Nagging doubts continue to plague Obama

The Democratic presidential hopeful recently reported raising $32.5 million over three months, a staggering haul that shifted focus from the question of whether the 45-year-old political phenom is ready for prime time.

The first-term Illinois senator continues to draw large crowds — as he did in Iowa last week — and his message of hope and unity has captivated many voters weary of political polarization. The campaign has already attracted more than 259,000 contributors — a jaw-dropping figure.

But in the weeks before his cash totals were disclosed, the Obama campaign hit a series of rough patches that seemed to highlight his relative inexperience on the national stage.

_Critics dismissed as somewhat lackluster Obama's performance in three nationally televised debates. One was a civil rights forum in which Obama, the field's only black contender, was expected to shine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_el_pr/obama_readiness

of the variety that's basically made up?

"Critics dismissed" - what critics?

Something "continues to draw scrutiny" - from whom?

When the punditry wants to bring attention to a so-called "stumble," they do. When they want to totally ignore them, they'll do that, too. I just don't put much stock in it.

101...

It was, however, a great way to write when I was taking creative writing 101...

He's my second choice. :)

On the internet and in the polls, it was, DEAN! DEAN! DEAN! He had every democrat in the nation fired up and he seemed unstoppable but boy did he fizzle out quickly after Iowa.

Maybe not in Iowa, where I don't think she's doing as well as elsewhere, but in the sense that she's been crowned the "presumptive nominee" by the MSM. I remember them calling Dean that for months and months!

Wonder why he fizzled while the others sizzled?

Must have been because he was so crazy.

Must have been because he was saying we were no safer than we were before the war.

Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean.

I think it is a compliment they all use him as a comparison.

unimportant shit like Dean's WIFE not campaigning, wearing makeup, and keeping her "maiden" name (how DARE a doctor stick with her patients!!!) didn't help. It was amazing how much of his message percolated out with all that absolute SHIT blocking the view!!!

I wouldn't call it a mirror image, though. There's similarities in the lack of national experience, the lack of national CAMPAIGN experience, and the working spouse business, but other than the fact that they're both Democrats who are newcomers to the national stage, I don't see much else that is similar in their campaigns. Even the fundraising is different.

They were not very nice, implying he was a little crazy. Actually there were 3 covers right in a row....poor guy he got teary over the finding of his brother's body. I mean, how dare he?

I think if I were Dean I would consider it a compliment that the press and the other candidates keep comparing themselves to him.

I think that is a sign he made a sea change in our party.

Letting go of central control gives activists real power...Howard Dean
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/386

His campaign has changed the way things are done in many ways.

But the other candidates are not Dean...he was the start of a new movement.

I agree. I did not agree with the last paragraph of the comparison.

:eyes:
rocknation

These phony "questions" have the smell of the DLC all over them.

Notice how the DLC viciously attacked Dean when he became a threat but are silent on Obama?

Let's look at Gallup's polling, since they have released the latest polls.

In November of 2006 he was at 19%, in December he rose to 20%. The weekend he announced he gained another point to reach 21%. Most polls showed a bounce for him after he joined (he rose to the mid-20's after that and is lower than that now). Gallup, though, showed him remaining stable from November of 2006 to March. He went from 19% to 22%, gaining only two points immediately after joining the race (the point during the announcement hype and the point after).

The Obama campaign then hit high gear. He was up to 26% by April and within 5 points of 1st place HRC. A month later he lost 3 points to fall to 23% but bounced back in the next poll to recover those 3 points. Gallup recorded its peak for Obama in the beginning of June. He actually took the lead with 30%. Then, though, memogate occurred and the Rezko stories began to get press. Two weeks later he lost 9 points to fall to 21% and remains there in the last poll.

BO supporters like to portray his campaign as an unstoppable juggernaut that is inevitable due to its financial advantage (which should grow since more HRC donors have maxed out). However, the polling tells a different tale. It shows a candidate who began with about 20% before he even began running, rose in the polls to the low 30's (other polls showed him peaking at 31% or 32%) but then sharply declined in the past month or so to essentially where he was before he began campaigning and lower than he was right after he kicked off his campaign.

... supporting the waging of war against Iraq, supporting permanent 'free' trade with China, supporting the first usurious Bankruptcy bill, etc.?

Just wondering.

:shrug:

And what's with the swipe at Howard Dean? Wow, this article treats Dean like he was some freakish side-show, not the guy who wrote the "Let's Change Politics-As-Usual" handbook:

many strategists argue that Obama will have more staying power than the grass-roots darling of the 2004 Democratic field, Howard Dean.

"This isn't just some phenomenon of the Internet — to liken Barack Obama to the flash-in-the-pan Dean campaign does him a disservice," Democratic strategist Garry South said....

It's interesting how the media loves to paint the primary candidates in rather primary colors. This reads like the same "some say" accounts that are out there about Senators Clinton and Edwards, though it's fleshed out with a few more facts and a couple of quotes to make it seem like it's a more even-handed look at the guy. It's the headline, though, that kind of raises my hackles--as though there's an effort here to paint the guy as a waffler.

His weak showing in the debates is fair game, but that "nagging doubts" headline can be viewed in a myriad of ways. And that gratuitous swipe at our Party chair in the piece is just shitty, IMO.

On the plus side, at least the article doesn't go overboard on that tired, old, usual "Female Senator VS. Black Senator" throwdown bullshit that the Lamestream Media loves to shop around. It's almost as though they frame the race as a "What's more Important--race or gender?" game, and not a contest where race or gender aren't the REASON for someone voting a particular way, they're a side aspect to the actual ISSUES each candidate brings to the table. Most of these articles really do go heavy on the "Come on, now, you liberals--PICK ONE!! The WOMAN, or the BLACK!!!" aspect--which does a disservice to Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, etc. This article at least isn't as obnoxious as some of the others I've seen, especially those that carp on about Clinton, but it's not necessarily anything Obama should be leaping for joy about, either. I mean, really, if we're gonna play that GOP-framed game, ya gotta ask where's Shirley Chisolm when ya need her? (May she rest in peace).

I suppose Obama can take heart at getting the "Clinton treatment." Usually this kind of headline with accompanying roller-coaster text (The candidate is GREAT at this.....BUT LOUSY at that.....) is reserved for the NY Senator.

Obama, when sizzle meets fizzle.

Basically it boils down to:
Yeah, Obama is doing good in fundraising, but did you know these bad things about him, most of which are weeks old and complete BS? Oh and here's a few nobodies we got to say some mildly negative things about him.

This belongs on Fox News or the NY Post, not the AP. Pitiful.

Iowa presents problems for Clinton

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-01-3030494155_x.htm

As for the incorrect perception that Obama is not experienced, look for ad campaigns to completely erase that misinformation in the key states. After all, of the top tier candidates, he is the MOST experienced.

Oh...and Beth also wrote this piece as well...

Hillary Clinton Quiet About Past Wal-Mart Ties

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Wal-Mart-Clinton10mar06.htm