The '08 race in retrospect
Old war stories and new assessments
The '08 race in retrospect
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Six weeks after a national election, most normal Americans have successfully weaned themselves from presidential politics, preferring instead to do normal types of things, such as ingesting great heaps of saturated fats, or watching six hours of high-definition Sunday football, or cruising the malls for going-out-of-business sales.
But there remains a supspecies of human that still can't get enough of the '08 campaign - I'm talking, of course, about you - and this is why Harvard's Kennedy Institute of Politics lured four of the top campaign strategists up to Cambridge the other night, for the purpose of trading war stories and assessing the history that they all helped make.
The Dec. 11 session - featuring Obama strategists David Axelrod and David Plouffe, and McCain insiders Rick Davis and Bill McInturff - didn't inspire any news headlines, and some of the remarks were predictable (such as the McCain strategists' defense of the Sarah Palin pick). But, as evidenced by the forum video, there were numerous worthy info-nuggets along the way. So let's mine a few of them:
The Florida factor. On such fragile matters, history turns. Plouffe basically suggested that, if the Democratic National Committee had allowed Florida to conduct a meaningful primary on Jan. 29, Hillary Clinton may well have beaten Obama for the Democratic nomination. (And then Plouffe would not be viewed as the genius that he is considered today.)
The back story is simple. In 2007, Florida announced that it intended to stage its primary on Jan. 29, in violation of Democratic rules barring the state from scheduling the contest ahead of the Super Tuesday marathon on Feb. 5. The national party's Rules Committee could easily have ignored the violation; indeed, as Plouffe pointed out, Clinton had a lot of friends on the committee, and Florida was rightly viewed as good Clinton territory (due to her name recognition and her husband's residual popularity, among other things).
Plouffe said that, back in 2007 when Obama was still trying to get traction, "We were terribly frightened of Feb. 5. Hillary was ahead in all those (Super Tuesday) states...The only way we could survive Feb. 5 was to go into that with maximum velocity, and South Carolina (on Jan. 26) gave us the opportunity for a big win" - but only if it was the last real contest before Super Tuesday.
Yet that's what happened, because the Democratic party's Rules Committee sanctioned Florida for trying to stage its primary on Jan. 29. The committee stripped Florida of its delegates, and the candidates pledged not to campaign there. The contest was still held on Jan. 29, and Clinton won it handily - but the results were rendered meaningless.
Plouffe said that if Clinton had won a meaningful Florida primary on the eve of Super Tuesday, "it might have mitigated all the momentum we had out of (winning) South Carolina. In fact, we might not have been the nominee. It's things like that that haven't gotten that much attention." Without the party knocking Florida out of the picture, "I don't know how we could have survived Feb. 5."
The Wright factor. McInturff, who handled McCain's internal polling, said that McCain adamantly refused to raise Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue, despite "enormous pressure" from Republican partisans. McInturff said he concurred in that decision.
McInturff said he told his campaign associates that McCain's "happy scenario" looked like this: a squeaker victory with 273 electoral votes, coupled with losing the popular vote by three million. He recalled telling people, "If your candidate used that (Wright) issue aggressively, and won the presidency that way, you'd already be delegitimized as president, you couldn't function or govern."
Besides, he said, McCain in the polls was losing young voters and Hispanic voters by as much as 30 percentage points - which prompted him to tell his associates, "Please tell me how using this (Wright) issue would improve those margins."
Plouffe, for his part, said that the issue would not have worked anyway, because "people had digested Rev. Wright" back in the spring - although that had been "a moment of great peril" for the Obama camp, in part because "we failed as a campaign to do the proper research, to have a full understanding" of Wright's potential downside.
The Bush factor. Axelrod said the Obama camp had always calculated that President Bush would be a major Democratic asset in 2008, especially for Obama.
Axelrod said that "every race is defined by the incumbent," especially when the incumbent is leaving. "Almost never do people look for the replica of what they have. They look for a remedy," the greatest contrast. And the Obama camp decided that Obama would embody "the starkest change from George W. Bush, in style and substance."
McInturff acknowledged that McCain was never able to embody change, simply because it was impossible for him to distance himself sufficiently from Bush. For a while back in 2006, he said, McCain was nicely positioned as a Bush critic on Iraq - McCain was arguing for a troop "surge," and Bush was not - but when Bush embraced the surge in January 2007, McCain had no choice but to march in step. As McCain's Senate chief of staff told McInturff at the time, "Bill, we're negotiating with the White House (on) how many troops. We cannot be on the air being that distant from the president on the same weekend that we're negotiating over the number of troops."
In essence, McInturff told the Harvard audience, "John McCain essentially became the Bush spokesperson, the administration spokesperson, on Iraq" - and that helped to alienate the crucial independent voters.
And, at the same, McCain was tied to Bush because of their mutual support for path-to-citizenship immigration reform - and that damaged McCain among conservative base voters. All told, McInturff lamented, "In typical John McCain fashion, he managed to alienate every side."
The brainpower factor. Axelrod said that Obama wrote his milestone speech on race relations (delivered in Philadelphia on March 18) by himself, in only two late-night sessions. Obama started it on the night of March 16 at 10 p.m., after he put his kids to bed, and worked until 3 a.m. He then returned to it at 10 p.m. after a full day of campaigning in Pennsylvania. By early the next morning, March 18, "there was the speech on my Blackberry."
No excuses offered. At one point, McInturff was asked whether he believed that McCain would have won the election if only he'd had a few more days or weeks on the stump. (Defeated campaigns typically answer this question in the affirmative.) But McInturff said:
"No. We lost...I don't think anyone in our campaign felt, 'oh my gosh, we're just a few days short.' I think we were happy it was over."
Surprisingly, I agree with McCain on the Wright issue and that it was dead to all but the zealots on the far right.— chasing history
Your just so obsessed by "book smarts" aren't you? That "milestone" speech on race that Obama used all that brainpower for was used to cover his a** from the storm that was Jeremiah Wright. He did what liberals like to do when their feeling the heat. He took his own faults, his own bad judgement, and tried to make it America's problem. It's not him, you see, it's us. Fortuneately for Obama, an intellectually incurious press ate it up, and here we are.— jmc
Comment removed.- Yeah, "Book smarts" will be a refreshing change.— PA_Dutch
- I copied these over from yesterdays blog: pagoda, I have faith in America and Americans! I don't think America is the problem in the world, but the solution! I think GWB is an honorable man as evidenced with Billions of $$$ for AIDS medicine donated to Africa, Medicare drug act, No Child Left Behind and trying to do right by immigrants (even though he failed)! We just elected a president I don't trust, but I have faith in the American system of checks and balances and I will treat him with the respect his office deserves (unlike some, not all, on the left). I also respect his picks for State, Defense and Natl Security and I know he will do the right thing as far as security is concerned! I am a conservative (not a neocon) and I don't think Bush has lived up to those beliefs domestically. He has expanded govt far too much for my liking and has gone along with these bailouts and I do not agree with him on these issues! Yet in saying that, I can't stand by and watch/read as he gets beat up for actions he took to keep me and my family (and yours, by the way) safe! pagoda, would you have waterboarded (pick your technique) someone to stop 9/11 from happening if you were President?— NEPhilly
- Poor Richard. Isn't this like the 7th blog he has written looking at the 2008 race in "retrospect". he cannot come up with anything original. It is soo bad that Richard has restorted to cutting and pasting some other guys thoughts. (Is he becoming just another Will Bunch?).— CD75
- I did not know that getting into Harvard and Columbia merely because of affirmative action means you have "brainpower".— CD75
- jmc--did you actually read the Obama speech in question? There's no way your critique could possibly refer to that text. Maybe the words were too big for you.— liberal
- I fear we are getting into a pattern of constant election campaigning. Obama is not even inaugurated and people are already wondering who the Republicans will bring up in 2012. The start of the 2010 midterms is already abuzz with talk of Chris Matthews getting into the mix and we have not even had the new Congress in session yet. No wonder ordinary people get tired of hearing politicians. It would be nice to have a year off from politics and get people to do what is right simply because it is the right thing to do, not because it will get them elected, get them campaign donations, or get them the endorsement of some group on "their side". Alas, that is not the way it is today. Too bad. By the way, Obama did satisfy those on the left with his choices yesterday...can you say Carbon Tax? Can you say "Tax our way to $5/gallon gasoline"?— tom - wilmington, de
- "getting into Harvard and Columbia merely because of affirmative action". Yeah, he's just another one of those dimwitted U. of Chicago Con. Law professors. Racist twit.— etotheb
- etotheb, look at Obama's record of legal publications, or lack thereof. And then compare it to the records of the other professors at University of Chicago. Or even compare Obama's publication record to the staff of Widener law. You'll find Obama's publications lacking.— jfar86
- Burn the books a la 1933!— p-diddy
- An inconvienant truth is that Obama would not be where he is today if it were not for affirmative action.— CD75
- etotheb: There is nothing racist in anything I pointed out. You raising the race issue to a fact is racist.— CD75
- Oddly enough, I totally agree with Tom about the seemingly endless campaign cycle. Jfar, Obama graduated from Columbia Law with honors and served as both a community organizer and a state senator, and was involved in creating legislation. I doubt a well regarded school of law would hire someone who wasn't qualified. They eventually offered him a professorship (which he turned down), so they must have felt he was more than adequate.— p-diddy
- CD75: When you claim that an African American with excellent academic credentials is admitted to law school as an affirmative action case, you appear racist unless you have some evidence to back it up. There's nothing to back up your assertion, so another poster is assuming you have racist motives. Get it?— p-diddy
- p-diddy: You are a fool. Obama did not go to Columbia law. More misinformation from you. All you do is spread stuff that is not true.— CD75
- So now the guy is dumb because he got into ivies through affirmative action and didn't publish much as a law prof. It's even more inane than disparaging McCain for graduating near the bottom of his West Point class. That didn't make him stupid either.— etotheb
- Sorry, I meant Harvard. You got me.— p-diddy
- P-diddy: We know McCain's academic record. We know about Palin's record and her 5 schools, but Obama will not talk about his and no reporter has the guts to ask. Why the cover-up? Does the public have a right to know its President's academic record? It is amazing that the media will not go there.— CD75
- There is nothing wrong, per se, for using whatever you can to get ahead, including affirmative action. But the public has a right to know.— CD75
- Amen Tom. Don't expect it to happen though.....it's obviously easier to campaign with impossible promises than govern effectively.— James TL
- CD, by suggesting that affirmative action is "merely" the reason someone got into a school raises race as an issue. It suggests that the person could not have gotten into the school otherwise, when there is no proof to that effect. It demeans that person intellect based upon their race. How did I raise race when your post is replete with it? You really disgust me.— etotheb
- CD75: Is Obama a cat killer? The public has the right know!— p-diddy
- etotheb: do you have any evidence that affirmative action did not have any affect for Obama?— CD75
- etotheb: So affirmative action is demeaning?— CD75
- CD75: Do you consider yourself representative of mainstream Republican thought? Just wondering.— p-diddy
- At his request, Obama had his Harvard and Columbia transcript sealed. Why? Now that the election is over, Obama should release his academic records including his LSAT and SAT scores. The public has a right to know it's President's academic records. What is Obama hiding? If Obama releases his records, it will end all of this speculation. P.S. There is nothing wrong with using AA to get ahead.— CD75
- Polman, you forgot to mention the youth vote. I remember reading posts on this board about how the whole "get out the vote" movement among younger voters was wasted time, because young people are apathetic. They were a huge factor in this election.— p-diddy
- If McCain had concealed his academic record like Obama did the leftist media would have gone crazy. There is such a double standard.— CD75
- CD75 w/ 10 posts to all others w/ 18.— Talvenada
- Suggesting that the only basis for someone's acheivement either academically or in employment is due to affirmtive action is demeaning, which is what you said to start all this. Suggesting that a person could not have reached that level without affirmative action is demeaning. I guess your bitter because you were passed over for a promotion in the past. It's the only thing that could explain your bitterness and, in turn, your idiocy.— etotheb
- CD75: What would McCain be doing better than Obama w/ the issues facing the country?— Talvenada
- Talvenada: you were on fire with your drib yesterday. Good job!— CD75
- I'm lukewarm about affirmative action in general, but if it served to provide Obama as a presidential candidate, it has justified itself. By the way, it's gratuitously insulting if not racist to state without any evidence that some black person's success is due to affirmative action.— liberal
- CD75: Obama graduated magna c-m laude from Harvard Law. What secret could his transcript possibly hold? You're living in bizarro world, dude.— p-diddy
- DIDDY: You, I and Polman cannot fool CD75 when it comes to Obama; he knows McCain didn't get a fair shake.— Talvenada
- Hey CD75: And Bush would've never been President if his grandaddy wasn't a wealthy oil man and the Supreme Court didn't intervene. Furthermore, unless you have access to all the records of those the Columbia and Harvard admissions administration both accepted and rejected you have no objective way of knowing whether Obama was admitted solely on the basis of race. Therefore, that is your opinion not fact. And that's why it seems racist to etotheb.— kallisti7
- Obama graduating MCL from harvard has never been proven. There are no documents proving this. Let's see his transcript. What would be the harm in that? Why has Obama never released it? Why is it OK to trash McCain for his academic record, but we still do not know Obama's.— CD75
- Bush is a moran who lived (lives) off his rich daddy. I agree. Now let's see Obama's academic record.— CD75
- Dude, you misspelled moron. You should probably quit now. I believe Ben Franklin said (I paraphrase) "It is better to keep your mouth shut and have your peers think you an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it." Buh Bye!— kallisti7
- CD, do you have any info that indicates that Obama actually did use affirmative action to get into an Ivy school? Also would it be a safe bet to assume that a candidate for grad school could get past the interview process, with a command of the language like George Bush, if he were not the son/grandson of New England Brahmins?— JimR
- CD what is a "moran"?— JimR
- KALLIS: That wasn't Ben. It was Mark Twain.— Talvenada
- Thank you for drawing attention to this Dec 11 session--I had not seen mention of it anywhere else, despite the fact that it is a very interesting look inside the campaign process. The piece on Flordia is really fascinating, and highlights some of the problems with the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton would have been a good candidate, and I even considered voting for her in the primaries, but after all the mistakes her campaign team made (such as getting confused about voting in Texas, etc.), I realized that they were not going to be able to win an election against the Republicans. I ended up voting for Obama in the primaries in Pennsylvania because I felt that his team knew how to win, while Hillary Clinton's team only seemed to know how to bicker.— Nalaka
- The telling comment in this is that John McCain managed to alienate all sides. While McCain enjoys the love the MSM while he's bashing fellow Republicans he was demonized just the same by the MSM once he was the Republican nominee. Conservatives pick the Republican nominee not liberals. Never take your political advice from an adversary. You'll end up nominating a putz. See Bob Dole and John McCain.
- pdiddy- The youth vote comprised 17% of the vote in 2004 and just 18% in 2008. Try doing some google searches before you speak
- SMike - I took your advice. Bush won 45% of 17% in 2004. McCain only won 32% of that demographic. The difference between those margins is approximately 2.9 million votes which is 34% (or one-third, a fairly big segment) of the 8.5 million total difference. Thus, the youth vote did, IMO, give B. Hussein Obama a big push into the WH. Remember, there are 3 types of falsehood - 1] Lies. 2] Damm Lies. 3] Statistics!! http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html =AND= http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/— Phrossty
- "I think we were happy it was over." I believe the ENTIRE COUNTRY could second that emotion (save a few pundits and bloggers who would run out of fodder to wag their tongues at one another over)!!— Phrossty
- Phrossty- A 1% increase in the youth vote is insignificant. I will apoligize to pdiddy in that what he meant is a greater percentage of the youth vote went to Obama. sorry
- SMike - You're correct. A 1% increase does not a huge increase in youth voter turnout make. The most interesting stat to me from 2004 was: Under $100k/yr 49% Bush to 50% Kerry vs. Over $100k/yr was 58% GWB to 41% Kerry. So, despite being less than one-fifth of the voting populace, high wage earners tipped the election in 2004 because low to middle income folks were evenly split - but 6 figure income folks were united. Now that's a powerful minority.— Phrossty
- On this day 10 years ago President Clinton bombed Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities in a unilateral action with US and British Forces.
- SW MIKE: Obama has NO shot!! The Pubs want partisan politics, Rush loves the fight, and some Pub guys like you will ONLY give him an extremely limited chance, while the rest will give no ground at all.— Talvenada
- Talvenada-like I have said before. Obama will be granted the same benefit of doubt bestowed upon President Bush. Take that to mean whatever you want it to mean but please quit whining.
- Sw-b-mike: You've whined as much as Tal has. You've made similar comments/general threat at least a half dozen times, ignoring what really happened. Once the Florida controversy was settled & Bush was sworn in, his polling numbers went up --- then going through the roof after 9/11. 80% of us gave him our support (blind loyalty numbers), until he slowly but steadliy frittered away this support until the bottom fell out after Katrina. Sniping Liberals didn't do this to him, he did it to himself. Incompetent management & partisan decisions killed support from the Center. I do agree with you that no President should get blind loyalty. Questioning our leaders is a good thing --- something we didn't do with Bush in 2002 & 2003. Obama shouldn't get the same (agreeably) out-of-line commentary driven by some on the Left over (mostly) the last two years, because he hasn't done anything yet to deserve that.— yobill626
- I voted for McCain but I think Obama was doing a good job until he revealed his "Green team". Now is not the time for a "carbon tax"...he pays lip service to energy independence, but we'll see what he does after the Green peace wing of the DNC gets through with him. Pelosi/Reid are going to force him to over-reach, and I think the dems will pay for it in 2010 or 2012...hopefully 2010 for Bam's sake.— beeron
- SW MIKE: Always a reason for me to be wrong? Do I believe that someone who believes Bush got not 1 second of a chance, despite what YOBILL posted, is going to give Obama 1 second? That's EXACTLY what I said: Obama will get no shot from Pubs!! We agreed on the meaning, not your smoke screen.— Talvenada
- SW MIKE: The shoe thrower got a beating B4 the news conf. was over, ending up in the hospital. And that ingrate is LUCKY?? ............... Chaney wants credit for the war and torture, and Bush doesn't deserve to steal his thunder any longer, no?— Talvenada
- CD75 -I see things differently. It's a splendid truth. It's a demonstration that affirmative action enriches us.— Dodge
- Yeah Obama won "fair and square"==The American people/ voters have anointed the man from Hope, Sorry Hawaii as their new Commander In Chief----No reason for Monday Morning QB'ing----The Illinois corruption status with the Governor (but not Obama of course), reeks of Corruption- Masterful is the only explanation that Pres Elect BHO could rise so fast ,to the Highest office in the land without having ANY, that is Any ties whatsoever to the bad Guys-Yeah Right, Ayres , Rev. Wright , Tony real estate mogul, Rezcko, et alare all good, Clean citizens who pay their taxes and stand up for America--This is what The People Bought-Thanks in part to the Media-yes including Philly political beat writers who crave Change---The spirit of Philly may be sprinkled with Hope for a Change, but I contend it won't be because the Savior from Illinois has arrived in Washington, but because The Phils Arrived on Top in '08 and the Iggles are still alive for a one away game Playoff Hope to get to the Super Bowl Go Phils !!!— Jaguar
- yobill626- Obama is not yet innaugarated and we've got scandel. His White House Chief of Staff is apparantly on tape 21 time speaking to Rod Blagojevich. David Axelrod says Obama has spoken Balgojevich about the vacant Senate Seat. Obama says he has not. Then thee is a chummy picture taken Dec 3rd with Obama and Blagojevich. The promised Transparacy is out the window as Obama now needs two weeks to get the story straight. So please spare me. When you campaign on the nonsense of Hope and Change and all you give us is a bunch of Clinton people appointees and well connected Chicago politics then you deserve all the scrutiny you get. This thing should have been put to bed long ago yet it is festering.
- I would also like to know what Obama, Clinton,Dodd,Rangel, Corzine,John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Chuck Schumer, and the Democratic Senatorial Committte, will be doing with the $ 800,000 in campaign donations received from 50 billion dollar Ponzi Scheme operator Bernie Madoff. Yes I know the money has been spent but these are all millionaires who should rightfully put the money in a fund to help all the investors who where bilked by this Democratic operative.
- CD75, Watch Bush, McCain and Obama each argue a point. See if you can pick out the intelligent one. I know I can. The facts that Obama has academic honors while Bush and McCain barely made it through with help from their Daddy's doesn't surprise me. I don't believe affirmative action had anything to do with it but if it did I'm OK with that. To me that's more American than someone getting all the breaks just because their Daddy was rich and powerful. Don't you?— PA_Dutch
- Pa-Dutch- John Kerry would not reveal his college grades until after the election in 2004. But your ilk was saying the exact same thing about Kerry until it was revealed that it was Bush not Kerry who had the better GPA at Yale. And now you want to talk about politicians getting Daddy's help but yet you have no problem with Caroline Kennedy being selected and not elected to the US Senate. Such hypocrasy
- It may have been an inconvenient truth, it truly would have been a shame.— scrooge1
- JIMR; Your pretty lame that the only comeback you have is to point out a typo. I guess you have never misspelled a word. I wonder if Obama has ever misspelled a word? Probably, since he could not get into college on his own merits.— CD75
- Sarah Palin's church was burned by an apparant arsonist. I don't understand how the left justifies this hatred.
- CD75- That genius Obama thinks there is 57 states
- There is a report that Obama had a 3.3 GPA at Occidental College in L.A. before going to Columbia. Thus, Obama had a B+ average. For people not on a quota admission or under special (lower) standards, this does not get you into Columbia, especially when you come from an obsure school on the west coast.— CD75
- JImR: I had another typo!!!! (obsure) Please help me!— CD75
- How do you know so much about Columbia admissions? Dish! Dish!— pagoda
- Swedesboro,I wasn't arguing that academic credentials are everything. I was simply making an argument for Obama vs those who want to dismiss his accomplishments. The reality that Obama comes accross as more educated supports the facts cited. If you're correct about Kerry's and Bush's GPA's then those facts tend to belie my perception of their intellects. As for Kennedy's appointment I pretty much agree with you. On the other hand, I admire those rich Kennedy's for all they've done for the less fortunate.— PA_Dutch
- Swedesboro,I wasn't arguing that academic credentials are everything. I was simply making an argument for Obama vs those who want to dismiss his accomplishments. The reality that Obama comes accross as more educated supports the facts cited. If you're correct about Kerry's and Bush's GPA's then those facts tend to belie my perception of their intellects. As for Kennedy's appointment I pretty much agree with you. On the other hand, I admire those rich Kennedy's for all they've done for the less fortunate.— PA_Dutch
- Obama was right......the Bush supporters are still bitter...lol— chasing history
- CD75 - Boy, those folks at Encyclopaedia Britannica must love the Kool-Aid. I mean they'll publish any old nonsense. --SNIP-- He returned to school three years later and graduated magna c_m laude in 1991 from Harvard University’s law school --SNIP-- Here's my source (like you ever check them). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/973560/Barack-Obama +++++ Posted by CD75 03:24 PM, 12/16/2008 "Obama graduating MCL from harvard has never been proven. There are no documents proving this."— Phrossty
- Wow! I tried to post that like a half dozen times yesterday. I didn't realize until this morning that "See.You.Em" in the Latin for "with great Honors" would get my post censored. Free speech isn't.— Phrossty
- Phrosty: If you read on, Brits cite is based on Obama's representation. Let's see his transcript.— CD75
- As to the knuckleheads and loons who think Obama must be smart because he "talks" so well, reminder that Bush had better grades then Kerry at Yale.— CD75
- CD, the spelling ref wasn't my only response. You didn't answer the real question I asked about your seemingly inside knowledge of Obama's education. You keep makeing assertions but won't provide attribution for them. You've made that assertion several times in the last few months - I've asked for your source - you've never responded to any of the inquiries. BTW - you've used that same spelling,"moran", a number of times. It isn't a typo at this point.— JimR
- CD, it's pretty hypocritical for you as a good conservative republican to put so much emphasis on college grades. Don't your type of folks disdain pointy-headed intellectuals? Don't you think that success in real life is what counts? I'm having trouble following your point.— liberal
- I can't find the list of sources. Perhaps you would send an email to David Mendell demanding proof or a retraction since you seem to be so sure Encyclopaedia Britannica hasn't done the due diligence. I mean, really, the site has the unmitigated gall to list "born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S." at the top of the page. That citation alone discredits the site for you. Doesn't it? Don't they know B Hussein Obama is a Kenyan-born, Marxist, Socialist, Sleeper-cell-Terrorist? Haven't they been paying attention to the unfounded, baseless, hysterical claims of the patriots in this country??— Phrossty
- CD75 - I asssert that you're so close-minded and bitter and racist because you were molested by your priest when you were an acolyte. Please present the proof that this isn't the truth. Or are you prevented from speaking out because of the terms of the settlement with the Catholic Church?— Phrossty
- What is the harm in actually seeing Obama's transcripts. Why are you all so defensive and scared? Kerry hid his transcripts from the public because he was actually dumber than Bush at Yale, but he wanted to paint himself as being smart. Sounds familiar here. To date, there is not support for Obama's college past other than the Word of Obama. What is he hiding, like Kerry?— CD75
- I'm having trouble following your point......CD's point is on his head.— chasing history
- At one time I worked with a group of professionals who were all about the same age and who all had very good grades--it was a necessary prerequisite to get the job. After a few months of working with these people, I could identify the couple of people who were really smart. The rest were just people who had the knack of getting good grades in school. I left myself out of the analysis, but suspect I'm in the latter group. In any event, Obama's reputation for "smarts" is based on observations by people who work with him, not on his grades as such, which most of us realize are not sufficient as criteria. The main thing that stands out in people who are really smart is curiosity, the ability to zero in on what you need to know to make a decision, and the ability to focus and work well under pressure.— liberal
- liberal: good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Obama has never held a real job for more than a year other than being a "community organizer". Not exactly the stuff of leaders and President's. Obama could never hack working a real job.— CD75
- swedesboromike: how do TWO nations engage in a UNIlateral action?— still_independent
- Still Independent- You asked how to two nations engage in unilateral actions? They don't! I was just using the liberal point of view when they openly profess George Bush enganged in unilateral action by attacking Iraq. Thanks for making my point
- CD75 - Should I take your silence on the issue of your childhood abuse as "proof" that you cannot discuss the issue because of the terms of the settlement?? --OR-- Is it more likely that you're choosing to ignore the groundless, baseless attack in the hope that intelligent people will see through the faulty logic I used while simultaneously not granting my post the "dignity" of a reply?? It could be why B. HUSSEIN Obama doesn't bother wasting his time "proving" himself to everyone who cries wolf!— Phrossty
- z— James TL
- CD75: "There are reports"....care to cite one of these alleged "reports"? If not, this is just bitterness boiling over into random accusations.— p-diddy
- Here are some comments from one of Obama's classmates at Harvard Law, Bradfordd Berenson. Berenson is a conservative who served as Bush II's Associate White House Counsel. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. Berenson said, "You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits. … I never regarded him as kind of a racial special pleader, or a person looking for race-based benefits, either for himself or others. I think as a policy matter, he supported affirmative action and believed in the arguments for it. But unlike many people on the left, he was also willing to acknowledge that it had costs, and he could at least appreciate the arguments on the other side.…And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running."— p-diddy
- I understand the partisan need to bash Obama, but coming off of eight years with a moron and sub-30% approval ratings, I'm not sure why the CD75s are flexing their beer muscles. Consider this, maybe Obama would not be on such a high pedestal if the Republicans decided not to reelect the village idiot in 2004.— pagoda
- swedesboromike: and pulling out of the IABM treaty, and putting missile defense in Poland, and ...— still_independent
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
