I think Obama could be Swift - Boated too. He is much closer to Kerry than to Hillary when it comes to the attack - dog mentality.

Even if Obama is swift-boated...so what.  Kerry was a charmless politician going up against a fairly popular incumbent who had a half decent economy on his side.  Yet, even after getting swift-boated the 2004 election was a virtual tie.  Eight years later people are tired of republicans, the economy is in the tank and the president has a record low popularity rating.  So will a swift-boating really make much of a difference?

I also think it's more about understanding the best way to go after swift-boating is to attack the folks who give swiftboaters their megaphone rather than in engaging  the actual swiftboaters on the merits.

I don't think John Kerry's response was too slow so much as it did not ridicule folks in the media for taking the attacks as legitimate/seriously (a list that went beyond the Cable-news shout fests and into supposedly serious Sunday morning news programing, leading national newspapers, etc.).  Maybe his response wasn't fast enough, but it also was the case that once he did respond, he'd send representatives into forums that would give those swiftboaters an air of credibiltiy that they clearly did not deserve.  

I think any effective response to swift-boating forces you to have to explicitly become a media critic, and a harsh one at that.  I think exhibit A of this would be the Clinton team's response to all of their hotspots (as outlined in your article that's up right now) and how they have no problem taking on the media, most recently Hillary's successful push back against the media for being too hard on her and too easy on Obama in the run up to Ohio and Texas (facts be damned).  Another good example is how the Bush team targeted Dan Rather after he brought the national guard story up again (now that's how you push back on swift-boating).    

Although Obama has been too slow to do this thus far, one advantage I think he has this time around is a whole lot of folks online that have no qualms about ridiculing the media (as an example, look at the response to the pathetic excuse for a debate put up by ABC news before the PA primary). The netroots are not going to be enough on their own to fight back against swiftboating, but I think Obama's connection to them gives him an advantage in taking on this sort of stuff that no other Democrat has had in the past.  

Deldickson0: Your post is wrong - headed. You will get nowhere buyripping the press a new one. Kerry needed to go on the offensive immediately and he failed to do so. I was incredulous in the fall of 2004 when day after day after week passed, until finally he responded in a systematic way.

I think what this post is doing is the same thing that the CW and MSM has been doing since the beginining of this primary season:   Underestimating the intelligence and efficiency of the Obama campaign.  With few sidesteps, the way Obama and his team have run their campaign has been phenomenal.  So I'm pretty sure they know what they are going to do.  

Eharder: People consistently underestimate the attack - dog orientation of the Republicans. Lambs before the slaughter. Now, a Swift - Boat - type assault might not occur or take but it might, too. Obama's niceness is not ipso facto protection against such a campaign.

LR:  I agree -- and if I remember it wasn't even fall but as early as August when the SWB attacks started, and Kerry had checked ouf for some vacation time, and wasn't responding.  Everyone could see as the weeks dragged on that he wasn't grasping how serious it could be.

That said, I'm not sure if it was the Swift-Boaters who are entirely responsible, because a more complicated problem that Kerry had was that he wanted to foreground his Vietnam service -- quite legitimately -- but also wanted to simultaneously downplay his anti-war activism of a slightly later date.  This was a mistake, because it suggested that he was uncertain about the effect of the latter.

What should have been a major plus -- having both a wartime and an anti-war record -- was turned into a confusion that the Repugs were able to exploit.  If Kerry had found a way to stand by both his military experience and his anti-war activism that made sense to people, it would have removed a whole target from his back.

LR, I think we all worry appropriately about Swiftboating, none of us take it seriously. However, in this campaign, it has been a remarkable fact that the slime has not stuck to Obama very well. Even today, the Wright stuff is marginal at best, not as big an impact as McCain's love of W. I'm reminded of the last politician who exhibited this characteristic, Mr. Teflon himself, Reagan...

LR,

Being nice does not mean that you can't have some steel underneath.  I don't think they we should take Obama's tendency to be nice and courteous with being a pushover.  When he needs to he can whip out a silent blade.  Just check out what Obama told Wolf Blitzer on CNN as posted on Politico.com last week

"When asked about Romney's previous statement that the presidency was not "an internship," Obama unsheathed the knife:

"Yeah. Well, the contest didn’t work out so well against John McCain suggesting that John McCain as a senator hadn’t done what Mitt Romney had done. And yet here we are and there Mitt Romney is..."

Lamb31: My choice of words is an incredible conincidence, given that I had not seen your post before I submitted the comments below yours. Nor do I recall seeing your nom de plume either. You can "know" what you are going to do but not have the will to do it. There are some incredibly nasty individuals in the Democratic Party and even some operatives of kindred spirit but overwhelmingly, the Democrats are no good at Rovian machinations. Don't lose sight of that fact.

Irony has a great point. By failing to address his double allegeance BOTH to service in the Vietnam war and to anti-war protest, Kerry missed a golden opportunity to address the longstanding culture war and rseentment on both sides that was still seething decades after the events. Addressing the swift boat attacks and turning them into a chance to confront their root cause with a thoughtful speech similar to Obama's speech on race would have won Kerry the presidency.

Obama's niceness appeals to a certain segment of Democratic voters who have a distaste for political combat but if Swifted Boated Obama does show some aggressiveness he could reassure a lot of people who think of him as too soft and inexperienced. The idea that Obama can play nice all the time and win the election and govern effectively is wrongheaded. A new politics is a nice slogan but a questionable strategy for governing. All of the battles in front of him can not be intellectualized there will come a point when he will have to fight or be beaten either my McCain or some adversary of the US if elected. Frankly, I would like to see his back against the wall before he is elected so as not to get a surprise from a sitting President.

Obama is not nice, he's a shrewd pol from Chicago who doesn't hesitate to swift-boat himself, via his crazed-eyes minions. The upside for himself is that he will do just fine when attacked by Republicans.

Jesus, Crowley, you were the one howling that Wright was an insurmountable scandal, then you claimed the same about the idiotically named "bittergate." It wasn't. You were wrong. You're a bed wetter. Get some perspective on these things.

It isn't 2004 and Obama isn't Kerry. And kerry didn't lose because of the swiftboat bullshit; he lost because he was a humorless, lantern jawed, unprincipaled, New England snot. He was still better than Bush, but nevertheless..

Obama's problem is not that people will say mean things about him. His problem is that his attitudes, (e.g. saying that those who wear flag lapel pins evince false patriotism) will become better known.

Obama has been riding on his early victories for months. Obama has done more and more poorly and won in narrower and narrower demographics as the race has proceeded and he has become better known. This is the problem he will face in the general: not swiftboaters but himself.

pccostello,

Nonetheless, Clinton - with all the money in the world, name recognition, a husband that was a hero to the party and had the backing of the party managed to lose, and is still managing to lose contests to a black dude named Barrack Hussein Obama that has been in the senate for 15 minutes. And he has polled ahead of McCain and Clinton for months and months. Get in touch with reality, come to Jesus and except that it's over. He won. Get on board and stop doing the work of the Republicans.

Oh, and I didn't mention the fact that exit polls indicate that one of Clinton's key demographics in the Ohio, Texas and Indiana races were Republicans that said they had no intention of voting for Clinton in the general election. Now that's a winning coalition.

"His problem is that his attitudes, (e.g. saying that those who wear flag lapel pins evince false patriotism) will become better known."

I don't recall Obama saying that anyone who wears a flag pin is evincing false patriotism; rather that it is easy to evince false patriotism simply by wearing lapel pins and doing nothing more.  Any way, if after all this time, you can mention only Flagpingate as his comeuppance, it's a good sign.

"Obama has done more and more poorly and won in narrower and narrower demographics as the race has proceeded and he has become better known."

Right, which is why he won North Carolina and lost Indiana by two points - two points - winning all demographics except for the over 65s.  

I mean, you really need to get in touch with reality.

Also, remember, he was running against a fellow Democrat, and was actually trying to practice some constraint:  he didn't want to destroy the party just to get through the primary.  There won't be any such qualms come the general.  "Losing his bearings" is just a starter.

Icarus and mpatrick

You can't just make up your facts.,

First, Mark Halperin of Time just agreed on CNN that Obama said those who wore flag lapels are showing false patriotism. Halperin went out of his way to contradict the obamalist from the The Nation on this point.

Secondly, Obama has won one primary since Wisconsin, which is closer in time to Iowa than to Pennsylvania, and the state he did win has odd demographics. He has lost every primary since Wisconsin, except NC.

Thirdly, Obama, with more money than any presidential candidate has ever had in history and with the press proclaiming him the victor, continues to lose decsively in most diverse states.

Which of us is out of touch with reality?

Wow - I honestly didn't think pc could stoop any lower, but not only is she flinging the very important flag pin issue in Obama's face, she's lying about it to boot. I'm beginning to think she wasn't born so much as created in a lab after a lengthy process that began with a swab of the inside of Karl Rove's cheek.

As for the initial post here, Obama clearly has been living by the Dem corollary to Reagan's Eleventh Commandment this primary season. Of the eight million things he could have hit HRC with, he's pretty much kept his criticism to policy issues (i.e. gas tax holiday) and retorts that underscore HRC's hypocrisy (i.e. she hit him on Ayers in the Penn. debate, he reminded everyone that her very own husband pardoned two Weathermen). Whenever I've heard him talk about HRC's baggage - and she has enough of it to fill the hold of the Titanic - I've never heard him not quickly add that a lof of the crap she took from the GOP in the '90s and today is undeserved and unfair.

Still, I wonder what he'll be like against the GOP mouth-breathers in the fall. In '92 Clinton went through his trials during the primary season, and was elected fairly easily after campaigning on issues and asking Americans if they wanted more of the same. Current attitudes about the economy match a lot of those from '92, and of course you've got the whole war thing as well. On the other side, the goons McCain has surrounded himself with are going to be nastier than the first Bush's '92 campaign, and McCain won't keep them on a short leash like Bush did.

Lamb31: John Kerry said some harsh thinks about Bush in 2004 but he sat on his butt when attacked and took the high road. It remains to be seen whether Obama would similarly flub the pass. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't but I am amazed that you think that because he's shown some "steel" momentarily that he has the requisite toughness to take on political thugs in a sustained fashion.

Obama hit Clintons with a bogus racism accusation. The man is a swift boater himself.

Moreover, it's a bit rich to accuse others of racism when you hail from crazed black racist Jeremiah Wright.

"Secondly, Obama has won one primary since Wisconsin, which is closer in time to Iowa than to Pennsylvania, and the state he did win has odd demographics. He has lost every primary since Wisconsin, except NC.

Thirdly, Obama, with more money than any presidential candidate has ever had in history and with the press proclaiming him the victor, continues to lose decsively in most diverse states. "

I wish we could all just agree to understand elections a little better, and stop this "Clinton beats Obama in this critical state primary, and so Obama will also lose to McCain in the general in that state" type of argument.  The argument makes no sense, and is demonstrably false in the general sense.  Comparing A and B tells you nothing about how B will compare to C.  Just by way of example, if you ask me to choose between eggplant parmeson and penne al arabiata, by itself, this will tell you nothing about how I would choose if the choice were between eggplant parmeson and a hamburger.  Nothing.

A detailed demographic analysis of voting patterns on specific issues in Obama vs Clinton, may tell you something about Obama vs McCain (just as knowing I'm a vegetarian would pretty much clinch the eggplant vs hamburger question) but the margins of error in this type of analysis, given the depth and accuracy of exit polling, make them little better than useless in most cases.

So, please, pc, before you even lecture us on facts, get your analysis and use of them right.

I just don't understand it: if Obama is losing so decisively everywhere, how come Clinton is so desperate to change the rules at every juncture?  I mean, we would not be having this discussion if Obama were actually losing.  We are having this discussion because like every candidate since Reagan, Obama is not winning ALL of the contests, but winning some and losing some.  It so happens that the ones he has won have given him more delegates than the ones he has lost.  And in the Electoral College, that is how one wins and one loses - by actually winning more EC votes than the competition.

PCC, yes, if you take the square root of all the voters in the states that begin with W and multiply that by the delegates in states that begin with C, and then take a logarithmic approach to the counting of the votes of every second person who voted by Hillary, then it can be argued that Hillary is winning.

Otherwise, no.  That is reality.

PCC: I checked Halperin's Page.

There are no words to describe your mendacity.

That a Clinton supporter is now a Flagpin shill says much about Clinton, but a lot more about you of course.

Check this page.  Recognise yourself in any of the posts?  

www.politico.com/.../Return_of_the_pin.html

Pathetic.  Really pathetic.  Crawl back to your corner and put that sheet back on your head.  And don't forget to light a cross before you sleep.

Could we please stop with the analogy between the Wright affair and Swift Boat?

Again, Obama embraced Wright for political purposes. Called him his "spiritual mentor", compared him to the woman who raised him, said he could "no more disown [him] than [his] own grandmother." And then disowned him.  Obama made himself look like a fool, a bumbling rookie. This contretemps is 100% of his own making, and goes back to the essential duplicity of his claiming to want to transcend race while at the same time using his affiliation with characters like Wright to milk his racial status for every vote he can get.

There is nothing wrong with Obama playing any card he can to win the White House. That's politics. But he needs to recognize that if he also disdains such cardmanship and pretends to be above politics, he will be called on it.

And that's not SwiftBoating, that's simple honesty. Any claims to the contrary make him look even wimpier than Dukakis.

Toughen up, buddy, and get your story straight.

tep,

I know you jump at every possible chance to bray about Obama being a "fool, a bumbling rookie," but no one on this thread is directly making an analogy between the Swiftboat fiasco and the Wright affair.

It has become conventional wisdom that Kerry blew it 2004 for failing to take on the Swiftboats with an aggressive response.  But isn't there a huge element of hindsight here?

2004 was a very, very close election.  And had Kerry prevailed, the "conventional wisdom" would be that Kerry was  clever and tactically astute for his decision to take the high road and to largely ignore the Swift Boaters.

And it may well be that Obama underestimatesd the degree to which Republicans will go negative and attack, but maybe not.  Hillary's own tenacity may have helped him out more than people realize.  More importantly though, 2004 ain't 2008....and Obama ain't Kerry.  

Citzenghost: It is hindsight if it is hindsight. Sure, it is facile after the fact to rag on Kerry for his glacial response to the Swift - boating. But I said it at the time; I was incredulous when he went day after day saying nothing.

Teplukhin2you: Well said. I have made the same point time and again on this blog. You can't engage in politics as usual and then claim to be above such politics.

WoodyBombay: I enjoy your posts with the same enthusiasm that I disdain your candidate. I have a task for you. Make your best case for Barack Obama to me. There is so much rancor and polemics here. I ask you transcend that and employ your persuasion and eloquence.

"and the state he did win has odd demographics"

That state being NC? And that "odd demographic" being a sizable black population? Yikes. Enough said.

Yes, reality, take a deep gulp. It's over and you keep beating the same drum - actually a differnet drum depending on the pitiful spin coming out of the Clinton press office - but it doesn't change the math. Clinton had every advantage and she lost. Nothing save a thunderbolt will save her campaign at this point. Droppping the popular vote, the majority of states and the majority of delegates will do that. Talking about the decisive white "hard working, non-college educated male" demographic - the one that hasn't voted for a Dem since 1974" is about as dumb as pretending that Obama can't win California or Clinton is going to win Texas.

Face it. Move on.

icky,

Obama's problem with voters is his set of attiudes. The flag pin is an example. Obama said the flag pin was a substitute for true patriotism. Hallperin was very clear on Campbell Brown's showw in his agreement with Ari Fleisher that Obama had told people the flag pin was a form of false patriotisnm. That offends lots of people who have flag decals on their cars, doors, or cops and firemans and EMS uniforms. It is very simple. It has nothing to do with race. Screw you for your constant race-baiting. It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't work.

Obama is riding on victories won a long time ago. He has won only one primary since Wisconsin. Now that he is better known, he is getting dribbed. That is very likely to be the real problem he has in November--that people will know more about him. This is what happened to him with Wright. there was no swift-boating involved.

sdemuth--

stupid false analogy. similar factors in play in voting. demographics have been consistent. get a mind.

mpatrick,

cut it out with the stupid race-baiting. blacks are 35-40% of the vote in the dem primary in NC but 11% in the general. if you are going to accuse people of racism you have to not be so stupid about it. everyone knows obama wins where the A-A vote is big. Throw in the research triangle, and NC has odd demographics. That is why obama has won there and no where else soince wisconsin.

mpat,

i think he is going to get the nomination. i just think he will be a disaster.

The triangle is different from huge swaths of America in what respect? A few thousand white collar folks in an area that is largely rural? Give me a break. It's no different than a million places in America. Austin, Texas or Indianapolis or Pittsburgh or Kansas City. Unless you have some evidence - any evidence - that NC is demographically "odd" then the only thing that seperates it from Penn is large number of black voters.

He will not be a disaster. And even if he is, he has won the right to lose, she has not.

Flag pins are great and are what make the USA so awesome.  Also wearing a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carier and announcing "mission accomplished" is very patriotic.  

To tep's point ,BHO is green in that he does not understand that actually treating people like adults is not what we want as citizens, we want meaningless displays that make no difference but help us get through the day.  He should wear Red White and Blue zoobaz pants and an Uncle Sam beard to show how patriotic he really is ,that would make the posters here feel better.

The Swift Boat ads were effective because Kerry refused to attack Bush/Cheney on their military service, making his own look weak.  The epitome of a Rove style attack.  Fight in the jungle (liberal pussy) start a war and talk tough (conservative strength).

PCC:

I know that Clintonian parsing requires all supporters to be incapable of reading, basic comprehension, contextual reasoning and all that.  Still, if you want to attack, it's good to have the basic correct elements in place, otherwise you end up like Bill and the "that woman" moment.  For example, with respect to your reference to Obama's statement about "true patriotism", this is what he said:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

Of course you think this is a wrong attitude, because Mrs. Clinton actually supported the War and, be definition, would have had to support the campaign of vilification of opponents that followed.  She, and you, and Hannity, and Fleischer, cannot now credibly question that Obama was correct in opposing Iraq, and so you resort to attack by proxy issue: forget the bigger picture, and go after the flag pin.  And of course in Iowa, he explained: "You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals."  Iowans, and fifteen million other voters, accepted that explanation.

Ari Fleischer did not.  And Ari Fleischer, in your book, is a fine upstanding, truth-telling, non-partisan, fair, unpolitical analyst.  Mark Halperin agreed with Ari Fleischer that saying "the flag pin has become a substitute for true patriotism" basically means "whoever wears a flag pin is showing false patriotism."  Mark Halperin is either an idiot, an illiterate, or a political shill if he agreed with this inversion of logic.  And whoever agrees with him - well, draw your own conclusions.

MPatrick is right: democracy is not perfect; and the primary process is hardly so.  Obama is going to be a disaster?  Just remember that your candidate is LOSING to this would-be disaster.  Does not say much about her, does it.

So, pcc- you support a candidate who supports a law banning flag-burning, force yourself to believe that Obama think flag pins are unpatriotic despite his nuanced explanation, and approvingly quote the fucking spawn of satan himself, Ari Fliescher?  

Strange behavior, methinks, for a democrat.

Woody - Crowley's blog entry is precisely about the SB-Wright analogy. That's the whole point of this thread.

And no, I don't "jump at every chance to paint Obama as a fumbling rookie". Hid handling of the Wright matter was amateurish and a much more costly error than you or he would like to believe.

I believe his candidacy suffers from a basic, structural weakness in that the Farrakhans and the Peretzes see what they want to see in this man; ditto for the partisans of the Palestinians and the partisans of Israel; advocates and opponents of free trade, etc etc etc.

Tep, of course he's an empty vessel - how could he not be, after only 4 years at the national level, and no executive experience elsewhere.  That said, he's very smart and articulate - fresh and clean, as someone once said, and he has a real good shot at being our nexy President.  

Gives me the willies, but then I'm a "mouth-breathing Republican" around these parts.

I'm still worried that Obama's swift-boating is going to come from Rev. Wright.

PCC,

"(e.g. saying that those who wear flag lapel pins evince false patriotism)"

PROVE IT.

An assemblage of quotes from Barack Obama regarding Flag Pin-Gate, from abcnews.go.com/.../Story:

"Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

"I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart"

You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals,"

"Mark Halperin of Time just agreed on CNN that Obama said those who wore flag lapels are showing false patriotism. Halperin went out of his way to contradict the obamalist from the The Nation on this point"

Mark Halperin is not Barack Obama. I want real sources, citations and quotations of the words Obama spoke, not an analyst from Time magazine and his subjective impression of the issue.

"Secondly, Obama has won one primary since Wisconsin, which is closer in time to Iowa than to Pennsylvania, and the state he did win has odd demographics. He has lost every primary since Wisconsin, except NC."

Is this your version of Hillary's "the states that matter"? Because it would appear he has won Hawaii, the Texas Causus (and overall more delegates from Texas), Vemont, Wyoming and Mississippi. And that would mean you are sadly mistaken. www.barackobama.com/.../index.php

"Thirdly, Obama, with more money than any presidential candidate has ever had in history and with the press proclaiming him the victor, continues to lose decsively in most diverse states"

This is pure horse crap. First, money does not buy votes; it is nothing more than disingenious spin to turn Obama's record fundraising into a "negative". Secondly, perhaps you meant to say Obama continues to clobber the snot out of Clinton in diverse states like NC? OH and PA are not that diverse, especially outside of the major metropolitan areas. And as a counterpoint to your apparent point that Obama can't win the white vote, he won Vermont and Wisconsin; I know from having lived there, that there are people in Wisconsin that have never actually met a black person, so for Obama to have won that state, even after plagairism-gate, speaks volumes to the disingenuity of your argument.

"Now that he is better known, he is getting dribbed."

Its more like, now that he is better known he is pulling in even more White voters than before. Indiana should have been hillary's by at least 10%, demographics were at least as favorable as PA and OH. But, instead, Obama pulled within 2%. And NC should not have been such a blow-out; with Hillary winning white voters 3 to 1, Obama winning black voters 9 to 1, and a distribution of 3/2 in favor of whites in NC, Obama should have only had 40% * .9 + 60% * .25 = 51% of the vote, and yet he drubbed her by double-digits.

And as for WV today, if Hillary wins by less than 3 to 1 margin, it just proves my point, because the WV demographics are perfect for Hillary.

Tep,

It is a mixed blessing to come into the primary race with a clean slate. Yes, it allows for his opponents to cast him in whatever imagery they want. But, it also allows for him to prove himself and disprove his opponents, thereby discrediting his opponents.

I think Faux News realized this, and has been trying to circumvent the issue by going after the people around Obama.

It remains to be seen what Obama will do once he is no longer pulling punches with a Democratic opponent.

butchie, I don't understand why the thought of an Obama presidency gives you the willies while the experience of a Bush presidency apparently hasn't done so.

What direction can we go in except up?

What major achievement do you imagine will be undone?

Butchie, it seems anti-conservative to think someone is a blank slate merely because he hasn't been in the government for a long time, isn't it?  Does experience not start unless one is in Washington?

I understand your and Tep's point about people projecting onto him, but I think that is generally not his fault.  I haven't really found a lot of things on which I can't deduce a position, and- what is more important to me- a reason and underpining for such position.   This isn't to say I agree with all of them, but it is why I do admire the man.

Kerry's first big misstep in 2004 came in the spring shortly after he became the nominee. He was attacked as a 'flip-flopper' for his 'voted for funding the Iraq war before I voted against it' (or whatever it was he said). At that point, he should have responded immediately with a barrage of ads demonstrating Bush's flip-flops (no nation-building, etc.). Had he done so relentlessly, the flip-flop message wouild have been neutralized in the public's mind; or even better, it might have sowed the seeds of doubt about Bush.

Instead he did virtually nothing and, as a result, his campaign was doomed.

Obama needs to respond forcefully to negative attacks and initiate some of his own. He can go negative and still take the high road. He just needs to be both truthful and unforgiving when the Republicans are traveling in the gutter.

Bone - on the contrary, we have recently been electing governors, which is why I alluded to executive experience, of which Obama also has none.

He is green, there's no way around it.  When JFK ran for President at age 43 in 1960, he had been an officer WWII, and had been in the House 6 years and the Senate 8.  No, DC experience isn't everything, but it's something, and Obama doesn't even have much of that.

Good one, irony.  I'm a nat'l security Republican, and the idea of meeting with Ahmedinajad, Kim Jong-Il and/or Hugo Chavez without pre-conditions, as I believe Obama has indicated he would do if elected, strikes me as exactly the wrong thing, and gives me the willies.  We can argue about W's f-p another time.

Obama's handling of Wright (twice) was sublime. He got the media on his side and got lucky with a second chance to properly disown Wright, but still did it with conviction.

He weathered a fierce storm that went on for weeks, if not months, including whatever Clinton and the Right could throw at him.

And he still won more votes, still won primaries, still won the nomination, with some time to spare against the previously unstoppable Clinton machine, which was built up over 8 years of hardcore fundraising and planning.  

Not bad for an amateur. What would he be like if he turned Pro?

butchie, I don't believe that Obama's f-p will be to simply take what he said in a debate six months ago and add water.  I do believe that he thinks -- and I agree -- that the U.S. has blocked itself in with regard to certain problematic nations/leaders by not thinking through what our real strategic goals are and not understanding the dynamic our opponents are working under.  Re-thinking those goals, and trying to evaluate what possible outcomes of serious negotiations might be, isn't "meeting without pre-conditions."

With regard to the three cases you mention, Chavez is a blowhard who only flourishes when we turn the garden hose of American high-handedness in his direction.  Kim Jong-Il is a danger, but it seems very unlikely that Obama can achieve anything that the Clinton or Bush administration failed at.  Containment is a must, and I'm certain he sees it that way.  However, Achmadinnerjacket (or, at least, Iran) is a different kettle of fish.  There, there is a case for no (or very few) pre-conditions, as it's completely self-sabotaging -- and dumb in a really obvious way -- to demand what might be the results of negotiations as a prerequisite for sitting down to talk in the first place.  I sincerely hope that Obama will be able to wrestle an new Iran policy into place, which will do a lot to improve national security.

I'd be optimistic, although only a fool would not expect pitfalls and even pratfalls.  Unlike Bush, however, Obama seems able to admit missteps and learn from them.  The thought of not having Cheney a heartbeat away from the Oval Office reduces my own willies count quite a bit also.

Look, he's going to win in November unless he makes some really stupid mistakes AND McCain makes a brilliant VP selection AND McCain runs a flawless campaign AND the price of gas at the pump declines significantly from Aug-Nov.

I just for the life of me don't see what all the fuss is about this man. Of course I want a Dem back in the White House. But this one's very green, and at this point, there just isn't much there there. Of course I want him to win, will rally round the party etc. But the hoopla around this Dukakis 2.0 strikes me as ridiculous.

Iggy - Estrich is dead on: Obama got extremely lucky in the imting of the Wright fiasco. Any earlier and he'd have been finished in the primaries; any later and he'd be toast in the general.

Maybe he planned it this way. If so, then you're right; he's a genius. Doubt it, though

Tep,

I will grant you that the timing was good, in general, but I think there is an element of being able to guage the situation correctly and react appropriately that has been exhibited; perhaps too sublime for some, but I think its there.

Perhaps the fuss is a political backlash against the last 7 years of realpolitik; an overanxious attempt to reign in power-politics, and renew a core sense of decency in American politics which has fallen by the wayside. Or perhaps too much Partisanship, and not enough critical thinking, resulting in a major backlash by independents, and moderates from both sides of center towards the candidate with the greatest penchant for considering issues before taking a stand, as well as willingness to debate the issues in the open, and accept alternative points of view as valid.