It would seem those nasty republicans might just say "what the Hell" and hit below the belt with questions of Obama's executive experience, foreign affairs experience, business experience, legislative experience, voting record and having a "socialist" rating LOWER than Bernie Sanders( the only Socialist in Congress), the disaster of his proposed spending programs, the inanity and unpopularity of his stance on social medicine, the war on terror, and so many other things.

The fact that charisma and personality is all Obama has going for him is without doubt. However, it is long campaign and judging from the voter's anger with Republicans for losing their conservative way during the past 2 or...

It would seem those nasty republicans might just say "what the Hell" and hit below the belt with questions of Obama's executive experience, foreign affairs experience, business experience, legislative experience, voting record and having a "socialist" rating LOWER than Bernie Sanders( the only Socialist in Congress), the disaster of his proposed spending programs, the inanity and unpopularity of his stance on social medicine, the war on terror, and so many other things.

The fact that charisma and personality is all Obama has going for him is without doubt. However, it is long campaign and judging from the voter's anger with Republicans for losing their conservative way during the past 2 or 3 elections, I wonder if the pendulum is not ready to swing.

If you talk to people about Obama they are generally impressed. When you tell them what "hope" and "change" mean, then they are not so impressed.

Well I'm not surprised, given the intellectual capacity on the Left, that Charisma and Personality = touchdowns. Sounds about right. Given that Obama was, or will be, chosen as the democratic nominee by approximately 5% of the voting public (a public entrenched in the cult of personality and frenzied hate for the current administrstion, by the way, and nothing more) should signal a cautionary reminder that many are not so politically rabid as it pertains to the ideology of Marxist theology and the natural tendency is toward moderation and conservatism.
Your objectivity, or lack thereof, may prevent you from stacking charisma up against the legislative and
military experience of his potentia...

Well I'm not surprised, given the intellectual capacity on the Left, that Charisma and Personality = touchdowns. Sounds about right. Given that Obama was, or will be, chosen as the democratic nominee by approximately 5% of the voting public (a public entrenched in the cult of personality and frenzied hate for the current administrstion, by the way, and nothing more) should signal a cautionary reminder that many are not so politically rabid as it pertains to the ideology of Marxist theology and the natural tendency is toward moderation and conservatism.
Your objectivity, or lack thereof, may prevent you from stacking charisma up against the legislative and
military experience of his potential opponent. Prudence may not have served the Dems well. All the clamoring that Republicans would much rather face Clinton in a general election was just that...clamoring. The Right got who they want.

Obama/Clinton experience:
- Obama starts as community organizer: Hillary has rarely worked among "the people," but has spent her entire career in positions of power. As we see so often on CM, the people who've been in the trenches know things about poverty the people of power don't know. Hillary's "35 years of experience" were mainly spent on corporate boards (including six for Wal-Mart) and defending big business as a corporate lawyer.
- Obama as Constitutional law expert: Obama graduates No. 1 at Harvard Law; teaches constitutional law at U of Chicago; His career has been devoted to public sector law; Hillary's experience is in corporate law. Which better equips a future president?...

Obama/Clinton experience:
- Obama starts as community organizer: Hillary has rarely worked among "the people," but has spent her entire career in positions of power. As we see so often on CM, the people who've been in the trenches know things about poverty the people of power don't know. Hillary's "35 years of experience" were mainly spent on corporate boards (including six for Wal-Mart) and defending big business as a corporate lawyer.
- Obama as Constitutional law expert: Obama graduates No. 1 at Harvard Law; teaches constitutional law at U of Chicago; His career has been devoted to public sector law; Hillary's experience is in corporate law. Which better equips a future president?
- Elective office: Obama has held elected office a little longer than Hillary has, and began in in the very rough world of Chicago politics, where he was praised by people of both parties for his ability to advance issues on both sides of the aisle. Hillary holds the only office she's ever held in the only body she's ever served among - and it's the same position held now by Obama. She's been there just a couple of years longer.
- Personal achievement: Obama is where he is entirely on his own credentials. Hillary's political fame, only six or eight years ago, was mostly a product of her husband's career. Would she be an above-average Senator from New York had no one in New York heard of her prior to her move there? Would she be a well-known presidential candidate absent Bill's coat-tails? The break-through for women seems rather dramatically less when one realizes how much of this particular woman's career was born of privilege resulting from marriage to a powerful man.

Neither one is a giant of experience (like, say, Dick Cheney, or "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" McCain). But [i][url=http://masbury.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/presidential-historians-judgment-more-important-than-experience/]presidential historians have held that those presidents who have m

Enbar, Noonan is a very bright person and very politically savvy but I do think she is wrong, or at least insincere as most of the Right has been. There will be no backlash for any Conservative that engages in political debate and questions the experience and ideology of Obama.
Where I disagree with you is on the matter of your apparent perception with regard to negative campaigning.

I certainly agree that the gutter is damaging to both sides and I admit that attacking Obama in a personal way would sink a Republican candidate. As it should.

I disagree that he is bulletproof in regard to his ideology and experience. The point of my comment was the fact that these debates are what Conserva...

Enbar, Noonan is a very bright person and very politically savvy but I do think she is wrong, or at least insincere as most of the Right has been. There will be no backlash for any Conservative that engages in political debate and questions the experience and ideology of Obama.
Where I disagree with you is on the matter of your apparent perception with regard to negative campaigning.

I certainly agree that the gutter is damaging to both sides and I admit that attacking Obama in a personal way would sink a Republican candidate. As it should.

I disagree that he is bulletproof in regard to his ideology and experience. The point of my comment was the fact that these debates are what Conservatives always engage in not the "politics of personal destruction" which we see here at Clipmarks is a favorite hobby of the Left.

Between McCain and Obama I think we could see one of the friendliest campaigns in history and it is hard for me to determine who comes out better if that is the case. However, the sensitivity of Libs should be disregarded as it pertains to the fact that Obama is a campaign based on the cult of personality and that is clear in Noonan's comments. I just happen to think substance will eventually matter. Questions of substance are not personal attacks.

Clinton would be easy to attack and Obama would be harder. I still don't see on what basis you disagree with that claim.

I think that point is correct in the context of the personal baggage Senator Clinton carries with her. I agree with Noonan in that respect ( of personal attacks ). And I think personal attacks are what Noonan is referring to.
Making an issue out of Senator Clinton's unscrupulous past and present would likely be beneficial because of her high negative rating.
Noonan is right, I believe, in the sense that you do not attack Sen. Obama in the way the Clinton campaign attacked ( drug use, kindergarten ambition, race ).
Where I think we differ is the point o...

Clinton would be easy to attack and Obama would be harder. I still don't see on what basis you disagree with that claim.

I think that point is correct in the context of the personal baggage Senator Clinton carries with her. I agree with Noonan in that respect ( of personal attacks ). And I think personal attacks are what Noonan is referring to.
Making an issue out of Senator Clinton's unscrupulous past and present would likely be beneficial because of her high negative rating.
Noonan is right, I believe, in the sense that you do not attack Sen. Obama in the way the Clinton campaign attacked ( drug use, kindergarten ambition, race ).
Where I think we differ is the point of attacking ideologically, Obama is not "bulletproof".( I do not like that choice of words.)

It seems to me from a Conservative standpoint that Obama would be easier to attack on the issues where the conservative candidate can draw clear distinctions between the two. I do not see that it is possible for Obama to run to the center in a general election. He'll try but it would be an empty show. His record would prove his rhetoric wrong. I do not believe this (his record) is what Noonan is referring to. In that regard, intellectually - it would be easier to run against Obama, personally - it would be easier to run against Senator Clinton.

Also, in a general campaign where Conservatives tend to be able to connect ideologically, I see Obama having a very difficult time continuing his empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change". That may work for the 5% of Americans that voted in the Primary but I do not think it will work in a General Election.

Also, I am not so sure you are not taking a leap beyond what is intended by Noonan's remark. Then again, she could be saying exactly what you think. I just see it differently.

Also, in a general campaign where Conservatives tend to be able to
connect ideologically, I see Obama having a very difficult time
continuing his empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change". That may work for
the 5% of Americans that voted in the Primary but I do not think it
will work in a General Election.

Just to be clear...This is important because Obama's hand will only be forced by pressuring him to come clean on his views. I am sure this forcing will be deemed to be a personal attack. However...

Questions of substance are not personal attacks.

Sometimes a difficult thing to understand by some on the Left. So I suppose Obama could 'make' himself a victim. But I ...

Also, in a general campaign where Conservatives tend to be able to
connect ideologically, I see Obama having a very difficult time
continuing his empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change". That may work for
the 5% of Americans that voted in the Primary but I do not think it
will work in a General Election.

Just to be clear...This is important because Obama's hand will only be forced by pressuring him to come clean on his views. I am sure this forcing will be deemed to be a personal attack. However...

Questions of substance are not personal attacks.

Sometimes a difficult thing to understand by some on the Left. So I suppose Obama could 'make' himself a victim. But I happen to think Obam is better than that.

I think Obama will lay his cards on the table and let the chips fall where they may. I have to admit that it is refreshing. And for all the partisanship that goes on, I think it is also refreshing that we could have 2 candidates in the Genearal Election that will not be afraid to play their cards face up.

Interesting Development

McCain Adviser Won't Fight Obama

"I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama," said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered." "I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

McKinnon, who was a Democrat before serving as President Bush's ad maker in 2000 and 2004, said that he plans to be behind McCain "100 percent" no matter who the Democratic nominee is. He explained, however, that if the Democrats nominate Obama, he will...

read more»

Interesting Development

McCain Adviser Won't Fight Obama

"I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama," said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered." "I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

McKinnon, who was a Democrat before serving as President Bush's ad maker in 2000 and 2004, said that he plans to be behind McCain "100 percent" no matter who the Democratic nominee is. He explained, however, that if the Democrats nominate Obama, he will be supporting McCain "from the sidelines."

For the record, some attribute Clinton's recent resurgence to her barrage of negative ( and nasty) campaigning against Obama and this without consideration of moderate and conservative voters.
It seems to me that my view that Obama is susceptible ideologically is without a doubt McCain's strongest asset in the general election. However, there is now emerging a more vivid picture of Obama's lack of integrity. Also, given that his record is being scrutinized more intensely, it will be quite easy to show Obama as The farthest of the Left. America may have lurched a bit Left, but not that far Left.

My instincts have always made me think Clinton would be unbeatable in the general election and O...

For the record, some attribute Clinton's recent resurgence to her barrage of negative ( and nasty) campaigning against Obama and this without consideration of moderate and conservative voters.
It seems to me that my view that Obama is susceptible ideologically is without a doubt McCain's strongest asset in the general election. However, there is now emerging a more vivid picture of Obama's lack of integrity. Also, given that his record is being scrutinized more intensely, it will be quite easy to show Obama as The farthest of the Left. America may have lurched a bit Left, but not that far Left.

My instincts have always made me think Clinton would be unbeatable in the general election and Obama would be beaten easily. I could be wrong of course, but I think things are shaping up pretty good for McCain. I do not think there would be much concern with what particular tactics he uses.
Obama's "bullet-proof" armor is wearing thin. Again, I feel icky with that analogy.