The Audacity of Listening

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:02 pm

The Audacity of Listening
By GAIL COLLINS, New York Times

We have to have a talk about Barack Obama.

I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.

I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

READ MORE: full column.

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:07 pm

I am so gosh darn proud of myself! I did the short link and it WORKS! (I was afraid not to at least try!)

Also, my own comment on this article - I think it's very sensible.

Post by **Dardedar** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:55 pm

DAR
Good job!

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:21 pm

Good for you Betsy! And I agree, it's a great article.

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:21 am

No further opinions on this article? I was expecting to hear from Doug...

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:54 am

"Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place?"

I didn't. And now Obama has backed FISA, helping Bush undermine the constitution.

(Hillary voted against it, by the way.)

And now Obama is preparing to renege on his promise to bring the troops home right away. And so on and so on. He is an unknown who has done nothing. So one should not be surprised that he is not sticking to his stated policies even before getting in office. He has no record to stand on, so we just sort of have to take his word for it all...

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:52 pm

okay, from that response I'm going to assume you didn't read further than the first paragraph or two. Sheesh, nevermind.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:50 pm

DOUG
I read it. Nothing new.

Post by **Dardedar** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:39 pm

Doug wrote:And now Obama is preparing to renege on his promise to bring the troops home right away.

DAR
I smelt that one coming a long time ago. But I don't hold it against him too much. It is an intractable problem. Bush shit the bed, period. Nobody is going to come along and clean it up with out getting their hands dirty.

Politicians are interested in survival, popularity and legacy (SPL). If Obama moved on his promise to extract out of Iraq, militarily, on a rather quick timeline (16 months or so) against or without the advice of "the military" he wouldn't have anyone else to point to when American interests are lost in Iraq and he loses SPL. If America leaves this quickly, Iran moves in and eats Iraq, which they are in the process of doing, and are probably going to do (from the inside out), anyway.

I don't know what the solution is in Iraq. I think Obama is walking the line about right at this point. Bush has made it to where there are no good options. Watch Obama continue to move toward what Hillary was saying on this. What any politicians say in this season, means very little. And I think still think the difference between Hillary and Obama is more style than substance.

D.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:26 pm

DOUG
Plus, Obama is rattling sabers about Pakistan.

Now he's not raising as much money as he did in the primary season. All this movement from previous positions may be taking a toll on the base.

L.Wood · Post by **L.Wood** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:36 pm

Now he's not raising as much money as he did in the primary season. All this movement from previous positions may be taking a toll on the base.

It's true. Then will he do as Bill Clinton did in 92 and begin hustling corporations?

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:36 am

I haven't donated any money lately (and I'm a fairly regular donor to the Obama campaign) because thanks to the present administration I'm flat BROKE these days. I think the economy factors in, plus the fact that his supporters don't want their money to go to pay off Hillary's debt, plus a lot of people are probably waiting for the heat to be turned up. There's no great urgency right now. It's July. The summer slump. Or maybe a lot of people have reached the limit on how much they can donate.

The lag in donations right now is very temporary and could be for any number of reasons.

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:36 pm

Oh! Guess what!? Obama raised 52 million in June, just shy of the record setting 55 million he raised last February. AND, that's from small donors like me, who send $25 or $50 at a time, not the big fat cats donating to McCain and Bush-attended fundraisers. He only raised 22 million in June, breaking his own measly-by-comparison record.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:26 am

DOUG
I just saw on TV yesterday:

The DNC's money + the Obama campaign money = about 92 million.

The RNC's money + the McCain campaign money = about 100 million.

For once, it should be an even match.

L.Wood · Post by **L.Wood** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:48 am

Presidential Fund-raising:

"The Democratic nominee-in-waiting had his second-best fundraising month in June, a $52 million haul that swamped presidential rival John McCain by more than 2-1. He also got a big boost from his party, which raised nearly five times as much as it had in May.

The new figures underscore the Illinois senator's status as a fundraising star. He has raised $340 million during his presidential run to McCain's $132 million.

Obama's June total also reversed a three-month decline and helped close a cash-on-hand gap between the Democratic and Republican presidential operations. Together, Obama and the Democratic National Committee had $92 million in the bank at the end of June compared with $96 million for McCain and the Republican National Committee."

Yahoo News July 17

I would remind you of Iowa Electronic Markets where cash talks and bullshit walks. Keep in mind it's not a poll, it's a market so it is investors' opinions on who will win the big one. Historically it's accurate. Presently Obama is 29 pointsahead. You may wish to see it in graph presentation.

Obviously we're not far from having billion dollar campaigns. Perhaps we could shorten up our very long elector selection process by just having a contest of who can raise a billion dollars first. Winner take all. There's not much democracy involved in the process anyway.
.

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:30 pm

BTW, has anyone ever explained how Hillary managed to land $20 million in debt - did she trust the wrong people (Mark Penn), spend money carelessly, was it a lack of planning ahead, inability to manage money, what? I have my opinion but I'd like to hear one of her supporters try to defend that kind of blatant mismanagement.

L.Wood · Post by **L.Wood** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:09 pm

...that kind of blatant mismanagement.

It happens regularly in presidential politics, esp if the candidate is a sitting governor, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Rep. They expect to recoup any losses from those that owe them favors. But it's not the best of times for Hillary. She will recoup by virtue of still holding her Senate seat. Recall her hubby, Bill, left the Wht House deeply in debt, mostly legal fees. Eight short years later and they're worth over a 100 million bucks. But, Hillary doesn't have Bill's charm nor speaking ability.

She had to do her one last blitz to overcome Obama's strategy of winning delegates in states that will not vote D in the general election. It was an expensive blitz.

However her reported attempts to get BHO's campaign to help her out with her debts was really arrogant. He has a general election to finance.
.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:36 pm

Betsy wrote: I have my opinion but I'd like to hear one of her supporters try to defend that kind of blatant mismanagement.

Explanation: She spent more money than she took in. That's not mismanagement, that's a decision she hoped would pay off if she got the nomination. It was a very close primary race. She judged that it was worth the gamble.

And are we still on the "Hillary is evil" kick? There not only WAS a lot of anti-Hillary bullshit floating around, there still is. Can the Obama people not get over her? Is that why you support Obama, because it makes Hillary lose?

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:58 pm

Excuse me? I'm wondering why you're constantly criticizing Obama or minimizing his successes. And why you apparently think Hillary was the better choice to repair our economy when she couldn't keep her campaign fiscally sound. I really have not heard a good explanation for her debt and was wondering if anyone had one.

I don't hate Hillary. She's likable enough

Post by **Dardedar** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:55 pm

Doug wrote: It was a very close primary race.

DAR
"By campaign's end, Clinton had won 1,640 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,763, a 3.6 percentage point difference..."
--Election Center 2008: Delegate Scorecard", CNN (2008-06-04). Retrieved on 2008-07-06. Link

According to this video blurb (warning, Faux News channel), an independent group has raised $8-10 million for her and she should be solvent (and this a non-issue) soon.

D.
-------------------
Note also:

"at the time of the clinching, Clinton had 286 superdelegates to Obama's 395,[294] with those numbers widening to 256 versus 438 once Obama was acknowledged the winner."