Character is destiny!
Obama did poorly last week in the debate. Either he was not prepared enough to make a forceful case with facts and details, or he had not thought through the impacts and media reactions to his "be polite" strategy, or he is just not assertive enough to give voice to his disdain for untruth and still has considerable hesitation about expressing negative feelings verbally.
Preparation and media strategy are things he can address before the next debate. He's not however going to become less empathetic or a better actor to give us the image of an assertive black and white decider in one week. The good news is that he doesn't have to.
An analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities dispels the impression created by blind critics of this democratic administration and its policies who justify most of their opposition on the basis of the countries fiscal deficit.
I am amazed at how little discussion there is in the public discourse about the gist of the Health Care Reform act. I have a sad feeling that if the republicans had passed the bill everyone would know exactly what the bill was about but now very few people actually do. When there is any talk at all it all revolves around how unpopular it is, how it was passed, how many people and for how long did they kick and scream before it passed and if we are lucky we are treated to a list of obvious common sense reforms it includes, like outlawing life time caps or denial of coverage for children based on pre-existing conditions.
Even the base or the whole of the Democratic party seems to have lost sight of what was one of the most critical items in its platform for a long time which was
The best way I have heard so far on how to make sense of the response to the big wave of anger and discontent.
Ben Jealous just said on the Ed show:
"... we are in a time when prosperity is going down while diversity is going up and in those times you have two choices. You can do what the Tea Party does; try to push down on diversity. They really can never win that battle, or you can push up on prosperity, and that’s what we are focused on. We are focused on job creation."
That is essentially the difference between the two choices avialable to the voters in November.
To see why, you have to look way back to when Obama first started running. I know some of you did not support him at that time but those of us who did did so for a very specific reason. You see I did not support Obama from the beginning because he was the first "clean and articulate" African American candidate.
(more over the fold....)
To say that Obama has a problem with blue-collar voters and therefore could not win the general election is pure fiction.
That would be like saying Clinton has a black voter problem and would she even be competitive without the support of black voters?
It's total nonsense. Just because a group of voters prefer one candidate in the primary does not mean they will not come back to the party in GE.
Obama has focused on Clinton's vote to go to war as a sign of her bad judgement. It's time he calls it what it really was: a sleazy decision to cover herself politicallly, showing total disregard for the death and destruction that was bound to ensue.
More behind the fold...
Former president Bill Clinton got into trouble last week for using fairytale and Obama in the same sentence, (same paragraph really,) but the real fairytale would be to think that we Democrats can reduce a whole campaign to one word and expect to win the general election.
More below the fold: