Why aren't GOP politicians attacking Obama?

Here's a question for the room: If Barack Obama made a huge mistake in saying "we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted," how come Republican officeholders and candidates aren't issuing press releases condemning him?

That's usually how these things work. Take yourself way, way back to three and a half months ago and the John Kerry "joke" scandal. Kerry made his comment; he was attacked immediately by Republicans starting with John Boehner. After Kerry made an angry statement half-apologizing for the joke, he was attacked by Dick Cheney and the president, and half of the Democratic party.

Obviously that occured in the heat of a midterm election campaign. But Kerry wasn't running for anything. Obama is perhaps the most formidable Democratic candidate for November 2008. Doesn't it follow that Republicans would jump on the opportunity to take shots at him and extend the "wasted" story?

Possible theories for why they're not doing so:

They agree with Obama. Well, probably not.

They've assessed that the story did enough damage without their intervention. Unlikely; when has that ever stopped a pile-on?

They don't want to risk strengthening Obama with the Dem base by attacking him. Possibly.

They fear that the idea that troops' lives are being wasted in Iraq is politically powerful. This is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.

Anyway, just throwing it out there. Why aren't Republican politicians attacking Obama?

•  It reminds everyone

  of the truth and they know it.

  by Mae on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:06 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    The Republicans are so terrified of this issue they don't want to say anything, good or bad.

    by deaniac83 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:17:52 PM PDT

  •  That was more or less...

    ....what I said during the Kerry joke fiasco. While I thought it would personally hurt Kerry a bit, it wouldn't help the GOP much and might even hurt them. Americans are pissed off about Iraq and that joke Kerry told and Obama's "wasted" line draws attention to Iraq.

    by metal prophet on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:37:43 PM PDT

  •  I say, "Give the republican-Americans

    a minute". They're covering Anna Nicole Smith right now. They'tll be back. They can't possibly pass up a chance to slur a Democrat.
    Unless...they are so used to repeating their own  fabricated lies, they can't recognize a real faux pas when they hear it.

    by madgranny on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:48:22 PM PDT

    •  And the father is....

      Ted Haggard!

      by Mae on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 08:06:27 AM PDT

•  He immediately applogized

  Every one in public life get three take backs a year, it's in the union contract.

  by arodb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:05:34 PM PDT

  •  Not true.

    Look at the vitrolic rhetoric against HRC & Edwards.

    by KnowVox on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:12:11 PM PDT

    •  Edwards

      didn't act quickly to end the blogger situation.  He let it linger, then chastised them without getting rid of them.  Then, one resigned, giving further legs to the story.

      by Prince Georges for Obama on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:16:20 PM PDT

      •  He also forgot

        how to use Google. LOL

        by KnowVox on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:27:41 PM PDT

      •  and the second one

        ... just resigned too

        I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

        Shakespeare's Sister

        by leckavrea on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

  •  Over a lifetime, or every election season ? :)

    by LibertyGuard on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:26:27 PM PDT

    •  Actually the clause says 3 times a year

      when in public office, and an additional take back for every ten appearances on a Sunday Talk Show.

      You can look it up.  Gee I can't find seem to locate the link right now.

      by arodb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:31:07 PM PDT

•  A combination of those, I think

  They dont want a debate about Iraq. And criticizing Obama will force them to explain why the troops are still in Iraq, and many probably dont know the answer to that anymore.  

  by jj32 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:06:44 PM PDT

  •  So I can buy a HUD house when I get home

    Isn't that why everyone goes to Iraq?

    by slothlax on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:56:05 PM PDT

•  Why would they?

  there's a whole right-wing noise machine built up around them to do the attacking for them, which makes them sound much less crazy by comparison.

  Why aren't they?  Cause the right-wing blogs are doing it for them.

  by james richardson on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:07:54 PM PDT

•  They will

  by quaoar on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:08:14 PM PDT

•  the noise machine is attacking Obama

  so the pols don't have to.

  by Carl Nyberg on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:08:27 PM PDT

•  Like it or not....

  ...another reason is because Obama is a "likeable black"... as opposed to an easily targetable "uppity negro"...

  I know it's cynical, but what US politician in their right mind would throw the first stone. For now it's best to let surrogates draw the first blood - see Australia's John Howard (Murdoch's buddy) as a prime example.

  Once there is a bit of blood in the water - the sharks will come... rest assured.

  by Sanuk on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:08:45 PM PDT

  •  Despite what Slate's headline writer thinks (n/t)

    about how he had to learn how to not be so "uppity."

    by leevank on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:28:13 PM PDT

•  Because the GOP pols are polite and contrite and

  full of empathy for the brash, young upstart Obama. Duh.

  Or maybe they're letting their minions handle it for them.

  by blueteam on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:11:19 PM PDT

•  their brownshirts are doing it for them

  this is a master straegy of theirs- they send out despicable henchmen to do the job and then feign innocence of it all.

  by essexgreen on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:12:28 PM PDT

  •  Why didn't they do that with Kerry?

    That's what I don't quite understand. The entire Republican machine came down on Kerry. Not even Rep. Patrick McHenry is going after Obama.

    by daveweigel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:15:19 PM PDT

    •  i disagree

      i remember the WH and RNC disavowing any knowledge of the SBVT guys.

      by essexgreen on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:19:56 PM PDT

      •  No, in 2006

        I'm talking about the joke story. The entire machine hammered Kerry for two days over that joke. Bush led the charge.

        by daveweigel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:24:42 PM PDT

        •  Because Kerry was already dammaged

          from the prior Presidential race.  Obama has a nice smile and a lot of people like him.  Attack him and you might make a lot of enemies.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

          •  agreed

            100.1%

            by essexgreen on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:23:45 PM PDT

    •  because they will have to say why

      the lives were NOT wasted and that means they will have to say why we are over there.

      by Mae on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:22:43 PM PDT

    •  Kerry poured gasoline on the fire instead

      of doing damage control.

      His gaffe was relatively harmless--it was his bungled handling that made the story blow up.

      by Geekesque on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:27:09 PM PDT

•  There's no existing deep framing of Obama

  as language-challenged like there was for Kerry, so it's an ineffective attack with no resonance.

  by cabomte on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:17:56 PM PDT

•  He apologized

  very quickly, even before any in the GOP realized he had made a mistake.  Very rapid response.  The first story out of the gate about this was him apologizing for it.  Usually, a candidate is attacked first and then has to begrudgingly acknowledge the mistake and then apologize (Kerry, Edwards, etc) and all of that gives the story legs.  It is the equivalent of Edwards pre-emptively getting rid of the bloggers and have that be the beginning of the story.  Obama did screw up rhetorically, but acted as quickly as possible to fix it.

  by Prince Georges for Obama on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:21:39 PM PDT

  •  Sun-Times article

    on the apology.

    http://www.suntimes.com/...

    Following his Springfield launch on Saturday, Obama wrapped up a three-day swing in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, ending at a University of New Hampshire rally where he assailed the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

    by dannyinla on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:25:46 PM PDT

    •  Obama is smart to point out what they're doing

      Trivialization is right. Every time the right wing pulls this kind of thing, progressives should respond not just by rebutting where appropriate, but by going meta and articulating how the wingers are trying to derail serious discussion and change the subject from their own failure to govern responsibly or effectively.

      by nom de paix on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:43:23 PM PDT

    •  That's how he's going to win...

      ...by making people who want to crucify politicians for slips of the tongue seem like the petty people they are.  He's already framed the debate where any of the standard RWNM attacks against him aren't going to be able to stick, because he's "above that."  It's a rhetorically brilliant move, especially when coupled with a faster-than-light response system that picks up stuff like this before it becomes a story.

      by mistersite on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:43:31 PM PDT

  •  Yep, and if Kerry had done the same thing

    there never would have been such a big deal last year.  

    A key part of damage control is knowing when to pick your fights and when to just say "oops."

    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:25:58 PM PDT

•  Limbaugh mentioned it today

  But he didn't seem to want to focus on that comment.  Instead he simply went over the rest of Obama's speech and concluded, "I thought this guy was supposed to be something new.  I didn't hear anything I hadn't heard before in his speech."

  Clearly they don't want us pondering whether those lives were "spent" (I hate using words like that on human lives) on something worthwhile.

  by snout on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:22:08 PM PDT

•  Because he said "Oops. My bad." right away

  and defused the whole silly pigpile.

  by Geekesque on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

•  They can't play the sound byte without ....

  ... the part about the $400 billion being spent? (Just guessing.) I'd like to think it was the apology.

  by highfive on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:24:36 PM PDT

•  It only works with the 25%

  That still support Bush and the war. The wingnut bloggers write for the 25%, trashing Obama, but it's radioactive for the Repub politicians because they loose the 75%.

  by FishOutofWater on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

•  They're letting

  their koolaid-drinkers do the dirty work...

  http://www.freerepublic.com/...

  http://www.freerepublic.com/...

  http://www.freerepublic.com/...

  by BlueEngineerInOhio on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    As Donohue and Malkin attack Edwards.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:34:36 PM PDT

•  I don't think they quite know what to make of him

  yet. Plus, the range in their own field is so wide, they have to be careful of what issues thay choose to highlight at this point. Finally, one of Obama's greatest assets is simply his presence. They do not want to call any more attention to him than they have to, at this point. The more play he gets in the media now, the harder it will be a year from now for them to capitalize on the 'experience' attack.  

  by zashvil on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:30:56 PM PDT

•  Not enough choices in your Diary.

  The real answer is probably; they don't think he has a chance in hell of becoming Pres in '08 so, no upside to attacking him...

  by kursk on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:31:31 PM PDT

  •  That why...

    ...they haven't made any effort to publicize his middle name.

    Wait...

    by snout on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

•  I have another option

  Perhaps they seem him as the Democratic candidate most likely to lose a General Election.  Hilary may be highly disliked and they like to claim she's unelectable.  Frankly, another 8 years of a Clinton presidency could damage the Democratic Party (like the last 8 years under a Clinton) but make no mistake about it, she can win.  She is a strong candidate.  If the GOP really thought she was unelectable, they wouldn't be saying anything about it.  So by not criticizing Obama, they hope to make him the strongest contender and the guy who takes the nomination for the Democrats.

  by SoCalLiberal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:31:39 PM PDT

  •  If that was the case, their noise machine ...

    wouldn't be busily attacking Obama while leaving Hillary pretty much alone.

    No, I think it's because they're terrified of making the argument that those lives HAVEN'T been wasted, because it just reinforces the point of what the terrible cost of this war has already been, and of how little has been achieved or is likely to be achieved by the loss of those 3,100 plus American lives (and however many more will be killed by the end of this carnage).

    by leevank on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:38:23 PM PDT

  •  I think if we nominated Hillary,

    and I do recognize the immense problems associated with it, she might prove unbeatable given the current situation.

    by DCDemocrat on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:38:30 AM PDT

    •  Well I think she turns off a lot of voters

      I think though in the current situation, given her money and given Bill's popularity, and given all the other shit of Dubya's administration I think that she could very well win.  However, I don't think it would be good for the party or the country to see her in the White House.  Do we really want 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?  I know I don't.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

•  Republicans want Obama to be

  the democratic nominee.  They know they'll win.  Same thing with Hillary.

  by sukeyna on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:31:56 PM PDT

  •  You sound like a right-winger

    when they claim the Osama wants so and so to win...

    I call BS.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:35:33 PM PDT

    •  I'm a black woman

      who knows that a black man won't be elected President of the United States in 2008.  

      by sukeyna on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:37:17 PM PDT

      •  And none ever will be if enough people have ...

        your attitude.

        by leevank on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:40:55 PM PDT

        •  I said 2008

          I think it will happen one day, but not in 2008.

          by sukeyna on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:43:04 PM PDT

          •  as long as the focus is on his "blackness"

            this country will never rise above its legacy of racism- institutional and otherwise.

            I am already disgusted by the MSCM coverage of Obama as a candidate:

            "Is he "black enough"?

            "Isn't he afraid of being assassinated?"

            "Will white people vote for a black candidate?"

            This country is no where near being genderblind or colorblind to elect anyone but a middle aged, white, protestant male of the upper crust.

            by wild salmon on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

          •  What year are we waiting for? n/t

            by snout on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:09:03 PM PDT

      •  That's some incredible defeatism

        Look, I'm a white guy and I won't lecture you. But if we've still got 120-150,000 troops in Iraq in 21 months, the Republicans will lose the presidential election. None of them think they'd beat Obama because he's black.

        by daveweigel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:47:18 PM PDT

      •  So you are the expert the black POTUS?

        by Lady Bird Johnson on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:54:10 PM PDT

        •  No, I'm not an expert

          I'm just denying that I'm a right winger and stating my opinion.

          by sukeyna on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:04:51 PM PDT

      •  Powell could have been elected on either

        ticket.  Get the right person and it doesn't matter.

        by kursk on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:18:55 PM PDT

    •  I call BS on you

      Sukeyna answered the question posed in the diary, and most likely answered it correctly.  The Republicans probably think that Osama doesn't have a chance.  Is it hard to believe that they would rather face (what they perceive to be) a weak candidate rather than a strong one?  But according to you she's a right winger?

      Yours is the freeper comment, not hers.  

      by Mia Dolan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Anti-democrats

    I supremely take offense to this kind of thinking.  How about they cannot find anything on the guy and seeing how he verbally bitch slapped that chicken shit Australian PM they are smart for not going for an all out attack.

    by lovingj on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:39:37 PM PDT

    •  Reality supremely sucks

      but that's the way things are right now.  

      I was offended by the bodies of so many dead black people floating in the flooded streets of New Orleans.

      by sukeyna on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:42:03 PM PDT

  •  Then let them want it.

    I personally think Obama could, would, and will beat anyone the Republicans put against him.  If they want him to get the nomination because they think he's beatable, I say let's let them continue on their foolish path.

    by mistersite on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      Republicans are really taking an awful risk if they try to push Obama in the primaries. Really, the only card the Republicans can play against Obama is the latent (or blatant) racism card. They played it bigtime in Tennessee against Harold Ford. And yet, even in a pretty conservative state, Ford only lost by a relatively small margin. Nationally, those sorts of tactics might easily fail. Plus, Obama doesn't appear to be another Kerry or Dukakis, who will go all deer in the headlights when attacked.

      by metal prophet on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

•  The Prince

  by Machiavelli will provide your answer.

  The prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches. It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

  Notice that the attacks are coming from a well orchestrated proxy similar to the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry.  Bush kept his hands clean as Kerry was taken down.

  by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:33:30 PM PDT

•  Sadly, I think he was right the first time

  I realize that a politician can't say such things, but unless one believes that there is some signficant possibility that Iraq will somehow turn into a peaceful democracy that is friendly to the West, their lives WERE wasted.

  I still remember the burial of a high school friend who was killed in Vietnam, and his mother wailing, as Taps was being played, "Why . . . why . . . why?"  And the answer then, as it is now to the same question that I'm sure has been asked by many of the mothers whose sons and daughters have been killed in this war is, "Because the President wasn't worthy of the trust that was reposed in him by the American people, and heedlessly threw away your son's [or daughter's] precious life for nothing."

  by leevank on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:35:13 PM PDT

•  Republicans have Australian Prime Ministers

  to do their dirty work for now.

  by sgary on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

•  They are sitting back and watching the show

  Dems have a knack for tearing eachother apart in a desperate attempt to win the party nomination.

  Their attacks on eachother are carefully documented by the GOP and used against their Dem opponent in the real race.

  Plus, as the Party that opposed desegregation, civil rights, and voting rights for African Americans (and has a long legacy of KKK involvement)they are understandably afraid to play the race card just yet.

  Obama's words will be used against him- by members of his own party, and then by the GOP.

  Watch and see.

  by wild salmon on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:39:58 PM PDT

  •  You sure?

    If this war continues to get worst and comes election time next year we are up to 4500 deaths, I highly doubt that could still be considered an effective attack strategy.

    Despite what the republican spin machine likes to put out, what Obama said was true.  Their lives were wasted by the PNAC dominated civilian leadership.

    by lovingj on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:44:37 PM PDT

    •  but even acknowledging that

      is NOT supporting our troops

      and is helping the terrorists.

      So any mention of wasted lives in Iraq will be used as evidence of Obama's alleged pro-terrorist, anti-troop position.

      So Obama's response: Declare even more of the federal budget will go to the Pentagon if he is elected Prez.

      WTF???

      by wild salmon on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:49:33 PM PDT

      •  No need.

        That is called supporting the troops, not sending them into dumb civil wars.

        by lovingj on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:41:36 PM PDT

  •  That doesn't seem to be happening, though...

    ...in fact, thus far the Democratic primary campaign has been free of the sort of underhanded smears and circular firing squads we've come to expect out of the process.  From what I've seen, the only attacks between the Big Three have been entirely based on the other candidates' records - which is fair game in any election.

    Let's hope this trend continues.

    by mistersite on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:49:20 PM PDT

    •  its early yet

      they are just out of the gate

      and Hillary is "in it to win"

      It's gonna get ugly

      count on it

      by wild salmon on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:50:42 PM PDT

      •  I'm not sure it will.

        The second Hillary's campaign turns ugly, she'll lose a bunch of the support and goodwill she has, because Obama's made it clear he's going to take the high road and keep taking it.  That's why I support Obama - because his framing of the race isn't just making it better for him, but it's making the whole process better.  The more people attack one another and him with sleazy tricks, the more popular he'll become.

        by mistersite on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:55:56 PM PDT

•  There are lots of reasons:

  1. Because the echochamber will try to do it for them first to see if it is safe. On any controversy or issue. Especially because of the mindfield that is the GOP and race. But so far the echochamber hasn't had any more luck than the media in 'gotcha-ing' Obama. Conservative billionaires have spent vast sums of money building an aparatus to do just that, and when they think they have him, they will slime away but they haven't found their footing and its probably driving the wingnuts crazy in thinktankland.

  2. Because Barack Obama is conceptually a GOP nightmare and they don't have a strategy for attacking him yet. You attack him, the argument goes to the GOP and race. You attack his war stance, it goes back to the GOP being the party of the war. He is a "credible" person of color (unspoken are the words 'to suburban white America') and one that is running in a national, not regional, election they cannot compartmentalize. (Hiding just how racist your attacks are harder in a national campaign when you can't play the 'He's Al Sharpton' playbook) They can't Harold Ford 'call me' him without opening up a can of worms that effects the party nationally and rallies the opposition. That poses a string of huge problems. This is someone who has not been successfully marginalized as a 'crazy of color' (yet?) by the Hannity-O'Reilly set, and the GOP, for all of its bluster on race and constant railing against "PC" this or that, knows very well that 'The Republican Party and Black America' is not a conversation with a lot of upside to them. If the GOP could shiv Obama as they do other liberal African-American politicos as a crazy "urban" lefty, they would. But just like racism, subtle by choice and overt if caught in desperate straights, is a big part of the GOP's suburban appeal, so is cowardice. Republicans have racist ideas and ideals they mask with codewords and double talk. Expose them and they have a history that makes 'the party of Lincoln' a joke and they don't want that to be the issue. They have enough trouble as it is.

  3. They are counting on Obama's rival Democratic candidates, whoever doesn't matter really as long as it happens (although they would love a Hilary-Obama mutually assured destruction campaign in '07, to give them cover) to start the ball rolling. To find the cracks in the concrete. They want a situation where a Democrat finds a new Willie Horton attack so they can say 'it wasn't us who made it an issue'. Attacks in a direction that would allow them to avoid the pitfalls of having specific GOP candidates and office holders to attack Obama FIRST on matters that lead directly to GOP landmine issues, in a way that traps the GOP in a racial debate or war debate or both they cannot win. Ever.

  4. Because there is no counter-argument against Iraq war criticism, or smear for that matter, that doesn't allow for Democrats a blow back opportunity. Something to make their smears and attacks return the discussion to the GOP being the party of the most unpopular war since Viet-Nam.

  5. Because Obamamania has proven that the media is not going to cover Barack Obama like Mike Dukakis or Al Gore. Yet. The GOP has to be careful because any attack that fails will reverberate. He can blast meatball pitches out of the park and it will get media coverage. Just when the media seems to be hitting a wall with Barack Obama,  one thing that could bring back the coverage to 'Obama the rockstar' is if he gets a slow pitch relating to the GOP weakness on race and the war in Iraq to hit. If you give Barack Obama an opportunity to make you look like an ass, he will. And it would be a bad for the GOP two-fer: Iraq and race.

  If the GOP wants to attack a popular Democrat, going for an attack that gives the Democrats a megaphone to scream "They are the party that wants to have no debate on the war, cut Veterans funding, and make the war bigger while they are stifling the debate and abandoning veterans... but its their critics that "hate" America" and highlight the GOP's record on race, they're crazy. Or stupid.

  I hope they are.

  I think the GOP is trying to perfect a way of attacking Obama, they just can't find a way to lay a glove on him.

  by LeftHandedMan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:46:17 PM PDT

•  They would rather have a Black President

  than Hillary Clinton back in the White House.  They will attack Clinton and she will lose.  They hate Clinton more than anything, they would rather have a Black President that Hillary Clinton in office.

  It's comin'

  by Lady Bird Johnson on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:56:34 PM PDT

  •  It's always a battle.

    Who do Republicans HATE most?

    Women?

    Children out of the womb?

    Minorities?

    Immigrants?

    They just can't make up their bigoted minds. It's going to really cost them in the future. They just aren't equipped to deal with modernity. They're dinosaurs, long overdue for extinction.

    I read some Republican journalist the other day and his clever aside to the argument that the Conservative Party is dead; he says, "People say this everytime Republicans lose elections; if that's true, then Conservatism is the longest dying political movement in History."

    I agree, I think it is on artificial life support and has been for a long time; the Republican party really isn't even part of our Democratic system anymore. They're neo-fascists, coropratists. They don't believe in Democracy, that's for certain.

    Time we put the Republican party out of our misery. Personally, I think elections between Dems and Greens would be more representative of America and get more people to the polls, and at this point, Republicans should go the way of the Whig party.

    It's time for America to evolve. I have no particular problem with a 2-party system. But there's no reason to have a Neo-Nazi party in a Democracy, just because of Tradition.

    by Some Hat Mostly Cattle on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:07:02 PM PDT

•  It would 'legitimise' him

  Look at what John Howard's comment did for BarryO: It gave him a platform to come out and lay the smack down. And he dispatched with Howard so skilfully that everyone down here in Australia is doing hand-wringing, wondering why an astute politician like Howard would make such a dumb comment.

  by AggieDemocrat on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:58:33 PM PDT

•  Cowards.

  Fortunately, they blew it with George Allen and now they're probably all terrified of letting something slip and exposing themselves as the racist trash they are.

  That's part of my theory, and part of why I think Obama will make a good candidate. Republicans have no idea how to handle a black candidate like Obama in 2006, how to attack him; their racism and their xenophobia is going to cost them on this one, as it's left them totally ignorant on how they can twist this political issue called: Obamarama.

  by Some Hat Mostly Cattle on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:00:02 PM PDT

  •  2007. Still hasn't sunk in? Gosh?!?

    by Some Hat Mostly Cattle on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:08:02 PM PDT

•  they have a Democratic congress to deal with

  i think the word went out in October about Obama. the spin machine has been chewing on him for a while.

  that's probably how they will handle Obama. Indirectly.

  by hypersphere01 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:12:05 PM PDT

•  They Fear Him

  by vyllyn on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:25:39 PM PDT

•  Two possibilities, as I see things

  First possibility is that the GOP is saving up the comment to deploy at another time, if Obama wins the nomination. While they could raise a fuss now and win a few news cycles, it'll be a non-issue down the road. And if they don't say anything now and try to bring it up later, Obama could just say "well, if you were so upset by that, why didn't you say something earlier?"

  Second possibility is that they want to avoid doing anything to draw attention to the war in Iraq. That's not exactly a winning issue for the GOP as the 2006 elections proved.

  by metal prophet on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:58:26 PM PDT

  •  I sort of agree

    We'll see this quote again.  "Keeping the powder dry" on Obama is a definite tactic, although the reasons why they may be doing so are unknown.  My guess is that they don't want to do anything that would slow down  Obama from positioning himself as the anti-war candidate.  That way, if we wins the nomination, they'll do an all-out "National Security" blitz where they will throw everything against Obama at once to support their only winning (if BS) issue -- we'll keep you safe, that Democrat won't:

    -- Demeans our troops / destroys morale.
    -- Inexperienced
    -- Questionable upbringing in madrassa (yes, we'll hear this story again, as if it was never debunked)
    -- "Hussein" is his middle name.  Ooooh!
    -- Oddly enough, TV stations will "accidentally" misspell his name as "Osama" again.
    -- Doesn't understand the war on terror
    -- and on and on.

    Part of the reason I want a Clark / Obama ticket is so that Republicans will shut the hell up on National Security for one election cycle.  Maybe that's a false hope of mine.

    by Truth Hurts on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:16:53 PM PDT

•  Talk radio is savaging Obama

  Last night, when I was driving home from work around 8-9 PM, the talk show host on WMAL here in DC was savaging Obama. He was refering to him as "Barak Hussein Obama" and lauding John Howard, Australia's PM, for atatcking Obama. He brought up the discredited madrassa story, also stating that an Obama vicotry would be a "win for the terrorists".

  by jiacinto on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:12:56 PM PDT

•  Speaking the truth

  would do irreperable damage to their innermost psychi.

  by RustyBrown on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:29:14 PM PDT

•  It's competition for Hillary Clinton

  Obama's candidacy makes Hillary go out on the road.  She has to explain her vote on the war over and over to Democratic audiences.  The Republicans would rather run against Obama.  Hillary can beat any Republican candidate in the national elections.  Obama is an unknown; they'll hold their fire on him until the national elections.

  by kaye on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:15:14 PM PDT