Kos: 'Obama's Race To Lose'
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (59) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Kos analyzes the campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination and concludes, if Obama runs, he wins:
I've been working up a few scenarios given the primary calendar (which isn't set in stone, with states like California looking to move up), and really, it would be Obama's race to lose.
Kos thinks Vilsack will take Iowa as a favorite son and the true race in Iowa will be between Edwards and Obama for second and third place. Kos discounts Clinton because she "appears to be bypassing Iowa."
I disagree with Kos' Iowa analysis.
Read on.
Vilsack will not get a bye as a favorite son in Iowa. Iowa officials have been going out of their way to let people know Iowa's 2008 presidential caucuses will be a level playing field.
Senator Clinton has not bypassed Iowa. she has mounted a non-traditional Iowa campaign. While other potential 2008 presidential candidates sojourned to Iowa, Clinton brought Iowa to Washington. In June, she entertained several key caucus-state activists and donors at her Washington mansion. Clinton has recently been begun calling political operatives in Iowa and inviting some to dinner in Washington.
I agree with Koss that Nevada will diminish the traditional importance of New Hampshire.
The Koss analysis has Nevada as a "battle between Edwards and his union allies, and Richardson and his southwestern and Latino base." After giving too much weight to Vilsack in Iowa, Koss unduly slights Vilsack in Nevada. Vilsack's biggest base of support outside of Iowa is Nevada.
Kos is right on about South Carolina. It could well determine the Democratic nomination. Given the state's large African American population, it's hard to see how Obama doesn't win.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "Don't Know" Wins Presidential Poll — Comments (29) »
Kos: 'Obama's Race To Lose' 59 Comments (0 topical, 59 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
dailyKos just put up a poll asking them to choose their fave for 2008..should be interesting...
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
We can only hope he's right. An empty suit Senator would make things much easier for us.
Of course, if we turn around and make it much harder on ourselves by nominating someone outside the mainstream like Rudy Giuliani or Condi Rice, or somebody who makes large hunks of the base uncomfortable like Mitt Romney or John McCain, then it's anybody's race.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
There's no one out there that's well-known, well-financed, good on TV, and completely free of issues that make him or her unacceptable to certain segments of the electorate that have supported Republican presidential candidates recently. It seems to me that every other potential candidate has far more flaws (as a candidate, not necessarily as a person) than Romney, Rudy, or McCain, so one of them will be the nominee; I'm not sure even Jeb Bush changing his mind and jumping in could change that at this point, and he'd have a far better chance than anyone else.
An empty suit Senator would make things much easier for us.
What makes him an empty suit? Just curious. I can see you calling him out for his lack of a history in the Federal government but I don't see how he is an empty suit.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
What are his accomplishments in government? What did he do before government work?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
From Wiki
fter high school, Obama studied for two years at Occidental College, before transferring to Columbia College, an undergraduate division of Columbia University. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation in 1983, Obama worked for one year at Business International Corporation before moving to Chicago and taking a job with a non-profit organization helping local churches organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods.[9]
Obama then left Chicago for three years to study at Harvard Law School. He was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, obtaining his Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, in 1991. On returning to Chicago, Obama supported a voter registration drive, then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his federal election.[10]
[edit] State legislature
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from the 13th District in the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago. In January 2003, Democrats regained control of the chamber, and Sen. Obama was named chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.[11]
Obama helped to author an Earned Income Tax Credit for the state that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.[12]
In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, charged that Obama hadn't "been around the first congressional district long enough to really see what's going on".[13] Rush received 61% of the vote, while Obama received 30%.[14]
After the loss, Obama rededicated his efforts to the state Senate. In his 2002 campaign, he ran unopposed. Obama authored a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes punishable by the death penalty.[5] He also pushed through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms.[15][16]
Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois State Senate, commentators noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build coalitions.[17][18] In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises", this despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.[19]
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
So the answers as I read that are
a) He's never held a real job for any length of time. One year? Some people work in fast food longer.
b) In government he specializes on feel-good things like don't really accomplish much.
thanks again,
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Honestly is there anything he COULD have in his resume that would get you to vote for him?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
No, there's nothing he could have done that would make me support an anti-second amendment, pro-tax kind of guy like BHO. But had he proven himself productive in society before jumping into the world of politics and policy, and had he been even a guy like Sen. Kennedy who pushes major issues even when he can't win, I wouldn't be able to call him an empty suit.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Implies a lack of ability or intelligence or character. There is little evidence of any of that.
An empty resume would be a reasonable criticism, although I don't think it makes a whit of difference to most voters.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Not like John Kerry in that he is dull, but more like John Edwards in that all he has are attributes that are pleasing to the senses. No real substance. Love him or hate him, John McCain has accomplished a lot. He is a LEADER. Obama has been on the Public Payroll his whole life and there is no "Obama Feingold" campaign finance reform or "Obama" IRA accounts. He really is like a bi-racial version of John Edwards.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
a policy paper on how to privatize social security and medicare, an open letter to the Democratic Leadership about the feckless nature of their attacks on the war, and an "R" behind his name.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
... he seems to like coming up with things the government can mandate and demand that the private sector pay for. Is it too early for us to start printing "Hussein in '08" bumper stickers?
The guy is extremely liberal, and that may be a winning basis of attack, but to argue that he has no qualifications outside his election really shows a lack of understanding as to what is on his resume.
Harvard - To graduate Magna from Harvard Law, and to be President of the Harvard Law Review, are enormous achievements. Anyone with those credentials - and I've known a couple - can pick their legal job. Look at it like this - ninety-eight percent of all wannabe law students in the country want to go to Harvard, and of those who get into Harvard ninety nine percent want to be the number one, head guy on the Law Review, which is what the President is. Obama achieved that. It's not an empty suit thing. He picked a civil rights firm rather than Wall Street, but it was his pick (and the way I read the resume, he was there for 13 years, not one, until he won his federal election.)
Law Professor - By my count, he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for thirteen years. That's not some goofy adjunct course; that's the core course at the heart of the curriculum. Chicago is on anyone's list of top ten law schools, and, with the possible exception of Virginia, it's the most conservative of the top ten. Teaching con law at Chicago is a dream job for a legal academic, and I can assure they they didn't pick him based on affirmative action.
Writer - The resume doesn't mention it, but he's written two best selling books, one of which came out years before he ran for the Senate. I count writing as a real job.
There are lines of attack on Obama (and Hillary Clinton is about to show us all what they are). He's way, way liberal. He's a Chicago politician, and no one comes out of Chicago Democratic politics 100 % clean (the stuff on a somewhat smelly deal when he bought his home already came out in the Chicago papers when the other guy involved got indicted on other public corruption charges).
But when it comes to raw ability, and professional accomplishments outside of politics, he leaves both W and Clinton in the dust, not to mention Kerry and Gore. It's not going to be the winning line of attack on this guy, and, with all due respect, it betrays a lack of familiarity with and understanding of a real Grade A resume to even make that argument.
Given the state's large African American population, it's hard to see how Obama doesn't win.
I am irritated by the assumption that African Americans will favor Obama. Blacks can vote on the issues just like everyone else.
When you favor Democrats 80/20, there's something else going on.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
When, other than maybe recently in MD - I haven't seen the stats, did the R's EVER get 20% of the black vote?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
But you are only pointing out that black americans vote Democrat regardless of race - most of the people they vote for are white. That does seem to be more of an 'issue' vote as black Republicans usually don't get the majority of the black vote. I'm sure that Obama would get more black votes than he would if he were a white guy - that's just human nature - but I don't see why it's fair to assume that the black vote will be monolithic for him.
When you have a self-identifying group of people that votes so monolithically, then I have to believe someone who is commonly identified as a member of the same gruop will draw those votes.
Especially when we know that the Democrats exist in no small part by fostering that false identity, and playing up conspiracy theories about how the rest of society is working to keep that group down.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
If ever there were a race where they could easily crossover to a Republican it was Steele this year in MD, yet they didn't. So as a group, expect them to continue acting as faithful servants and not independant thinkers. There will of course continue to be individual exceptions, but it isn't a movement sort of thing. Which means Obama does have decent chances in his home state.
Personally, I'm still not sure Hillary will run. If she runs and wins, its at most 8 years, then out. She needs to keep herself close enough to the action to derail any investigations into the shady family dealing to thwart them, and the best place from which to do that is the Senate, not as a former President.
Blacks switched over to vote for Steele in record numbers for MD... it just wasn't enough to overcome the white independents who voted Erlich/Steele in 2002 and Bush in 2004 who switched to O'Malley/Cardin in 2006.
Vilsack is no sure thing to win Iowa. The Tom Harkin comparison in 1992 is not valid. Almost all of the Democratic contenders that year bypassed Iowa. That will not happen in 2008, because polling shows the state would be competitive, even with Vilsack in the race. A Des Moines Register poll from June has Vilsack polling a distant 4th in his home state. John Edwards was first at 30%, followed by Hillary at 26%, John Kerry at 12% and Vilsack at 10%.
I think Barack Hussein Obama would win the Democratic primary, and would be harder to beat in the general election than Hillary.
I personally think all the hype about Obama is ridiculous, the man has only 2 years in the Senate under his belt, and that is supposed to catapault him to the White House?
The Democrats are starting to worry that Hillary would be slaughtered in the general election, and they should be. The Dems and the MSM decided they would create a black JFK from thin air.
Obama would still be a tough sale for the American people, no matter what the fawning press says. His name certainly doesn't help his candidacy, it's hard to think of an American President engaging in a war against Islamic Fascism with a name like Barack Hussein Obama.
His very limited experience in government, the fact his father had three wives, his privileged upbringing, all of these things will take some of the luster off of his candidacy.
Obama is also a run-of-the-mill Liberal Democrat, with no new ideas or policies, but unfortunately he doesn't have a long paper trail because of his short resume.
He's definitely beatable, but it will be harder than Hillary.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Sure Sen. Obama would be harder to beat than Sen. Clinton, but I don't think Sen. Clinton has a serious chance at the Presidency, heh.
The way I see it, Obama is Kerry without the Winter Soldier stuff trailing him. On the other hand, Obama won't have anti-Bush stuff to run on, so it balances out.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Yeah, but Obama will have a much thinner voting record to attack than what Kerry had. Kerry was easily characterized as a far-left liberal based on years and years of Senate votes. Obama should have an easier time portraying himself as something he is not.
I don't know about you, but what I remember is that John Kerry and the press conspired to present him as the Electable Moderate™ of the Democratic field.
Obama, actually being relatively to the right of the Democratic center, won't have to work hard to make that pitch.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
His US Senate record is sparse and might be considered semi-moderate, but take a look at Obama's Illinois Legislative record. It is decidedly more liberal than people may suspect.
I didn't say he's right of center, I said he's right of the DEMOCRATIC center, by which I mean he's no Massachusetts/San Francisco radical lefty, but at the same time he's no Southern moderate.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
He comes across as moderate in his persona, but don't be misled. He's left of the Democratic center, if anything. He's too smart to say inflammatory stuff that might come back to haunt him, but the agenda he would want to enact would be hard core liberal.
He comes across as moderate in his persona, but don't be misled. He's left of the Democratic center, if anything. He's too smart to say inflammatory stuff that might come back to haunt him, but the agenda he would want to enact would be hard core liberal.
For some reason, I think Sen. Clinton would be harder to defeat than Sen. Obama in the general election.
Clinton will be able to put more money on the table and has been through this whole thing before. She knows how to play the public, play the media, and play politics on a grand scale such as the Presidency. A Presidential race is long, and I truly wonder if someone as un-tested as Sen. Obama would be able to handle it. Outside of state races early in his political career, he has not had to really campaign hard in a close race (his primary and general for Senator was a cake walk).
And finally, the unfortunate part. I just think there are parts of our society who will not vote a black man into the Presidency. Just as I doubt they would have voted for Steele. While it's not a part of society we are proud of, it does exist.
in my experience, those that view blacks and women as inferior to white males put black males a step higher on the ladder than white females.
I think we will have a black male president before we ever have any female president. And as much as I'd like to see that particular glass ceiling broken, I could never vote for Hilary. The country just isn't ready yet for a female president.
His very limited experience in government, the fact his father had three wives, his privileged upbringing, all of these things will take some of the luster off of his candidacy.
What was his privileged upbringing? I sure would like to know.
And have we really fallen to the point that someone's FATHER is a point of criticism?
Obama was in state government before being elected to the Senate.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Are you really going to hold a man's name against him? That tack is just as stupid as calling french fries freedom fries. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Barak Obama, but his name is not one of them.
but it would be foolish to think that it wouldn't make a difference.
If a large percentage of Americans haven't yet warmed up to any vaguely-ethnic-sounding candidate names, as seems to be the case, then "Barack Hussein Obama" will really be an issue for them. It's unfortunate. (Heck, it's not even good in American politics to have a name that your average American is not sure how to spell, let alone a name with potential connotations in their minds.)
You Know. The Fresh-Faced, Outsider Poised To Sweep Through And Bring A New Energy To The Old, Tired Paradigm While Breaking All The Rules.
Senator Obama? I don't think that you read RedState, but maybe one of your staffers does. Friendly, honestly-meant advice? If anybody starts telling you how you're energizing the youth vote and empowering ordinary people to rejoin the political process, do yourself a favor and can the guy quick, before he does any more damage. Actually, you should kick him in the testicles first - it'll be a fitting revenge for every Democratic candidate who ever bought into this nonsense - but if you did it'll probably just end up on YouTube.
Mind you, I have no idea whether being known for kicking political operatives in the testicles would be actually a net negative.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Oh my goodness that kicking stuff came out of nowhere.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Obama better be getting lots of training in public speaking and debate if he does indeed run.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Right now it looks like the media is going to be far kinder to him than they were to Dean. They want something new, exciting, and different, and Obama's canvas is blank enough to accomodate even the most far-fetched brushwork. When I look at articles about Obama, I'm struck by how little he even has to *say* for the gushing to begin.
This is a media that's shown itself to be far more interested in how a candidate "comes off" than it is about anything of substance. These are the people who declare one candidate the winner of a debate because he "seemed more confident".
The question is what their attention span is going to be. My guess: short.
What was the "substance" that W had before 2000? He was clearly out of his league on foreign policy. So much so that he had to assure voters that he would be bringing in a "dream team" to work on foreign policy.
People vote on party affiliation and personal confidence in a candidate.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I'd start to think that you were trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
I was talking about the media and Obama, not President Bush or the reasons why people vote the way they do.
This is still very much Hillary Clinton's race to lose. Once the Clinton Machine starts taking a metaphorical lead pipe to Obama's knees (or you never know about the Clintons...it maybe a literal one!) he's going to wish that he never changed his mind.
It's also going to be difficult for Obama to counter Bill Clinton's surely tireless campaign on behalf of his wife in the Democratic primary.
That said, I do believe that Obama would be more difficult to defeat in the general election than Hillary Clinton would be. Just SAY Hillary's name and you will get very strong reactions one way or the other.
You also need to look no further than Harold Ford's close loss in Tennessee to see that Obama's race is not going to be an impediment for him in the South. As much as Democrats still play the race card, residual racism thankfully is not really much of a factor anymore.
I think that it's going to take an energetic and charismatic Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani to win. McCain just doesn't have the vigor left in him at his age to wage this campaign.
When Hillary Clinton loses in either the primary or the general (because I think she is destined to lose one of those) - Harry Reid had better look out because she will be coming for his job. And poor Dick Durbin will be resigned to Whip forever. :-)
There is simply no way that Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. Fundamentally she just isn't that well liked by Democrats. And she is absolutely despised by virtually anyone with a -R at the end of their name.
Sure she will have a strong political apparatus that will support her. But as Kos is already showing, Obama is managing to appeal to the strong Left without actually advocating any hard core Left positions. Clinton, otoh, is generally loathed by the MoveOn branch of the Democratic Party. They aren't going to vote for her because of her husband.
My personal handicapping has her about 4th. Right now I think Warner is still the favorite to get the nod, even if there is no talk of him running right now. After that Obama, if he chooses to run. After that Feingold. Then Clinton. Then Richardson.
Vilsack announcing so early suggests to me that he isn't serious about winning.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...just how much kingmaker power the MoveOn faction actually has. Yes, they can claim a win in November; then again, so has every other branch of the Democratic Party. Heck, elements of the GOP are claiming the win for the Democratic Party. Don't knock apparatus. Apparatus gave Kerry the nod in 2004 - and while he lost, it was because of personal shortcomings, not internal organizational ones.
Also, I should note that the general loathing of the MoveOn wing flows in both directions. Hoo, yeah. They've got a lot of bad kharma to work off.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I don't think that MoveOn is, by any means, a kingmaker. But they are influential and, truth be told, I was referring more to the entire Liberal wing of the party more than just the MoveOn/Kos activists.
Apparatus is certainly important. But Kerry got the nod because he had the DNC apparatus behind him, something I don't think that HRC will enjoy. She may get the DLC/PPI guys plus the Bill Clinton support network but there are a LOT of rank and file Democrats not thrilled with her as a candidate because they can see her shortcomings in the General.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...not a criticism; most groups are. But if Sen. Clinton can get the DNC leadership on board - particularly Chairman Dean, and I currently forget where he sits in the Great Clinton/Gore Blood Feud that runs under the current of Democratic Party party politics - then the opinions of the people at the ward/precinct level might not matter quite so much (the opinions of their superiors will matter more, but the latter are at the level where DNC state-party money has its greatest internal impact). She may not get their full-fledged cooperation; but a challenger to her would have to operate without the DNC's financial support. That's an advantage right there.
All of this assumes that she can swing it, of course; which means, among other things, that Dean's in a nice place for '08. Not the brass ring, of course - he's been defined by the media in a fashion that makes a Presidential run impossible - but he could easily swing a Cabinet seat and is not entirely out of the running for a Veep slot. Or he could be really smart, and just collect favors...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
That Dean and Clinton won't be swapping Christmas Cards anytime soon.
Truth be told it seems to me that Republicans talk about Clinton far more than Democrats do.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...on the dynamics of the Clinton/Dean relationship (or lack of same), it'd be handy.
No, really. I'm admitting ignorance to something and asking nicely.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...would end up being 2008's John Edwards, the fresh-faced wonder boy who has no business being on a national ticket.
(All partisanship aside, "W" had no business being the GOP choice in 2000.)
Also, Edwards himself is certainly running and will likely perform well in the Iowa caucus. With Hillary and Vilsack also there, I don't see how Obama does well even if he runs. He's a media creation.
I think people are underestimating Senator Clinton's electoral appeal. Women vote at a higher percentage than men, and many women will vote for Senator Clinton. We are making a mistake if we think the GOP will beat her easily in 2008. She's a lot smarter than McCain and a lot nastier than Rudy and Mitt, so she could beat any one of them.
Didn't George W. Bush have a track record of 6 successful years as Governor of Texas, and years in the private sector before running for President?
Politics aside, Barack Obama is now George Walker Bush.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I meant "Obama is NO George W. Bush."
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Texas has a very odd political structure in which the Governor, apparently, has less power than the Lt Governor. Regardless what is the functional difference between 6 years as Governor and 4 years as Senator?
Bush's time in the private sector was not exactly exemplary.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Hillary does not have a ice cube's chance in hell of getting past the primary, her base despises her in a frothing-at-the-mouth kind of way. She will never be forgiven. Never.
Hillary could choose Bill as her running mate. Since he was the first black president he could be the first black VP to counteract any Obama advantage.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Vilsack enters the Iowa caucus with Hillary's blessing. She can defer to him, senatorial courtesy, if you will, as a favorite son, and thus avoid having to tramp all around the state, in the snow and cold, for months on end...that's not her cup of tea. This way she can disocunt the results of straw poll, despite whatever the Iowa Dem party says about a level playing field..You have to realize that the local pols have a HUGE financial interest in the caucus, they all get hired, at big $$$$ to run the local on the ground operations for the candidates..so they want to pretend it's meaningful. Vilsack may be auditioning as a possible VP on Hillary's ticket, or for a plum Cabinet job in a Rodham administration. And if for whatever reason she doesn't run, he's equally attractive as a VP candidate for another nominee. One thing you can take to the bank in 2008, no way the Dems put TWO senators on the ticket again..