

made politics being broken as central to their campaign, and both implicated Dems almost as much as Repubs in terms of the problem. Tsongas promised not to be a "pander bear" in contrast to the usual liberal Dems, and Bradley talked constantly about what a great bi-partisan legislator he had been. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:31:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look at his campaign team (4.00 / 3)

This diary is intriguing to me because I felt some of the initial excitement I felt for Obama's campaign tempered when I saw some of the higher-ups who were advising him.

I worked on the Hill in D.C. for a Democrat and was there when Dick Gephardt was minority leader.  For those of you who remembered, under his leadership, we were constantly bowing and scraping before the Republicans on the Hill and President Bush.  I was constantly disgusted with the refusal of the Democratic leadership (in the House, at least) to do anything to stand up to the Republicans. Just think back to the spectacle of Gephardt standing side-by-side, literally, in the Rose Garden with Bush before this disasterous war in Iraq was launched.

And who were some of the people on Gephardt's leadership team at that time?  David Plouffe, Moses Mercado and John Del Cecato.  All people now steering Obama.

I realize that they are just advisors and Obama is the candidate, but again, seeing those hyper-cautious, beltway-perennial consultants driving his strategy and message after all of their hair-splitting and triangulating in the House gave me pause.

---

by: Leechlake @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:41:19 PM CDT

Jimmy Carter (0.00 / 0)

Remember that post I did comparing Obama to Carter?

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:56:29 PM CDT

Yep. (0.00 / 0)

I was focused on all the losers he has modeled himself after, but you're right, a lot of his rhetoric is even older than the campaigns I mentioned, and is reminiscent of Carter.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:35:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ENERGY SUMMIT IN HOUSTON (0.00 / 0)

OBAMA has really class support in Houston, Texas, notably Boris MILES and a whole host of us from the "Oil Patch".

And, he has a "Catholic Candidate faces Baptist Ministers" opportunity next month with the "Energy Debate".

Here is the dynamic:

Nobody is more prized by the Democratic (fund-raising) establishment than the "oil & gas" lobby. In DC, this is a homogeneous bunch of high-priced lawyers who spread their money to any party that will support their "national security" paradigm of (a) domestic tax-breaks and royalty deals, (b) foreign concession-tending, and (c) protection of the "big-three" automakers and their WWII-vintage gasoline engine factories.

Actually, none of that works today and, in fact, those "constituencies" do not really like each other: They just think they have to do whatever their lawyer-lobbyists tells them to do.

The neocons ignored those people and got away with it. Only the DSCC/DCCC is stuck on trading blood for oil or, well, campaign contributions. They are the ones waiting for John Warner and Jim Baker, "Moderate Republicans", to tell them what to do next, but that is another topic.

Actually, all of the above is sheer nonsense (and cliches) from any perspective other than that of the high-priced lawyers in DC.

OBAMA is from Illinois and he could do a Lincoln/Kennedy radical break from bi-partisan concession-tending by staking out a coherent energy/environment policy that is based on Hamiltonian industrial policy. (Protection and finance of "infant", not established industry or import and financial concessions.)

That would leave the Punch & Judy debates and politically correct platitudes in the dust. It would overcome the main problem OBAMA and Democrats generally have relative to the GOP ideologues and just plain crazies: We offer boring centrists, cringing liberals, or screeeming meemies.

They offer chickenhawk jingoism and sanctimony. (This is not new or popular! It just beats the hand-wringing and clientism of Democratic centrists and pimp-consultants.)

::JRBehrman

 

::JRBehrman

---

by: JRBehrman0 @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:06:05 PM CDT

Blown away in 2004? (4.00 / 2)

"Like everyone else I know, I was blown away by his 2004 convention speech, and was delighted by his charisma."

You don't know me, but I was not at all impressed by Obama's speech in 2004.
I was anticipating something exceptional because there was some build-up about a new star on the scene.

I was particularly waiting for Obama to confront the issue of the war in Iraq.
Dean, the anti-war candidate, had fallen by the wayside - and Kerry was pretty wishy washy on the subject. And so I was hoping I would hear something of substance.

Obama spent the first third of his speech talking about himself.
Then he talked about what a great country America is.
His only reference to the war in Iraq was that there were patriotic people in favor of it and patriotic people opposed to it. Then he went back into how great America is and how we're all one. Stuff like that. The end.

I tuned out in disgust.

Another of your comments that puzzled me:

"The great mystery of the Obama campaign so far is when they have such a unique and compelling candidate with such a fresh voice, why are they running such a conventional wisdom campaign?"

If Obama is unique and compelling and has such a fresh voice why isn't he running his own campaign? Why isn't Obama saying things and doing things that are unique, compelling and fresh?

Does Obama's campaigning for Lieberman in 2006 seem particularly fresh?
Is his vote for the Patriot Act unique or compellling?
Are his recent non-votes particularly inspiring?

Like others who blog on this subject, you are hoping for Obama to exhibit creativity, courage, boldness and so forth. This is because these are qualities you have programmed yourself to believe he has.

---

by: lentinel @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:41:30 PM CDT

The speech. (0.00 / 0)

You can do a great speech focused on specific important issues, but I don't think a speech has to do that to be great. Many of the great speeches in American history- the Gettysburg Address, FDR's first inaugural ("We have nothing to fear but fear itself"), MLK's "I have a dream" speech, Cuomo's 1984 convention speech- have been exactly that kind of loftier, who are we as a people kind of speech.  Obama's 2004 speech was a big picture, what kind of America do we want to live in kind of speech, and I think it worked very well.
In general, I think you are reading some odd things into my post. I can't remember a time when I've been so critical of a candidate that someone criticized me for liking him so much.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:46:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

partisan bickering? (4.00 / 3)

Everytime I hear the words "partisan" and "bickering" in the same sentence, it makes me think of Joe Lieberman, and I get the gag reflex. Tell him to stop saying that.

Our country doesn't need a "uniter." It needs a doctor.

There are a lot excellent comments above. I hope Obama reads them, or someone passes the messages to him, and he makes some changes. He needs to bring more "audacity" -- more action, less talk -- to his campaign, or else "hope" wil start running out.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:51:53 PM CDT

Yep (0.00 / 0)

"Partisan bickering" is frankly insulting.

It's partisan because one side marches in lock-step to carry out their insane agenda. You're damn right that opposition to that is partisan, and it will remain so until some of them return to rationality. The fallacy of equivalence has no place here.

And bickering? This isn't bickering. This is an argument. Bickering is a petty squabble over an insubstantial issue. An argument is what you should have when a bunch of lunatics start trying to do things that are very clearly harmful to the world at large.

Partisan rancor? Maybe. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 17:10:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're missing the obvious. (4.00 / 2)

  We're all ignoring the obvious.  Obama's basically a liberal and wants to use government to make life better for all of us (as opposed to the status quo that benefits some people, leaves most of us at risk, and crushes people at the bottom).  In that regard, he's no different from other mainstream Democrats; he says as much in his books and speeches.  So it's a mistake to look for the difference on policy.
  Similarly, he's basically a human being with all the standard limitations.  He says as much in his books and speeches .... So, again, it's a mistake -- our mistake -- to look for some kind of magical new solution to flow from his words or shoot out of his fingertips.  That would be cool but it's not what he's promised.
  The difference is in how he wants to get that liberal agenda transformed into reality.  That's why you don't and won't see it so much in a primary between Democrats.  Oh, you'll see hints of it:  on the role of negotiation in foreign policy, on campaign finance, on priorities perhaps. 
  The difference is in how he, how we, relate politically to people who aren't fully committed to universal health care or civil rights or peace or progressive tax reform.  The difference is in how we relate to people who are ... at risk of disagreeing with us and thwarting our agenda.  That's exactly what Obama talks about when he describes the differences between the smallness of our politics and a larger politics of "hope."
  The difference really is in how to draw people into our movement toward realizing our liberal, progressive agenda.  So of course what's different about Obama isn't going to seem so large in a contest between Democrats.  That's unfortunate for Obama.  It makes his job difficult because the primary isn't designed to reveal what makes him special:  which is his potential for shifting our political culture to the left.  Does anyone really think young independents and Republicans are finding Clinton intriguing, inspiring, or attractive?  Does anyone think Clinton is shifting anything to the left?  That's the difference.  IMO.

---

by: Chicago Jeff @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 18:13:19 PM CDT

Interesting comment. (0.00 / 0)

I hope you are right about him.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:48:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Me too. (0.00 / 0)

It's funny.  The day I watched Bill Clinton announce his candidacy on CSPAN I thought, "he's got it and he's gonna win."  I have a similar reaction to Obama but it's more like, "he's almost got it and he's got a real chance to do something great." 

---

by: Chicago Jeff @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 21:27:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting comment indeed (0.00 / 0)

Reminds me of a diary over on kos.

  Paradigm shifter

---

by: red83 @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 16:37:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I remember reading that diary..... (0.00 / 0)

I don't keep track but I probably agree with a lot of what Geekesque has to say.  Femlaw also wrote a really good diary about the politics of hope.

Obama's onto something but it's not easy to build a real movement in such a short period of time.  A lot of what he's got to do is about relationships (which by definition need to be established over time) and much of his message probably has to conveyed not just in words but experientially (think "empowerment").

---

by: Chicago Jeff @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 21:20:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's innovation is counter to the netroots message (4.00 / 1)

Obama's differences in campaigning are mainly simply differences in the challenges he faces as a serious black candidate.  Obama's challenge is that he has to inspire hope in black Americans.  Hope that Obama wont get shot.  Hope that he can get elected.  Etc.

---

by: Astera @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:13:13 AM CDT