As for things this year, it begins with a hint at “Like Father, Like Son?” and the plain fact that the economy is most important to people right now (sorry, anti-war crusaders), and other issues expose partisan differences…

An Even More Partisan Agenda for 2008
Election-Year Economic Ratings Lowest Since ‘92

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re...

The tightrope walk is something all the candidates have to do on any variety of issues and levels. The ultimate question when doing so is, will they alienate more folks than they'll attract?

That, of course, is why we could say that all politicians are calculating.

Hope to get to these comments soon. I really hope some operatives read these kind of threads because we're voters, after all, and they should be paying attention.

You are right, that O is in a bind. If he kicks ass he will look like the Big Bad Coon who wants to get in the white gals' pants, when not kicking them'.

But, if all he does is smile and let them walk all over him he's Buckwheat.

And no one wants a Prez whose best contribution to inter-party dialogue is 'O-Tay!'

Gimme the angry black man on a mission over Stepin Fetchit any day.

At least perceptually. In reality, he simply has to take a page from Edwards' campaign. Edwards was a mannekin last time and this time he's a fighter. But it's the wrong time to be that. He might be Prez today had he learnt that lesson 4 years ago.

O does not want to be in 2012 or 2016, wondering what could be, as other black politicians step up and make a stepping stone out of him.

The primaries may end up being a Phyrric victory if she turns off voters the way she's turned me off. The whole thing saddens me.

1. Engage fully, ala the politico article linked in the above paragraph.
2. Attempt to proceed as he has been.
3. Withdraw

Number 2 is looking weak to me. Numbers 1 and 3 (depending on how a withdrawal is framed) could actually break the back of the Democratic party, which is wrapped very very tightly around the Clinton apparatus.

Damn, she's so easy a target, and her record is so rife with Republican appeasement that Obama shd be destroying her.

The only reason that Edwards has not don eit is triangulation, he has to try and let the two ahead of him crumble together, but that's not gonna happen.

Either O gets his ass kicked or he kicks ass. If he's not willing to fight for change he won't deserve to lead, and that means Hillary will chase many D's to the Bloomberg option.

Tx.

Obama's strategy has been to part the electoral waters by preaching change through bipartisan ship and finding fresh approaches to old problems. It is alluring because he sounds like he means it and as I have written before, my generation has blown it bigtime and I am wiling to give Obama's generation a go.

The problem is that Obama is being forced down into the gutter and I just don't think he can compete at that level while continuing to sound his overall message.

I am not sure that he can hunker down. If he can't, he won't be able to compete.

1. Do you think Obama can hunker down?
2. What would the result of hunkering down look like – that is, what do you think he needs to do to show his mettle, and have it succeed?

This has been an extraordinary election cycle because of the tremendous changes and upheavals that have occurred with such stunning regularity. If Obama can't hunker down between now and Super Tuesday he's toast.

About being easily thrown-off: How much of that is Obama thinking that the rules of engagement weren't going to allow for what has gone on in the last week or two? You know, maybe we're just seeing him being surprised but not necessarily unable to rise to the occasion.

And, on the third hand, are the Clintons really being any meaner than anyone else ever has been? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing that even if they are the meanest campaigners ever, we can assume that the GOP will try to be meaner, yes? So it's all good proving grounds material.

Now, stepping back for one minute: I've been told repeatedly that if we want kinder, gentler campaigning, then we have to send that message with our money – that is, we don't give it to folks who spend it in ways that lead to tactics we detest.

In practice and on a national scale, how realistic is that? It would result in dire consequences.

But should we be more serious about it? What would be gained, what would be lost? Especially if a battle is a battle, regardless of whether it's in the civil discourse or not.

What does he think he was getting into, a quilting bee?

No doubt, the Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there may be some “Democratic Party Leaders” who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Democratic Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.

Democrats take note: this is how Presidential campaigns are won!

As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that they actually know what it takes to win one of these things. After all, there is a reason why the Clintons are the only Democrats to win the White House twice since FDR.

Finally, that Obama finds himself so easily thrown off his game by a little bit of friendly fire from the Clintons tells me that he will be eviscerated by the balls out business end of the GOP attack machine.

Really makes the GOP side look so lame. And isn't it ironic? For all the talk of being tough, of not backing down, of pre-emption and what not and military strength, the GOP candidates are just mush, total, utter mush?

Did I show my lack of being centrist on that issue too much?

I know I don't and I've tried hard the “happy anger” bit. But I'm a former college offensive lineman. We are supposed to look mean. lol…

I do agree that he needs to get better prepared for debates. He seems to lose his focus at times. But he's in a unprecedented position:

1. First legitimate black presidential candidate.
2. Up against a machine lead by a former popular president.
2. Up against the potential first female president.

Talk about some pressure on a historical level. This is DEFINITELY a wild one.

My only caution would be, and this is just me, I take full responsibility for it, but when I've seen Obama get angry or say something he doesn't like to say, he looks very angry and almost mean or not nice. Now, I guess that could be said about a lot of people – and I think about how Steve Martin had a bit about how you can be anything you want when you play a banjo because it always sounds happy – do you know that comedy routine?

But seriously, for example, when Obama said the “you're likeable enough” thing, and I've seen some other photos of him. He just looks very unhappy – which I suppose he would be.

I don't know – who does angry good? lol anyone?

That all aside – I imagine Obama is more than tough enough – but I think the experience the Clintons have weathered give them an edge. Not that Obama can't get up to speed and won't, but like preparing for debates, someone should be preparing him big time. Because for as much as everyone has said how the GOP will sling at HRC, they'll do the same to Barack, no doubt.

This is a wild one.