By Paul West
Barack Obama is on his way to a blowout victory this fall, if you believe recent polling that shows him leading John McCain by 15 percentage points.
Big, summertime leads in presidential contests can vanish, though. Comparisons are already being drawn with 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, who looked like a mortal lock after he bounced, in late July, to a 17-point advantage over George H. W. Bush.
Obama could lose, too, if he can't make a convincing case to millions of undecided voters who regard him as a stranger, despite the fact that his name and face are recognized around the world.
His campaign manager seems to say as much, describing this summer as a rerun of 2007, when Obama was introducing himself to activists for the first time.
"In many ways, it feels like, let's say, last July or August in Iowa for us," says David Plouffe. "You look at these voters who are going to decide the election in these battleground states, and they know very little about him."
Obama has been aptly described as elusive. And while a candidate may want to fuzz his image--to gain the widest possible appeal and keep from alienating potential supporters--it is the news media's responsibility to sharpen the picture.
There are more than four months left to finish that job. But voters are complaining that they aren't getting the information they need and that too much time is being spent on trivia.
That criticism is hard to dispute. Many news organizations picked up the revelation, from a Rolling Stone interview, that Obama has about 30 Bob Dylan songs on his iPod, including the entire "Blood on the Tracks" album. His wife's clothing and hairstyle have been dissected at length.
Far less attention has been paid to the lack of new thinking behind his candidacy, which closely tracks liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Gary Hart, the "new ideas" presidential candidate of the 1980s, recently wrote that Obama, as president, "would have a rare opportunity to define a new Democratic Party." He can either focus on winning the election "to the exclusion of all else" or "use his campaign as a platform for designing a new political cycle and achieve a mandate for starting it."
His advisers say Obama plans to deliver a series of policy speeches over the next few months. But whether he articulates a broad new agenda may depend on how confident he is that he will win.
Plouffe, a cool-headed operator who helped engineer Obama's nomination victory, says he doesn't put much stock in national polls, since a presidential election is a state-by-state battle. Laying out the public version of his campaign's strategy for a room full of reporters, he zeroed in on the most important target for both Obama and McCain.
"The people in the middle--in some cases we're only talking about six to ten percent of the people in a state--they will decide the election," Plouffe says. "Some of these voters just haven't been consuming the political news . . . So we think we have some very, very important foundational work to do" in spreading Obama's message.
He plans to redeploy a massive volunteer force, built during the primaries, on a door-to-door persuasion effort organized down to the precinct level.
That personal voter contact, he adds, is "even more important for a candidate like Barack Obama, who people don't have a decades-long relationship with. They're still thirsting for information. They may need reassurance."
In Pennsylvania, one of the most important battleground states, Obama's team might want to knock on the door of Janell Mader, 32, who left her teaching job to raise her young daughter in York. Like millions of Republicans, she's come unmoored from her party and is up for grabs this year.
"For most of my life, my decisions have been made based on morals and family values and that whole belief system that I've had instilled in me since birth," she says. "And now, all of a sudden, our country is turned upside down by all these economic issues that I haven't encountered in my lifetime."
She's considering Obama but wants more information about what he'll do to improve the living standard of families earning less than $100,000 a year.
"I just know 'vote for change.' I don't know what change," she says. "I know there has been a lot of media coverage, but I'm still waiting for the meat of it."
Mader was among a group of a dozen voters, none of whom voted for either Obama or McCain in the primary, which met in York for a two-hour discussion sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. Their comments ran the gamut, including doubts about Obama's patriotism and whether his election would lead other nations to test the inexperienced president's mettle.
Kimberly Aldinger, 45, of Seven Valleys, a dialysis technician who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, is open to Obama but "until I see what he wants to change and how he's going to change it, I am totally undecided."
Sheryl Randol, 51, a single mother of three who works for a pharmaceutical company, wants to see the Iraq war ended but doesn't know enough about either candidate.
Obama "has to show me that he's got the intelligence and the people around him to make a difference globally," she says. "I want to see concrete plans, not just spin."
Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who moderated the discussion, says Obama needs to put "meat on the bones" for undecided voters like these-- not only about who he is but "what he will do and what he stands for." Voters, he adds, have "figured out that they want change. Do they want the Obama change or do they want the McCain change?"
"We look at polls and we look at numbers and we think we've seen the end of this election," he says. But when voters talk, "you really get a sense of just how far from the finish line we are."
Comments
Obama might get overextended and ignore key states and issues he needs to work on. But the overall hostility to Republicans and the desire for change is overwhelming right now.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | June 28, 2008 8:16 AM
Is it possible that we've only gotten "spin" from Obama because that's all he has to give? I've looked at his voting history as a senator - not impressed. Even less impressed with the Eagle-Obama-for-America medallion. And utterly unimpressed by a man who uses half of his family tree to further his political career while trying to hide the other half.
Posted by: ALF | June 28, 2008 8:27 AM
Very valid points here; Obama today represents more style than substance, more ideals than ideas and is leading some (but not all) polls on the same criteria that the high school Student Government President candidate does; a warm fuzzy popularity. All of which means diddly after being sworn in. I don't care what's on a candidate's iPod, or even if he/she knows how to use one. Let's get that 'meat on the bones', as the article aptly puts it, and start comparing candidates on the issues, not the emotion.
Posted by: Former Democrat | June 28, 2008 8:43 AM
To those "undecideds" I would say "Your whiteness is showing". Honestly did you ask Kerry or Clinton, or Gore to prove to you they had the intelligence to do the job? Did you question Reagan, or Bush's patriotism? lets be real and honest, this country has always held Black people to a different standard. We have had to be much better to be treated equal. We are last hired and first fired. These "questions" are nothing more than artificial rationalizations. I would respect you more if you just admitted you don't want to vote for a Black man, even a half Black man.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2008 8:45 AM
very sad comments, this is all about obamas color.
some americans are sick of seeing some old seedy white guy that cannot wipe his ass. with out help. this fool cannot coomb his hair, he is senile...
Posted by: wm glenn | June 28, 2008 8:46 AM
The only thing Obama will give America is the biggest tax increases in history and every evil thing a extreme leftwing radical stands for. We also will have no oil drilling because he puts polar bears, seals and every other animal above humans. Why else would you ok abortion for a baby ready to be born. A very evil person.
Posted by: Richard Dirsa | June 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Regarding the first and most significant paragraph in west's note to buddie Obama, I don't believe liberal magazine polls.
Posted by: Larry Clifton | June 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Nicely done piece. You would have make Hannity and O'Reilly proud. You pretty much "nicened" up the republican talking points from the McCain homepage and found some ignorant voters to make claims that support your statement.
Anyone who wants to know what Obama is about can look at his very detailed policies anytime (they're on his webpage). But more so, people just need to say the name John McCain followed by the words: Heathcare. Iraq. Cost of College. Equality. Education. Urban Renewal. Women's Rights. Oil company profits. -- Then do the same with Barack Obama. You'll find that you are very dissatisfied with the G.W. Bush policies that John McCain has promised to continue.
Doesn't take a genius . . . so stop searching the back woods to find the most ignorant voters that will align with your horribly researched story.
Truly journalism at it's worst. I think I've read better written articles from a high school paper.
Posted by: RealityCheck | June 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Regarding the first and most significant paragraph in west's note to buddie Obama, I don't believe liberal magazine polls.
Posted by: Larry Clifton | June 28, 2008 8:50 AM
I believe the gas crisis issue could become a huge issue if it already hasn't become one. Is Barack Obama going to stand up and say no offshore drilling, no drilling in ANWR, and no shale to oil when gas hits $6 or $7 a gallon??? Polls show that 70-80% of people in this country want offshore drilling to start now...and gas is at $4 a gallon. Who's going to ask Obama the tough questions, like how high are you willing to have gas prices go before you change your position?
Posted by: The Truth Hurts | June 28, 2008 8:55 AM
Logistics, manpower, money and organization are very important, but not half as important as Senator Obama's message. It is a new day, he is a new kind of candidate, so, therefore, he must present himself as a Democrat, who really does champion the ideals of a proud and long tradition. One who will, honestly fight for the the forgotten, the down-trodden, the left-behind and the exploited !! It is, indeed, the people of America, that he is fighting for, all of the people.
There will be those, probably, very, very many, that will charge him with anti-capitalistic attitudes, cloaked in democratic hues. ?These he must challenge and reason with, America is bleeding, bleeding badly and she must be attended to and that means, the Corporations must be put in their place, which is a supplemental role in America's life, not the primary role !!
Senator Obama is ready to accept the responsibility and challenge of our Presidency, the people's President, just as Senator Hillary Clinton would have been ready, had she won the primaries. She also, will make a great President, some day and that will, also, be a great historic day for America, the great democratic beacon, once again !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | June 28, 2008 9:00 AM
What we do know about Obama is that he is the most liberal Senator, a man who subjected his family to a hatefull,racist preacher for 20 years, a man who does not honor his word (i.e., campaign financing), a man who will "talk unconditionally with dictators" but refuses to go on Fox news or meet with McCain via town hall meetings. While the man can elequently read a scripted speech, he has, in my opinion, very little substance.
Posted by: Jim banton | June 28, 2008 9:03 AM
Michael Dukakis was marketed as smart and compitent to a public that simply did not like his Republican opponant. Result: the famous 17 point lead.
Then it became clear that he wasn't all that smart, certainly not compitent, had no ideas, and was an integral part of a broken political system. Result: America elected George Bush 1 despite the early summer odds.
It's deja vu all over again.
Posted by: MJ | June 28, 2008 9:03 AM
This article is very insightful, and it expresses exactly where I stand at this time. Obama? Obama who? So far, in my mind, he's a lightweight, not experienced nor principled enough to lead a country.
Posted by: SoCalGal | June 28, 2008 9:04 AM
Obama might be a little suprised when a person goes into a voting booth stange things can happen
Posted by: William Bramlett | June 28, 2008 9:04 AM
How about giving the content of your article at least a token connection to its title ????
Posted by: Don | June 28, 2008 9:08 AM
I'm still waiting to find out what it is that Obama has actually accomplished in his political life. Can anyone tell me?
Where is there any proof that he is a "new" kind of politician (and is that necessarily a good thing?) and show me where he has reached out and worked with people who disagree with him? Show me the legislation that he has fought for, show me his courage on hard issues (gun control, FISA, campaign financing). It seems to me that Barack Obama, more than anyone else this election cycle, has taken whatever position he thinks is "cool" at the moment.
Obama is just a dirty Chicago politician who has a very talented "get elected" team. They have games the system (caucuses and bringing in people from other states to vote and their "Democratic for a Day" program among others) he has labeled those who do not agree with him as racists (Ferraro and Clinton) he is thin skinned and throws anyone under the bus that might tarnish his image and he has no moral or political courage. He can't forge new ideas because he has none. But his inexperience is dangerous for our nation and yet it appears he is our next president.
Posted by: Sue | June 28, 2008 9:15 AM
"She's considering Obama but wants more information about what he'll do to improve the living standard of families earning less than $100,000 a year."
She might also consider just how and when she had the idea put into her head that this is one of the responsibilities of the president.
The manufacturing base in this small Midwestern town has practically disappeared over the past few years. I lost my job in 2006; my wife lost hers in 2007. We were certainly grateful for the short-term safety net of unemployment compensation.
But we did not expect any politician to make things better for us. We re-arranged our finances, tapped a few charge cards, and opened our own business. The first 12 months were difficult but successfull. We are both still slightly surprised that we have a much-improved lifestyle on a lower income.
That's not to say that the president can't do anything to help. For us, making a go of things would have been much more difficult if it hadn't been for the president's tax cuts.
Posted by: Glendower | June 28, 2008 9:19 AM
IT is very possible for Obama to lose the election.
He is not experienced enough in my view to be President.
Posted by: jon | June 28, 2008 9:19 AM
obama's got my vote. if mccain want's to drill in my waters off of florida i want florida to secede, that said, we can't have another 'great divider' and that's what people have already decided. who becomes the person who divides us the most will lose.
Posted by: Obvious McObvious | June 28, 2008 9:22 AM
Barack Obama is not as high as 15 percent in the polls. That poll is not of likely voters and there were too many Democrats polled it is not believable. Scott Rasmussen says McCain and Obama are dead even that is more believable with all eyes on the Tony Rezko trial and new developments coming daily.
The news media as your article says are supposed to define Obama and vet him but sadly the driveby media are in the tank for him.
The issue of Obamas friends and associates is starting to be raised daily on the talk shows and he has an assortment of crooks, terrorists, and oddball friends. More so than any recent Democrat nominee.He is more like George McGovern as a socalled peace candidate. He is a Jimmy Carter rerun when you look at energy and foreign affairs. Obama like Carter is for putting on a sweater and turning down the thermostat. This leads to rhetoric, gas rationing, no Sunday gas sales,long lines at the pump.Obama is going to be hurt more by energy than anything until some kind of drilling and refining enters the mix.Clearly McCain's idea of drill now, drill here, refine now, refine here is catching on. Obama is controlled like all liberal Democrats by special interests of environmental radicals who won't let us drill or refine.
The typical guy or gal on the street don't care that much about being green its too Al Gore. They just want gas prices to come down. Windfall gas tax will kill Obama because it will make the price at the pump grow.
Obama is an elitist who defines himself by being above everybody I see his stock plummeting especially in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri, Ohio where Joe Six pack rules.Obama has a problem with hispanics even in Illinois with Mel Sandoval.
Posted by: Jerry White | June 28, 2008 9:24 AM
The mainstream press is not asking Obama any tough questions on any issue. This is now agenda journalism. Obama simply regurgitates all the old, standard liberal mantras. His presidency would be a disaster for this country.
Posted by: John LaPorte | June 28, 2008 9:34 AM
The real Obama?? There is no real Obama. He is a media. DNC driven image that promises everything and nothing. He is constantly avoiding the hard questions, because he has no answers outside of the teleprompter or what is handlers have written for him. There is no real Obama...
Posted by: Cheryll | June 28, 2008 9:34 AM
Here's the thing...
The 'meat' is freely available for those who take the time to do some reading. Obama's website has an entire section on policy. He also wrote a book. The man is vastly intelligent, has both street savvy and age old wisdom. On top of that, he is a good man - albeit a bit naive - so the Israelis say. And they're a pretty insightful lot.
What one needs in a president is the ability to make good judgment calls, and set up an effective organization. Obama has demonstrated both in his highly successful campaign.
Posted by: Tessa Schlesinger | June 28, 2008 9:37 AM
Meanwhile, in yet another story that Obama's hometown newspaper failed to break, the Boston Globe (itself left wing) took a look at Obama's record on housing in the Illinois legislature (see http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full ) and found a disaster. From the story the Trib doesn't want its readers to know about:
"Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
"The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair."
The only people who profited from the housing subsidies were the developers, friends of Barack and big campaign contributors such as convicted fixer Tony Rezko.
Posted by: Bruce | June 28, 2008 9:38 AM
Polls-BS.To make their polls they been going around ghetto
Posted by: Mike | June 28, 2008 9:46 AM
These voters claim they haven't heard "the meat". Well, how many take the time to look on the campaign website or read the news? They are uninformed because they are lazy and choose to be uninformed.
Posted by: Don | June 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Repeat of Kerry-Bush?
Two "deeply flawed men?"
There were better choices for both parties. What happened?
Everyone gets the government some people deserve.
Posted by: Erik Kengaard | June 28, 2008 10:11 AM
Hello - Realistically speaking - politics is all about "Promises" which may or may not be realized. Right now the country does not have a choice. If Obama is bypassed, the nation will see the continuation of the Bush regime. We need to give "CHANGE" a chance; it's a gamble we need to embrace and the hope for the best. Let's elect Senator Obama and hope he delivers.
Posted by: Riazul Hasan | June 28, 2008 10:12 AM
Read: http://www.boston.com 'Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy' See for your self how as Illinois senator coauthored a bill to help fiend and political supporters get state, local and federal money for uninhabital housing projects( Grove Parc. etc.) 'Pay and Play' agenda of Chicago/Illinois. Same people are on his presidential campaign.. Some of the media are checking out Obama's past ( since there are no records) before we hand him our future!
Posted by: jp,michigan | June 28, 2008 10:14 AM
Everyone talks about wanting more meat on the bone, but I feel that the media just isn't really reporting it. Now, I don't blame the media because the media will just report what they think the people want to hear. So I wonder if we like to say, "Where's the beef?," but then we secretly wonder about what music Obama likes. I'm hoping that debates will be a forum where we can hear more about the issues. But who knows.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 28, 2008 10:24 AM
Obama has started a new movement and that is Gays for Green. His latest declaration that marriage is a union of "a man and a woman" is obviously a pandering to the black & white christian conservative voters. Well he lost all gay votes on that statement. He was already in deep hot water from utilizing anti-gay, and "re-education" proponents at his black community rally. His comment, to that horrible mistake was, something like "well, look, you can't please all groups, some people offend others, and..." blah blah. You don't side with people who want to use shock therapy to stop a gay gene. And beside losing the activist gay vote, he's sending his fellow black gay men deeper into their "down low" (D/L) practices of having secretive sex on the side of fake heterosexual unions. These D/L black men have the highest rise in HIV in the U.S. Black men are dying, and Obama is whitewashing gay issues for the black community. Sorry, gays are going green, because the White Republicans and Black Democrats are trying to destroy their existence.
Posted by: Tom in Boston | June 28, 2008 10:30 AM
I'll be shocked if Mr Obama wins the presidency.
Posted by: brigitte | June 28, 2008 10:32 AM
Thank you for your concern. THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!
Posted by: Allen Crider | June 28, 2008 10:39 AM
There are a few but only a few reporters who are trying to "put some meat" on the Obama bones. Most of that is ignored by TV media and National news. They have already picked their candidate - why muddy the waters with anything other than "hope" and "change"? Hype is good enough for most.
The Boston Globe has an excellent article about Obama's public housing past and future plans - I would advise all to read it. Look beyond the hype and the spin. It's our futures.
Posted by: Kibby | June 28, 2008 10:41 AM
Obama is a hack. He has said nothing but Change. What change? The only plan that I have heard him say is, Raise taxes, Cut and run from Iraq, and there is a chance, that he wants to ban gun ownership. He is very fuzzy on every issue except Taxes and Iraq. And Iraq is getting fuzzy. Now he says he will send the troops back in if Iraq gets into trouble. Then why pull them out in the first place. We all know there is going to be trouble. Raise Taxes??? Can we really afford more taxes on top of Gas prices? I can't. How about drilling for Oil? He is totally against it. Even though there are billions of barrels of oil to be drilled. Do we really think the Chinese and Russians are not going to drill the oil offshore? Why let them take it and sell it to us. Let's go get it. Obama needs to either give details or get ready to lose. I don't see how anyone who listens closely, can figure out what he stands for.
I still have problems with his staying with Wright.
I still have problems with his connections with Rezko.
Obama had better start saying what he stands for. Change aint going to get it.
Posted by: True American | June 28, 2008 10:43 AM
I realize that people get their information in all sorts of forms, but what do people really want? Obama's authored two best-selling books, has a website with detailed policy documents on virtually every major issue, has hundreds of speeches on YouTube. Are we looking for an "Obama, the first hundred days" document that gives a window into what his top priorities are?
Posted by: Michael | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
I've voted Democrat in the past but I see nothing from Obama but more taxes, a weakened military, no energy enhancement plan, no knowledge of how a capitalist economy works, and a bothersome habit of switching positions after the horse has left the barn, i.e. the Second Amendment. I'm up to here with taxes in Chicago and Illinois with Democrats in charge. I'll be darned if I want to see the last hope for reason in DC go down the drain. How do we end up with someone like Obama in the party of Roosevelt,Truman and Kennedy?
Posted by: Derrick | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
Much is said about this Presidential Election, but little is said about the Congressional Elections. Obama is certainly not a done deal and any number of events, including higher gas prices can do him in. The more important election is our Congress. 435 Representative's and 33 Senator's seats are up for election. This country is being led in multiple directions, with no cohesive plan, and without leadership or representation for you by special interests and it really does not matter which candidate you put in the White House. This Congress no longer represents the people. It, driven by special interest money, represents only those special interests.
.
There are solutions, both immediate and longer term. For an analysis of the problem and suggested solutions read, Congress Is For Sale! at:
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/congress-for-sale/
Posted by: Ken Moyes | June 28, 2008 10:53 AM
Many of my friends are struck with Obama and his style of speaking; however, a good portion of those friends cannot discern the real basics of Obama's change tactics. Secondly, with so much stress and repetition on change, I and some of my friends are not sure that Obama was a "firebrand" in the Senate. That is, if his general theme of change is so vital for the United States, why does he not have a long and impressive laundry list of past legislation that points to specific change? Has not his change rectoric been aimed at Hillary and now at McCain? With the United States in dire straits, would not it be so easy to identify clear cut facets of political modifications to bring this country back to stronger status nationally and in the world?
Posted by: Jack Newhouse | June 28, 2008 10:54 AM
Can you name one national American politician who is not elusive?
Even Hillary, making all that noise, was making noise mostly about nonsense.
The national politics are barren of genuine content.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | June 28, 2008 10:55 AM
The problem Obama is facing is not new. The problem is that Americans, for the most part, have an aversion to the printed word. They want to receive only the most minimal, dumbed-down information, in 30 second, Kentucky Fried Nooze sound bites. This plays right into the hands of the Limbaughs, the Coulters, and Fox.
Obama, unlike most presidential candidates, has personally written two books. Both books are interesting, easy to read, and very informative about Obama's character, how it was formed, his beliefs, values, and political principles and policies. But most people are just too intellectually lazy to read them. And that, in a nutshell, is why we get morons like Bush. We have the government we deserve.
Posted by: Susan | June 28, 2008 10:55 AM
The way he can definitely lose is if he does not put Hillary on the ticket as his VP. Too many good and loyal Democrats that voted for and still support Hillary were left out in the cold here. Hillary had MORE votes than Obama and if he continues to ignore the fact that she has earned VP he is a fool, he will lose alot of support and votes if he picks someone else. The question remains, is there anyone else as qualified that brings the number of supporters with her that Hillary does who is available for Vice President? no there is not.
Posted by: Democrats 08 | June 28, 2008 10:59 AM
The honesty of the report is questionable when the author chooses to use one poll (Newsweek) as the proxy for Obama's lead. All but one of the other half-dozen major polls show him about 4-5% ahead, overall.
What really counts, of course, are the figures for the swing states.
Please be objective.
Posted by: Jeff Perren | June 28, 2008 11:02 AM
We know that we don't ask Obama what he means and stands for. His campaign will tell the voters, just as they have time and time again, up until now.
No matter that Obama has swung 180 degrees on many issues, no matter he employs some of Washington' s best known insiders, no matter his association with questionable "friends" began with Emil Jones, a man " that can make US Senators, according to Obama.
The Obama campaign is trying to sell us a candidate in a box and the marketing changes daily with a media that is supporting that approach by not making any effort to get a peek at the quality of the goods.
With Obama's view on foreign policy we have a candidate that could lead us straight into a nuclear conflict.
With all his "bonehead mistakes" and "heated rhetoric", and "flip-flopping" is this someone we really want as our Commander in Chief?
Posted by: anotherview | June 28, 2008 11:06 AM
Barack Obama is on his way to a blowout victory this fall, if you believe recent polling that shows him leading John McCain by 15 percentage points.
Well, I DON'T believe it and neither should you. That poll, taken by the ultra-left leaning Newsweek, had only 26% republicans in their sample.
In other words, it was a poll looking for a result, and not in any way "scientific".
If you want to write an article about how Barack Obama is gonna "blow this out" don't use a silly outlier as your premise.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell | June 28, 2008 11:07 AM
It is good to learn people have an interest to get beyond the spin level. These people need to remember they carry the responsibility to get the information they need to make an informed decision. The problem for many is they live busy lives and may not have the resources to do their work, i.e., internet resources vs. the corporate media. Once having done so, the choice becomes clear; having done my research, a four year extension of the current dysfunctional administration is unacceptable.
Posted by: Lou R | June 28, 2008 11:08 AM
All I know is that Obama is the leading (popularity wise) high level liberal in Washington. I consider myself a conservative, period.
Government is by the people, for purposes of organization and common self defense. It is not for day to day fiscal support or a common source of food and sustinance. We a government to co-exist with other countries in the world. We do not need a government to dole out (using our own earned money from world trade) support payments for easily purchased foods, insurance, or readily available medical care. You work, you get.
Posted by: David White | June 28, 2008 11:14 AM
Obama will lose unless he fast puts HRC on as his VP...Polls mean squat...When they get in to pull the lever will tell the tale as to how people actually will vote...He needs all the help he can get to win and become our Democratic President....BHO/HRC 08'..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME NOW!!!.
Posted by: kaye c. | June 28, 2008 11:16 AM
Ms. Mader and others who are considering supporting Obama may want to study his voting records on "moral value" issues. Not only does Obama support partial birth abortion, but also Obama supported fully birth abortion. Also, support of homosexual marriage, and gay rights are just the tip of the iceberg of "moral values" that Obama aligns himself with the ultra liberal society.
Posted by: JB | June 28, 2008 11:18 AM
When you mention polls they are tied to the news media which neither left nor right trusts. An honest poll would show everyone except the supreme court justice have higher numbers than the media.
Posted by: Ruth Skidmore | June 28, 2008 11:20 AM
For all the undecideds out there I would suggest doing an in depth search on Obamas achievements or lack of during his tenure in Chicago.
Chicago newspapers have lots of info about what he did as a leader. Use the search feature and focus on the years from 1999-2006.
After doing my own research thru the archives I have decided for McCain.
Posted by: David | June 28, 2008 11:29 AM
It will be interesting to see if America is ready to elect as president an arugula-eating, organic-tea-drinking, tax-raising, gun-hating, partial- birth-abortion-supporting son of a Muslim goatherd father and an atheist anthropologist mother.
Posted by: Mugwump | June 28, 2008 11:36 AM
The MSM has long abandoned the very special role the Founders envisioned. They are in the tank for Obama and will not expose this poser. He has flip-flopped on several major issues just this past week and the MSM gave him a pass.
Posted by: John Carter | June 28, 2008 11:40 AM
"In many ways, it feels like, let's say, last July or August in Iowa for us," says David Plouffe. "You look at these voters who are going to decide the election in these battleground states, and they know very little about him."
* * *
This is why Obama will lose: people will get to know him.
Posted by: Austin Austin | June 28, 2008 12:19 PM
If LA Times and Newsweek Poll are accurate, individual state polls for MO, GA and a host of others including KY and TN are dead wrong. If the state polls are right, the LA Times and Newsweek Poll are dead wrong. So take your pick. I tend to put my faith in the state polls which would indicate that Obama is ahead by anywhere between one and six points nationally. I suggest that Newsweek and LA Times hire better pollsters and statisticians, perhaps a few Indians or Chinese to do their statistical sampling might help.
Posted by: George Chell | June 28, 2008 12:24 PM
The "Change" Obama keeps taling about is his changing his mind about gun control, about campaign finances, about who his friends and pastor are, etc. That's what Obama means about CHANGE; he keeps changing his opinions. This man really only says what will get him votes. Remember, he is the most liberal congressman in the Senate; he's radical.
Posted by: Mary Nugget | June 28, 2008 12:48 PM
oh come on. There's plenty of meat on the bones. These people just aren't trying very hard to find out what it is. If they listened to a single speech of his they would understand.
Posted by: srw | June 28, 2008 12:49 PM
I'm a Republican supporter of Obama, aka an Obamacon. If you want to see what's behind the sizzle, much of the Steak of Obama's policies and plans is on his website, http://www.barackobama.com/
I wish I could get behind McCain, but I don't know who he is anymore. He's lost his maverick status with his pandering to the neocons and the "agents of intolerance". The GOP needs to move back to the center; if it takes a centrist Dem as president to nudge them there. so be it.
Posted by: Marcos El Malo | June 28, 2008 12:52 PM
I have just completed Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", and I can recommend it to anyone with questions about his intelligence or his dedication to make things right in America again. Barring another successful big lie blitz like "Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth" this nation should be able to look forward to a new Washington with Obama as president.
Those who believed the lies in the last election have another chance to embrace the truth and reject negative campaigning with all of the lies and distortions this election cycle. It would be nice to deliver such a victory against the Republican Attack Machine that they will have to back up, retool their campaign strategys across the board, and come to grips with the issues that matter to every American.
We are a nation that has been abused by uncontrolled policital power for the last 8 years and something has to be done to bring us back.
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2008 12:52 PM
He who lives by the polls shall die by the polls.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
ps McCain may well end up carring Obamas home state. This will be the first time he really runs state wide.
They now have had a real chance to see him, SEAL AND ALL
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | June 28, 2008 1:10 PM
Obama talks a good story but it's true, I do not know enough about him to vote for him.
As a lifelong Dem, I will vote for the devil I know before voting for the unknown.
John McCain may be a flawed candidate, but he's an American patriot and centrist. Cindy McCain is her own woman. Strong, assertive and a humanitarian, much like Hillary Clinton.
There is little doubt that Cindy McCain has ALWAYS been proud of the United States of America. Unlike Obama's wife, who is only proud now because her husband is the Democratic candidate.
A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. Until I know more about Obama (which looks suspiciously unlikely) I will never cast a vote for him.
Clinton or McCain 2008
Posted by: Jody | June 28, 2008 1:34 PM
Everything said in this article has supported what I've told hundreds of people over the last year. BHO is not only an empty suit but he is a dangerous man capable of destroying this country.
You can say what you'd like, but he doesn't have the ability to explain himself, his ideas or his plans and beliefs. We are all supposed to just go dumbly along behind him because he's new and different. But he's not new and he's not different. He's just a Chicago style politician with a different face, nothing more.
A vote for BHO is a vote for the destruction of the USA. Be fearful of someone telling you to just believe what he says.
Posted by: R | June 28, 2008 1:45 PM
Between McCain and Obama, no matter who wins in November, I will feel that I have lost.
Speaking of Obama losing, it is good to see that some in the media are daring to critique Obama.
Posted by: John in IIlinois | June 28, 2008 1:51 PM
When can we start to make fun of all these people who say they need more information before they make their decision? For me, I have selected July 1st.
After a year and a half of campaigning, these voters still can't find web pages that are filled with position papers by the candidates. They haven't seen the unending blogs that parse, critique and analyze every statement by each candidate everyday.
Please, these self-identified uninformed people are to be pitied, not quoted or acknowledged. More citizens have been engaged in the electoral process this year than any time in our history.
Lets focus on them.
Posted by: Sconsin Guy | June 28, 2008 2:10 PM
That last comment of Peter Hart's is very telling -- but assuming that Obama this time is asking the question is a hopeful sign, because Dukakis sure didn't bother to ask the question in 1988.
The main thing is Obama, like Dukakis, needs to make a case for what he is doing. Without a clear business case, he won't win or else will squeak by without a clear mandate. Dukakis never managed to get beyond making the case he was competent, and even that suffered when he did the tank photo-op and failed to respond to the Willie Horton barrage.
Posted by: DBX | June 28, 2008 2:22 PM
Ironic, that in order for a socialist democrat to win an election he must 'appear' to be something he is not.
It is typical liberal bait and switch.
Come on Obama -- if you have ANY INTEGRITY at all, show us all what you are, and not what your advisors say you should look like.
Hope and change - balderdash.
More like tax and re-distribute, more give aways that only fail and create dependency on government..
But, in the end dependency is the liberal goal....
Posted by: gxb | June 28, 2008 2:51 PM
Since the writer is not a woman, one wonders why he used only three middle-aged women to illustrate his points. Otherwise, his thesis is none too controversial. We know what we're getting with McCain -- "stay the course in Iraq," pander to the oil companies, ever- increasing emphasis on lockstep conformity to "family values," fear of terrorism magnified whenever it suits his purpose, and a generous dose of "global warming" thrown in as a bogus substitute for serious environmentalism. With Obama, we can expect the usual Democratic Party nonsense, but hopefully some things that diverge from it and reflect his youthful perspective and a desire to try innovative approaches to intractable problems. How do you fix the health care system so that everyone can go to the doctor (and the dentist) without being forced to buy health insurance? The insurance industry already has way too much power and their information gathering is way too invasive. What's he going to do to get the price of gasoline under control without giving the nod to the oil companies or the nuclear power industry? My guess is he will be moderate and flexible during a first term, merely floating potentially unpopular ideas, and then hit us with the lefty routine in his second term, if we give it to him. That's what Bush did. He came off as somewhat flexible during his first term but has been coasting ever since, doing nothing but making occasional speeches on why we must stay in Iraq. He's been a disaster. If McCain gets in after Bush's maladministration of the country, it will prove that the American people are gluttons for punishment.
Posted by: Tom B. | June 28, 2008 2:59 PM
The real problem with Obama is that there is no meat to put on the bones, no substance, no experience, etc. He's run a campaign based on an image of himself and some rhetoric, not actual policy. Heck, he runs ads saying he's helped pass legislation to aid veterans, yet he wasn't even there to vote on it when it came up for a vote.
Anyhow, the moral of the story here is, if there was something out there to recommend him to these undecided voters, they would have found it already. Its been long enough.
Posted by: Foodforthought | June 28, 2008 3:16 PM
this is a test to see if this dumb thing is working.
Posted by: sharon | June 28, 2008 4:00 PM
There are specifics out there, they are just too lazy to read or listen. I guess Obama has to spoon feed them. Try this on taxes but there are many more specifics on his website.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/vision
Posted by: Sharon | June 28, 2008 4:07 PM
While I understand that nothing is in the bag for Obama, this is most definetly not 1988 and the comparison really isn't valid beyond timeline in the election cycle and polling numbers.
For one thing, the Reagan era was winding down as a prosperous one that had built up, whereas the Bush era that McCain has played a part in is winding down as one of declines and growing losses. As of yesterday for example, the stock market has fallen enough to be considered well into bear territory. Combined with the real estate melt down and the ongoing credit crunch, it's just bad news everywhere.
So where Bush Sr. had the Reagan success story to coattail on along with the mostly good will the American people had towards Reagan, McCain has what the majority of Americans view as the failure of the Bush administration to contend with and the growing illwill of the American people towards Bush.
That being said, I do agree that nothing is in the bag yet for Obama, but the nature and the depth of the damage that has been done to the economy by the republican agenda of the last 7 years is not something that is going to be fixed in the next 4 months, nor is McCain whose voting record clearly shows an active part in the advancement of that agenda, going to wiggle out so easily from being accountable for his part in it.
Posted by: Benjamin | June 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Not much can be said about someone that has not real history in politics other than Chicago dirty politics.
Posted by: RFB | June 28, 2008 4:20 PM
The Democratic Pary, Sen. Kennedy, Kerry, Hart, Edwards et al vouched for Obama. If he wins the presidency and falls short, they must all be held accountable to the voters.
And accountable for his reversals to positions taken during the primary.
Posted by: Canadian | June 28, 2008 4:23 PM
How does that song go... getting to know you....
If Obama is a "stranger" to the undeciders, the undeciders need to make their own efforts of either listening to more Sunday morning television talk shows, attend a rally, or spend some time researching on the issues, and even visit the Candidate's website. Stop being so lazy. The candidates can't visit every corner of the globe. Voters need to do their part in the democracy by getting educated first, and then vote, based on the facts and not by fear, innenudos, propaganda or malicious gossip.
Posted by: marianna | June 28, 2008 4:28 PM
I honestly don't think Obama has a chance. The problem is if you "say" you are pro-Obama people think you are smart and urbane, with-it and without prejudice, open-minded and upwardly mobile, charitable and yet savy. But in reality most of us are just plain worried when the lights go out and we wait to fall asleep at night. And Obama is not helping that visceral fear that the world is getting dangerous and that we need a dangerous man to keep us and our families safe. "It would be nice" is unlikely to be "it is who I am voting for!"
Posted by: James D. Carmine | June 28, 2008 4:32 PM
"Don't know where he stands on the issues"=""Won't take the trouble to look his stands up on his website"="Want an excuse not to vote for him because his skin is black."
Posted by: Gary | June 28, 2008 5:00 PM
I feel like I know Obama pretty well, and I don't like what I see. 8 years from now, I hope that I have significantly improved my economic status -- and if Obama has his way, my income tax rate will be close to 40% and my capital gains rate will be at 35%. And I saw today that he wants to raise what would be my payroll taxes.
He's an extremely liberal politician who believes that wealth redistribution is the right course for America. If you agree with him, by all means vote for him. Me? I'll be voting for the other guy.
Posted by: Chris in VA | June 28, 2008 5:40 PM
Most of what you had to say was legeitament. Polls are often very wrong the fact that McCain is still here proves that.
To the comments that this is just about Obama not being white that is very far away Clarince Thomas is my favorite Surpreme Court judge, Bill Cosby is one of my favorite actors. It is not about race ( or gender ) it is about ideas and policies, and the ideology of Barak Obama is so far from mine I would vote for Hillary before Obama.
I will be voting for McCain not out of support for him but out of fear of Obama the judges he will appoint to the court will be extreme activist I prefer judges like Thomas, Roberts who believe and do not try to tear it apart like Stvens,and Burns.
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2008 5:59 PM
Obama has no intention of putting any meat on the bones of his policies. Whatever is on his website, if it become politically unacceptable, he will deny. That is his pattern: Deny, Disown and Devolve. He has stolen not just a page, but a chapter from Bill Clinton's playbook. I am sure he regrets that he had no retarded person that he could execute this week, like Clinton did in 1992 so he could demonstrate his centrist leanings. Still, Obama has his vulnerabilities on the issues: Iraq and Gas Prices. With things having turned around there Obama is locked into a defeatist and foolhardy position. That Iraq has oil reserves as large as Saudi Arabia only furthers his vulnerability on gas prices. He offers pie in the sky alternative energy when McCain is offering domestic crude. As he digs in further and further on these issues, Obama may just be digging his own grave. Because he is an anti-free enterprise, doctrinaire liberal, I am glad of it.
Posted by: Pete Kent | June 28, 2008 6:06 PM
Add to that he's completely inexperienced and has done practically zip in his tenure in the Senate and the fact that he is nearly criminally naive when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Hey Osama, Neville Chamberlain thought he could appease Hitler too.
If he gets elected this country will enter into a downward slide the likes of which has not happened in our entire history
Posted by: Scott | June 28, 2008 6:26 PM
Gary called it.
Posted by: Miri NY | June 28, 2008 6:30 PM
Starting all over again? In his dreams!
This primary has been as public and as ugly as any political fight in this country. People were transfixed by it, largely forgetting about Bush & his crimes (thanks Nancy).
There are 18 million democrats who voted a candidate whom he called racist. Come to think of it he called the voters racist - and that's something hard to forget. Enough people knoe he was selected and not elected. Some of those people are organized as PUMA. They also will knock on doors.
So, the many reinventions of the Manchurian Candidate may run into a few bumps (all those thrown under the bus)
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/we-fight-them-over-there-so-we-dont/
Posted by: Notyoursweetie | June 28, 2008 6:32 PM
OK, fine. The policies on his website are non-workable, idiotic crap.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a31:g2:r3:c0.172855:
Happy now?
Posted by: JB2 | June 28, 2008 6:33 PM
wm glenn wrote:
>this fool cannot coomb his hair, he is senile...
The reason McCain cannot comb his hair is due to permanent injuries suffered when he was a POW. (He can't raise his arms above his head.) I'm a hard-core Obama supporter, but it sickens me to see some people (NOT the Obama campaign) using a physical disability as a reason to disqualify someone from the presidency. FDR was in a wheelchair, and he was quite possibly the most effective president we ever had. Personally, I'd happily vote for a paraplegic if I thought s/he had the right stuff.
It's an extremely bad idea to attack McCain on the basis of his injury, because 1) it's unethical and a slap in the face to all injured veterans, and 2) on a practical, political level, it will seriously backfire.
Vote for Obama because he will do his best to fix what's wrong with this country - whereas McCain has already made it clear that he won't even try.
Posted by: SandraL | June 28, 2008 6:48 PM
Obama's big economic policy is that he wants capital gains taxation to be "fair", regardless of economic impact. He said so at the Pennsylvania debate.
The question to Obama supporters is "do YOU actually listen to what your candidate says?"
Put down the kool-aid. Your candidate is a socialist empty suit.
Posted by: JB2 | June 28, 2008 6:48 PM
I have read both of Senator Obama's books and I liked them. The first was written right out of law school. I don't understand how you could miss getting some idea of him from those and his web site. His recent drift to the right IS disturbing for me, but I would rather have him than McCain - if we can avoid another election theft like 2000. Our supreme court is stacked with mediocre minds, the war machine seems to own congress - we have to fix this country somehow...
Posted by: Kimberly | June 28, 2008 6:49 PM
How Obama can lose...Drive a tank perhaps? Really, if America elects John McSAME then they deserve the incompetence they'll get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFwBSDznfbQ
Posted by: DIRTY DICK CHENEY | June 28, 2008 6:51 PM
Obama HAS made clear what constitutes the specifics of his kind of "change''.
His problem is that a good number of Americans still believe in working hard and keeping the fruits (well, a good portion anyway) of their labor.
Not all that many of us are interested in the failed redistribution of wealth schemes that give nothing but a third-world lifestyle.
Posted by: GinnyB | June 28, 2008 7:07 PM
We have two types of Obama haters on this board.
1. Those that choose not to research Obama's detailed positions on the policies, all available in volumes.
2. Those that automatically without a hint of thought, substantiation, or research presume Obama is "a liberal" will bring in "the largest tax increase in history" will "weaken the military" etc.
Please do everyone a favor.
If you are too lazy, too stupid, or too biased to do any objective homework on Obama, outside of listening to Faux News, Limpballs, etc. keep your B.S. to yourselves.
You are the very same uneducated right-leaning ghouls of impressionable minds who got Bush elected and all the subsequent damage done to our country.
Posted by: Roy12505 | June 28, 2008 7:10 PM
For those that live in Illinois, can you please give me examples of why Obama is so great? He hasn't done anything for this state besides using it for a political stepping stone for himself.
Posted by: Nate | June 28, 2008 7:12 PM
What holds the black community back is that when things are not going well for them, they claim racism. US is a melting pot where whites, blacks, yellows (Asians), and reds (American Indians), etc. are all together. You don't hear much racism going on against other skin color, but blacks. Why?
Obama is very unimpressive is the feeling many share, including myself, who is not white. I don't vote for anyone who cannot give me a well-defined agenda into WH. As simple as that! What is have to do with racism?
Posted by: chitown independent | June 28, 2008 7:28 PM
Obama would be crushed if only the election was held after the coming HEATING season. Think folks are grumpy about $4.00 gasoline? Wait till they pay $1,000 per month to heat during the northern heating season with oil at near $5.00 and natural gas following it up. He's opposed to every fix there is preferring to TAX the bad ole oil companies--how does THAT get us any energy??
Posted by: charles higgins | June 28, 2008 7:29 PM
It's worth mentioning that almost all tv and cablenews channels seemed to be cheering and head over heels in love with Obama. They're all over him, yet I find theres really nothing there. His "Change" speeches and message are vague and only last for the moment, all I can remember from his speeches were some gay guys in the back with abercrombie & fitch t-shirts, and the people cheering for change.
Posted by: Leonardo | June 28, 2008 7:43 PM
The "change" that Obama promises to bring to this country is called SOCIALISM and it has never worked successfully anywhere. Taxes and "wealth distribution" will be his main focus. Hardworking middle class people will foot the bill for the lazy and illegals so they can suckle from the guvmint teat. If Washington is on the dollar bill, Obama will be on the EBT card.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2008 8:00 PM
I called this as a 1988 sized win for McCain about a month ago.
Obama is the Democratic version of George W. Bush. Remember the Bush of 2000? The moderate, likable, "compassionate conservative" Governor of Texas? Bush was a popular Governor, but the Governor of Texas doesn't do anything. Prior to that, he ran a mediocre baseball team and couldn't find oil in Texas.
What has Obama done? He was a "community organizer", but what did he organize? He played a major role in redevelopment of public housing in Chicago in the 1990's - a project that gave millions of taxpayer dollars to developers, including Tony Rezko, who built substandard housing that needs to be demolished only ten years later. He got elected to the US Senate before that scandal broke. He's associated with friends he's had to disassociate himself from during the campaign. He talks about bipartisanship, but his record is as partisan as they get. He says "yes, we can", but his policies are all about "no, we can't." Barack Obama has shown a pattern of bad judgment and naivite and therefore would be dangerous in the Oval Office.
McCain is far from perfect, but I trust his judgment far more than Obama's. He was wrong about the war (along with a lot of people on BOTH sides of the aisle) but right about how to fight it. I believe it was a mistake to go in, but we can't change that now. We are at war. Either we will win or we will lose. Losing the war puts all of Iraq's $140/bbl oil in the hands of either Iran or al Qaeda or some other equally nasty entity.
Unlike Obama, who talks about bipartisanship, McCain has a strong record of working across the aisle, much the the frustration of other Republicans. With Democrats poised to gain seats in Congress, McCain and the Democrats would both have to govern from the center to get anything done. Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing.
Very few people like McCain. But nobody really has to. Nobody liked Bush I either, but that fall, the country saw that he was a better choice than Dukakis.
Posted by: Jim | June 28, 2008 8:03 PM