CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Clara "The Clairvoyant" — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:10:42 -0000

Actually, speaking as a Republican, Barack has been doing quite well. On the national scene, his personal ties to several characters such as Tony Rezko, the Stroger Dynasty, Emil Jones Dynasty, etc. has not even made a blip on the national political radar screen. He may not beat Hillary but he certainly has forced her to keep looking over her shoulder to see how close he is behind her.

The up-coming presidential election will turn out to have been just a warm-up session for Barack. His "moment in the sun" will be the following presidential elections.

Re: Question of the day

Mac McIntyre — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:59:59 -0000

Maybe if the lesser campaigns of candidates, like John Edwards, were eliminated so the Dems were able to choose between Barrack and Hillary then Obama would win. The multitude favors Clinton.

Barrack is doing very well with his campaign in this pre-election season. He is the candidate promoting change. His challenge comes when the voting booths replace the polls as indicators. Sound bites for change must evolve to HOW he will institute change. If he does that he will be the next President.

Re: Question of the day

Squideshi — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:20:04 -0000

"Those government teachers HATE being graded and donâ€™t want their pay to have anything to do with whether or not they are any good at their jobs."

How would you propose that teachers be graded, recognizing that students inherently perform at different levels, regardless of the teacher's efforts or expertise? A student's parents play a large part in the performance of a student, and the teacher has absolutely no control over that.

Re: Question of the day

Bridget Dooley — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:36:37 -0000

It seems to be going well. The fundraising is obviously going exceptionally well and I don't think there's any reason to think that it will slow down. People are pretty excited to get involved, many of whom have not been involved in campaigns in the past.

The Resko business is annoying, but I don't think it will be an issue. I have to wonder why Obama's communications staff didn't just come out with every interaction Obama ever had with Resko all at once. It would have been a 2 day news story at best.

I am glad that Obama isn't busy slinging one-liners and completely dominating the press at this time. That should come much later. There's no reason to peak in the press right now only to be yesterday's news story when it counts.

Re: Question of the day

Repubactuallyconsideringtheguy — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:00:45 -0000

Any of us who have actually lobbied Obama in Springfield know him as a very careful politician. He seems to be running his campaign the same way while Hillary alternates between appearing "canned" or shrill. His platform planks, including health care, seem studied and reasonable. His only mistake here in Illinois was allowing SEIU to get to close to him. People need to remember that when he first arrived in the Illinois State Senate he was a sensation - among the Republican members. I recall the late Aldo DeAngelis dragging him over to the other side of the aisle telling his colleagues "hey, you HAVE to meet this guy". If he survives the Democratic primary he will excite moderate Republicans and independents more than you might expect.

Re: Question of the day

Bill S. Preston, Esq. — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:47:23 -0000

I'm a little disappointed with the campaign so far. He hasn't had very many 'gotcha' moments that make you think he's really on top of his game. Both Senators Obama and Edwards seem to be nodding their heads while Senator Clinton does the real talking. I will still vote for him because Edwards has no chance of beating a Republican and the thought of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty repulses me, but I feel like his staff should let the leash out a little and let him be himself.

Furthermore, I'd be curious to see how successful his direct mail fundraising has been. I gave a measly amount online 3 months ago and have received no fewer than 6 direct mail attempts to get me to donate again. Usually included is a long-winded, dull, ineffective letter from David Plouffe. The sheer waste of paper annoys me. If I donate online, I'll probably donate online again. Save the expense!

Re: Question of the day

railsplitter_68 — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:42:05 -0000

Ghost, well said! I totally agree with your take on it. The Democratic Party, (even moreseo than the GOP) are notorious for going with the "safe" , most risk-free, establishment-backed candidate. Let's call this creature "Kerrygore Monkakis" (Yawn) or some latter day incarnation of Grover Cleveland whom you mention. I love it when posters actually know some history.

As far as 1992, and I was there, Bill Clinton was pretty much "annointed" by the time of the Illinois primary, and was the machine's candidate by default. He was made for tv and wasn't saying anything of substances outside the DNC's comfort zone. The other candidates in '92, Brown was too cutting edge and Tsongas was too colorless for even for party regulars to embrace.
HRC is going to be the nominee, like her or not. Time for Obama to stop pharting around and return to the job he was elected to do.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:23:24 -0000

Obama is a perennial number two. Nice, but no cigar. For him to wait until Clinton implodes isn't much of a game plan, but right now it definately appears that the Democratic Party will choose the former president's wife as their standard bearer in 2008.

There are more precidents favoring the former First Lady than it does the freshman senator. Clinton has been planning to run for office since she graduated from Wellsley. Obama has been planning on running only since Yale. Clinton married the most charming politician in the US since Reagan, Obama didn't. Clinton was propelled to her prominence based on being married to the right guy - the President of the United States. Obama hasn't. Clinton has been working the Democratic party since 1990 - Obama hasn't.

Except for his Howard Dean-like Internet hauls, Obama has little to show for his effort so far. The polls are not encouraging at all.

Even in his home state - he is in a statistical tie with Clinton. There are no polls showing Obama leading Clinton in any states, let alone states with primaries coming up within the next six months. He is not only behind - he is behind by double digits.

The Democratic Party has been comfortably establishment-minded concerning presidential candidates since McGovern and Carter. No one can say that any Democratic candidate since 1976 could be considered charismatic or cutting-edge. In 1992, the only time the Democrats elected one of their own, you saw Clinton running as the most conservative Democratic since Cleveland in 1892 and he still was not fully embraced by the Party until he received the nomination and Perot self destructing that summer.

Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were chosen by Party regulars. Although everyone knew each of these guys were toast even before they got the nomination, the Party chose them as the safest picks.

In 2008, the safe pick for Democrats is Clinton's wife who has the name recognition, money, connections and Bill Clinton's magic on her side.

What Obama has safely done so far is establish himself for future runs in 2012 and beyond. He could easily wait if for some fluke, the former First Lady gets elected in November 2008 and hangs in there for two terms.

For those who believe that Democrats will win with Hillary in 2008, they had a good shot had the election been held last November. Since gaining the majority in Congress, the Democrats have responsibility for the situations we now deal with, and as polls clearly show, are not handling their tasks in a manner that shows they had a plan for 2008 and beyond. Whatever crap floats down the pike at us will end up on their laps too. This makes 2008 much less of a shoe-in as some partisans hope.

Obama - so far, close, but as John Edwards discovered in 2004, being a perennial number two doesn't get you the nomination. He will have to wait until Bill Clinton's wife self-destructs, and we all know how UNlikely that will be.

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:14:22 -0000

What experience does Hillary Clinton have? This inexperience thing baffles me. What experience do we desire for a president?

Hillary has done nothing to work with or bring the parties together to try and create meaningful legislation. She is a divider. Is this the expereince we treasure for mending problems with other countries?

Obama's lacks what? the ability to negotiate with both sides? he has that. He has experience living and working in a multinational school. Clinton started pushing her healthcare ideas when Bill was president. She had his eight year plus her current term. She failed to get any support. She totes that same goal now...but her experience on this point is that she has no ability to garner sufficient support, with over a deacde of trying! thats not experience, thats a failure of leadership.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:14:12 -0000

buying votes?

Re: Question of the day

A Citizen — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:47:46 -0000

There is a very strong undercurrent of a perception of his lack of experience and seasoned veteran gaining traction. Numerous articles recently have focussed on the campaign's inability to shake off that perception and image. If he can't get passed that serious problem he is in trouble.

Re: Question of the day

railsplitter_68 — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:30:23 -0000

Obama's campaign is progressing as expected in that he is a permanent second place status, which reflects his inexperience and lack of substance. I predicted that the day he entered the race. For the record, I have no interest in HRC. I support Rudy.

That being said here are 2 facts on Obama which underscore his mediocrity as a pres. candidate:

1. He promised to serve out his term and has not kept his word.
2. In his 2 years as Senator, he has done absolutely nothing tangible for the people of Illinois, that I can see. Even his staff seems to have other priorities, as "routine" constituent service is ignored.

In my opinion, Obama needs to do the job he was elected to do instead of gallevanting around the country pursuing his dreams and fantasies. The people of Illinois are entitled to 2 full-time Senators and we deserve someone who is up to the job.

This 2nd place cloud has a "silver lining" in that it suggests that Barack is being humbled and that Democrats are finally taking him off the pedestal. Maybe it will make him a better senator.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:54:17 -0000

Follow the money, Rich, follow the money. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tutoring cottage industries, buying votes, using government resources to campaign for their causes, refusal of accountability, and on average less than 3 government teachers are fired in Illinois each year due to poor performance. Reprehensible is corrupt enough for me, even if not indictable.

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:48:55 -0000

Good analysis. I think you hit the points well - HRC is just not a likable candidate and Obama is. We went through this is the 80 election cycle. A likable candidate against one with high negatives. Little was factored in as to ability to be Pres.

Also I am old enough to remember the 1960 election cycle and experience was an issue - A sitting VP against a junior senator. One had the resume but was not likable but the winning candidate had curb appeal.

Between experience and high negatives and in experience and good appeal, I will bet on to latter as a successful candidate. Agreed if the dems will nominate Obama he will be the strongest candidate.

p.s. I am a true independent - no party preference but look at the candidate for each office.

Re: Question of the day

True Observer — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:38:52 -0000

Obama's congressional endorsements include:

1. Most of Illinois delegation - naturally, they still need him for their projects.

2. Many out of state blacks - naturally, they want to stay good with their black constituents.

3. Odd balls: Abercrombie, Wexler. Need one say more.

4. Russ Carnahan from neighboring Missouri. Helps him on future joint state projects.

Doesn't look like congressmen and senators think much of his chances.

Re: Question of the day

Chris — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:26:15 -0000

Interesting article/analysis on RealClear Politics today, entiteled "Obama's 'Anyone But Hillary' Strategy" - the quote below to me reveals the flaw in Obama's campaign - HE'S NOT QUALIFIED! No matter how much money you raise, or what type of PR or branding strategy the best paid team comes up with, this guy has accomplished little in legislative victories, has no executive experience, and will continue to come off as a lightweight on the issues during debates against the likes of Clinton and Biden, not because he hasn't got the marketing team behind him, but because he is a lightweight and out of his league. It is only a matter of time till he goes the way of Dean.

"Things look worse for Obama when one starts digging into those very same polls to see how Democratic voters are breaking down. In a June 4 Washington Post/ABC News poll, asked to name which candidate was the strongest leader, 50% said Clinton, 26% said Obama; asked who would best handle a major crisis, 47% said Clinton, 24% Obama; and, finally, asked who had the best experience to be president, 66% said Clinton, while just 9% said Obama. No matter which party one is talking about, those three criteria - strength, good judgment and experience - are how Americans choose presidents."

http://www.realclearpolitic...

Re: Question of the day

Captain America — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:25:38 -0000

Hilary Clinton is really looking tough in all the state-by-state polls. She appears to be the much stronger candidate in Democratic primaries, given her establishment connections and her obvious qualifications. However, she is potentially much weaker than Obama in a general election, given her extremely high negative ratings in the general electorate (I've seen negative ratings recently as high as 46%.)

Larry Sabato, an objective analyst, sent out a newsletter about two weeks ago, specifically disussing Clnoton's high negatives and pointing out that she would be a very polarizing candidate and President, if elected, simply because so many people dsilike her so ntensely. My personal opinion is that if she gets the nomination she will be elected Presdient, but it will be a much closer election. The only reason she is electable is becasue the Bush adminstration/Republican rule has been so dismal the last 8 years.Do we really want four more years of polarization after 16 years of the Clinton and Bush administrations???

Obama is the much stronger candidate in a general election because he is genuinely likeable and a Teflon candidate. He has far more appeal to independents and even some crossover appeal to Republicans. I read an article in the current issue of the American Specator telling conservatives to be very afraid if Obama is the nominee. The author suggested that Obama could do for liberalism what Reagan did for conservatism.

Obama's fundaraisng results are nothing less than phenomenal.He has more youth appeal than any candidate since Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. He seems to learn form his mistakes - his perfomrance before a civil reights crowd at Howard University was eclipsed by Hilary Clinton, but he did a much better job at the NAACP convention.

He is far better intellectully and experientially qualfied to be President than George Bush was when he was elected. (Bush was created and elected by Karl Rove despite his many characterological and intellectual flaws.)

Obama seems to be well-positioned if Hilary Clinton stumbles, I think he has much greater potential for growth in the polls. I believe that many African-American voters will eventually switch from Hilary to Obama in the primaries after Iowa and New Hampshire.

If I were betting at this point, I see Hilary as the Presidential nominee and Obama as the VP nominee. I've read where Hilary will never pick Obama for VP. If she doesn't it's a significant mistake on her part. He is the exception to the general rule that a VP candidate can not help a ticket, only hurt it. Obama creates genuine exciteemnt wherever he goes because of his charismatic appeal.

I could envision a scneario where Obama fights Clinton to a draw, and Gore emerges as the Presediential nominee in a brokered convention. Obama will defintely be the VP nominee if Gore somehow secures the presidintial nomination.

Win-or-lose, VP or not, I see great things for Obama in the future. For me,it's a win-win situation. I'm supporting Obama, but I like Clinton. My only reservations about Hilary Clinton are her very high negatives in every poll I have ever seen.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:22:27 -0000

Trigg, you're entitled to your opinion, but how, exactly, are the teachers unions "corrupt"?

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:18:57 -0000

Barack Obama has made some critical mistakes. One last week probably took him out it. Obama made the huge mistake of telling the teachers unions that he isn't opposed to merit based pay for teachers, something he was never in favor of in Illinois. Those government teachers HATE being graded and don't want their pay to have anything to do with whether or not they are any good at their jobs. He can't win without the corrupt, greedy teachers unions money and resources behind him.

Re: Question of the day

So Ill — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:03 -0000

ISU, a tip. Take "We" out of your posts when discussing the topic. Use "The campaign" instead. It dials down your rhetoric two notches.

I'll go on the record and say this: Obama hasn't done his job in Illinois. I don't doubt that he CAN -- I voted for him and am proud to say it -- but he hasn't, and he isn't, and while he has a "whole country to run in", he has a state to help run.

Didn't a poll come out recently that had Hillary polling at a greater percentage in NY than Obama was in IL? That should be of some concern. Fact is, you have to defend your home base. He's not doing it, not well. He hasn't been anywhere in Illinois, outside of Chicago, in months.

It's still early in the campaign, and I agree that Iowa is of primary importance since its primary is early. All I'm saying is either the campaign or the Senate office hasn't given people in my area much of a reason to vote for Obama in recent months, and that's what I'm hearing from others in southern Illinois as well.

Re: Question of the day

L.S. — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:00 -0000

Obama is in a pretty good position right now. His numbers could be a little closer to Clinton but overall he is in good shape. His fundrasing has been impressive and he will have a lot of ammo to do slick TV ads in preperation of Sunami Tuesday. The importance of Iowa and New Hampsire have been diluted due to so many states moving their primary up. Look for Edwards to do well and maybe even win Iowa but peak there. If Hillary and Barack dry up the rest of the money it will come down to a two person race as the remanider of the field falls out. IN a head to head, Barack can calim electibility and a new face that people are starving for.

I will say this, outside the political geeks like us that focus on this stuff all the time, the general public is only somewhat paying attention to the field right now. The poll numbers do not move noticiably these days. Obama has to hit another big shot a la Audacity of Hope, and he needs to time it right. If he can dazzle the crowd on a big stage in the late debates he will walk away with it.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:39:03 -0000

Not criticizing, Patriot, but why do you think the internet money will dry up in January?

Re: Question of the day

the Patriot — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:34:40 -0000

He is ok, but the campaign needs legs. The internet fundraising will dry up in Jan 08 and he needs the deep pockets to make it to next summer.

He also has shown he is smart, but who is he going to rely on. It takes more then one person to run this country. Bill Clinton did not delegate enough, Bush delegated too much and to the wrong people, who is going to help him. Hillary has Bill and 8 years in the White House. To get the nod, he needs to get deep pockets and fill the experience gap.

Re: Question of the day

amy — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:31:23 -0000

well, I guess for someone who has been running
for president since 2004 he's doing ok. but it's still all a bit puffy and presumptuous----that
Ill. poll should give them great pause. Obama
has no Senate record not because of his short
time in office....it's because he really has
not been functioning as a Senator. and, the
Ill. poll may reflect what the nation will
learn soon....Illinois and Cook County are no
example to lend to the nation!

Rezko is just a good one word way of describing
the negative ball that Obama has to go along
with the big wet puppy puffball of Obama book
club goo that they think will get the buyers.
oops I mean voters!

Re: Question of the day

decaturboy — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:31:14 -0000

To anomonymoose remember Whitewater and legal billing that are the Clinton problems along with pardons and more,
Obama needs to hit a home run in one of these candidate debates and outshine the field.
When you look at the field he is the new voice and we really need change not more years of what seems like the Bush-clinton-Bush era.