Just Back From Obama in Keene

Kegs and C-Span? (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like my kind of crowd.

I continue to be amazed at the interest my peers are showing in this campaign so early.  I have a lot of friends who are pestering me with questions about the various candidates.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:01:06 PM CDT

I watched on Channel 8 (4.00 / 1)

I didn't think he did that well.

In particular: a kid (maybe 12?) asked when he would end the Iraq War if he were elected. The single question that every candidate in each party must have rehearsed an answer to, again and again.

He gave about a seven-minute response and never really answered the question. And he didn't even say something like, "I know you want a date -- here's why I won't give you one."

But the dynamics are much different in person.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:06:46 PM CDT

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying (0.00 / 0)

Hillary would give a set answer, and the crowd would either go wild or not.

Edwards would give you an answer bang bang bang. And perhaps the crowd would go wild.

Obama wanders through the answer, and I actually like it personally. I mean, he did say the answer in there: March 31. But yeah, he took his time getting to it.

I don't mind it, personally, but I'm worried it will fade...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:17:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really (4.00 / 1)

If the answer was "March 31, 2008" it needed to be preceded by: "I'll get us out BEFORE I'm elected President!" And it needed the qualifier: "I'm introducing this bill, but I don't know if we can pass it given Bush's veto power."

But the question really already knew that. It assumed that, despite attempts to end the war, it would still be going on in Jan 2009.

He did not answer the boy's question.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:25:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But what do we need to know about that question (4.00 / 1)

For me, that answer is simple: with all due speed, concious of the safety of our troops, and doing what we can within reason to minimize the inevitable implosion.

I think all the candidates, from Clinton to Richardson, would do that competently. I'm not worried about it.

As far as when, his belief seems to be that today it would take about 10 months to withdraw fully.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:52:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am worried about it. (4.00 / 1)

1968.

Electing a President who vows to change course but provides no specifics. Followed by seven more years of war.

I'm not comparing any of the Democratic field to Richard M. Nixon. But with a trumped-up flare-up in the Middle East, a decision that withdrawal would be unwise is not at all fantastic.

New Hampshire needs to demand clear answers on the War.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 22:00:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's an answer (4.00 / 2)

It depends how badly Bush screws up the situation between now and January 2009. 

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 22:41:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought Obama (0.00 / 0)

didn't want "to play chicken with the troops" and has basically conceded that Bush will get whatever money he wants for Iraq so the bad evil democrats don't deprive the troops of goggles and such?

Look at this title - I"m not making it up in a liberal SF paper.

Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, April 1, 2007

http://www.sfgate.co...

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:17:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I followed the link (0.00 / 0)

And Obama says that Congress will "continue to ratchet up the pressure" to withdraw.

This particular knock against Obama is without foundation, IMHO.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:24:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

follow the AP and CNN links (0.00 / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/...

by  Jerome Armstrong

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:41:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 (0.00 / 0)

And Obama is in many respects adopting a Carter stance: the newcomer, the outsider, the Democrat comfortable with people of faith.

It was a small crowd, and someone asked Carter (IIRC): "If you had to make a choice as President between the economy and the environment, which would you choose?"

Carter said:

"The environment.
But let me add, it's never a clearcut one-or-the-other choice like that."

It was effective. Clear answer first. Explications afterwards.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:47:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards does that (0.00 / 0)

Gives very firm answers, sometimes one or two worders, followed by the explication.

Edwards delivery is, in some ways, unparalleled in terms of rhetoric. We seem to be moving away from polished answers... but to what?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 22:00:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That would have been a great time (0.00 / 0)

for him to do that.

I was amazed that he didn't.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 22:06:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards actually draws less (0.00 / 0)

attention to "controversial" issues like gays in the military and gay marriage becaues he can give "yes" and "no" answers.

Hillary on the other hand obfuscates and the reporters make a story out of her evasive answers... e..g. "knowing what we know now if we knew than" etc...

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:19:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

UL gives 'splaining space to Obama... (4.00 / 1)

...to ping "liberal blog"s:

he Democratic presidential candidate took issue with a weekend report suggesting that he believes that if President George Bush vetoes a withdrawal bill, Congress should quickly provide full funding with no strings attached. Other campaigns privately pointed out the Associated Press report and questioned if Obama has changed his stance. The liberal blog Daily Kos carried a headline on Sunday stating, "Obama Caves to Bush."

Run for the skies! It's a big tent party not afraid of debate!

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:16:15 PM CDT

I was waiting all night.. (0.00 / 0)

for the Iraq "veto" question.

I had a sour feeling in my stomach as he rehashed out essentially the same sentences we saw in the AP interview from this weekend.  He did, however, leave out that one line about "Congress playing a game of chicken with the President", but I was worried that he didn't offer any explanation on whether or not his previous statement had changed or what he meant by it.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 00:42:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One thing he added tonight, (0.00 / 0)

at least an addition to the articles I've seen in the past couple days, was the idea of funding the war in 3-month increments.  That would be real action - not a withdrawal date, but a clear sign that Bush wasn't just getting anything he asked for.  So if Obama wants to pick something like that and stick to it, good.  But it was buried in so much else that it was hard to figure what he really meant and what he was just floating.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:56:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think strategically you DO want to play chicken (0.00 / 0)

But then maybe come to something like three month increments.

I think announcing the three month increments to start isn't even that smart, but this is one of the things I'm sitting on for a couple days before writing about it.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:21:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reid/Feingold.. (0.00 / 0)

is where it's at

I asked the Senator this morning about his thoughts on the plan and he said that he had not read it yet.

I will give him a lot of credit, he's been busting his ass these past few days and clearly has not had much free time. However, the bill is pretty short and sweet:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't appear to be tied to... (0.00 / 0)

...any "must pass" legislation, such as supplemental funding or raising the debt ceiling. So, it can be filibustered or vetoed.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:12:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards' Framing on any veto (0.00 / 0)

is a million times better for the Democratic Brand than Obama's.  Obama does not frame things in the best way for Democrats but reinforces GOP frames and creates strawmen..  I never heard anyone say we should deprive troops of proper gear .. not even the evil Democrats as Obama's frame suggests.

here's a good frame.

http://www.unionlead...? headline=Edwards+calls+for+Congress+to+p ressure+Bush+on+Iraq&articleId=deaa7 43d-27ad-4fd3-9a39-ab9bd1298a16

The Democratic presidential candidate said that if Bush carries through on his threat to veto legislation that funds U.S. troops in Iraq while also calling for withdrawal next year, Congress should "send the bill back to him" as many times as necessary.
"Then, it's the President who's responsible," he said. He said the troops are well-funded for the next several months, "so there is time to do this.

"I think the President has to accept responsibility for a decision not to sign a bill funding the troops," Edwards said.

notice a 180 degree framing difference between Obama and edwards

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:22:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very impressed (4.00 / 3)

Thanks guys, for making me aware of this event. I was able to get tickets and six of us (well, seven, including the three year old) came over from Vermont to listen to the Senator.

Mike, what you say about the wonkiness of his answers certainly rings true. One of my friends commented that it was a breath of fresh air to have a candidate who (1) is able to engage in a certain level of intellectual discourse and (2) does not lose you in the process like John Kerry did to many people.

That sticker is definitely going to end up on my car's bumper.

---

by: omerhj @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:17:55 PM CDT

What is it I wonder (0.00 / 0)

That people let him answer like that, and enjoy it.

If I could understand it better, I'd feel more comfortable. I just worry a little because I remember when everyone though Kerry was "presidential".

I say the same thng before all these things -- I really want to "get it". I don't know if I can explain what I mean by that, except that intellectually a lot of the stuff is in place, but I personally don't tap into the emotional piece. At least not yet.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:33:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think (4.00 / 1)

okay- first I will say that I went to both of his events last night-a house party of about 60, and then KSC.  After each, I spoke with others in attendance- I did not hear a single negative or even neutral comment- and none of these people were pre-committed to Obama (including me).

As Elwood said, it is much difference being at events than watching.  I felt that he was very sincerely interactive one on one- he did not just blindly shake hands and eye the next person- he engaged with each person who wanted to speak, even if it slowed down the process.

At each event, he took whatever questions and ran with it.  He  stressed truth- and I think the crowd believed him.  At the houe party he was asked a 2 part question about fully funding special ed and antother one about standardized testing- by Rep. Dunn.  He answered "No", to Dunn's delight, then Obama quickly added- No to both parts- that with the Iraq was at a half trillion, it is not the top priority.  He did add as president he wants to make it a prioriry- but right now, it is not conisderign the other monumentla problems we face.

He spoke about the drug was and its cost on people and budgets.

He spoke about votes he had on crime bills that were discirminatory and poorly written, that he said we could count on seeing run against him.

To me, he came across as sincere, a "regular person" who was approachable.  I really did feel it was a conversation with the voters- I liked how it did not seem his answers were canned policy papers, and espcially, how he fully and respectfully responded to all questions- whether from a child about his pets, on in the line after the event when he was being pushed along.

I also REALLY appreicated how well the whole thing swas run- no pushing, shoveing, no one promised tickets who could not get it- parking, and on the way out, three different staff/volunteers said thank you for coming.  This was a HUGE difference from the Hillary event at the high school that was poorly executed-

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:10:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also wonder if the... (0.00 / 0)

...crowd of thousands format that our "rock stars" appear in is hurting them.

There isn't the same feedback that you have in a smaller room. It can't be much of a conversation, it has to be a speech.

I'm glad you got to see him at the house party -- I think that's a better opportunity to form a fair impression.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:28:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was a kind of odd moment (0.00 / 0)

as he was wrapping up. He said, "I know you folks in New Hampshire like to lift the hood and kick the tires," acknowledging that he would have to make his case over time. It was good natured, but it also underlined the notion that New Hampshire voters are spoiled.

But the resentment against the NH primary seems to be from people in other states who want a chance to "kick the tires" themselves, not from people who believe no one should. When Obama (or any other candidate) ran for lower office in Illinois, I assume he eagerly invited local voters to "kick his tires." It's odd to think you can bypass that examination when running for President.

I know my posts on this thread all sound a bit negative. That doesn't really reflect my view of Obama. He may well turn out to be my first choice over the next few months; he hasn't done anything to rule that out and he has shown major, relevant strengths before. But I was genuinely surprised at what I saw. The War demands a concise response from every candidate.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:48:19 AM CDT

Kick the tires (4.00 / 1)

I got the feeling that comment was more about the fact that for all the crowds he generates, rank and file workers and voluteers are hard to come by.

It's kind of a irony about New Hampshire -- in this primary state, everyone loves to be a voter, and in particular an undecided voter. That makes staffing difficult.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:25:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thoughtful is good (0.00 / 0)

I like thoughtfulness, v. canned responses, in a candidate.  As for Iraq, any candidate who says he or she is going to end the war before they become president would be wrong to do so, because no one senator or congressman can end the war before Bush leaves office. It takes a majority in both houses, followed by what one can expect to be a protractred constitutional battle with Bush over whether once the president is given war authority, can it be retracted. 

---

by: Frodo @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:48:26 AM CDT

They are not opposites. (4.00 / 1)

It is entirely possible to have a thoughtful, canned response. On some issues that have been widely aired, that is expected. I don't expect a Presidential candidate to need to think through his or her position on abortion rights on stage in real-time: I expect that he or she developed a clear position on the issue years ago.

IMHO, Iraq War policy is now in that category.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:01:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure (0.00 / 0)

As things continue to change in Iraq, not so sure. As the Shiites continue to try to drive the Sunnis out of the country through murder and intimidation, will there be a point where you can't just say let the Iraqis take responsibility, because there are Shia Iraqis engaged in the elimination of the Sunni population?  Don't know, but I am starting to get uncomfortable with the notion that we should pack up and leave to allow an entire group of people be massacred because of their religous beliefs.  Was the war wrong to begin with? Yes, no question.  But do we abandon those people to be slaughtered?

---

by: Frodo @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:16:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair distinction. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I can see that a candidate's position might well evolve in reaction to new events regarding the War -- so the comparison to abortion rights is weak in that respect.

But at any given moment, I would expect a candidate to have a well-rehearsed answer and position.

If someone asks a candidate about an issue that isn't on the front page every day -- e.g., "Senator Obama, do support repeal of DOMA?" -- a thoughtful, think-on-my-feet response is appreciated. But on an issue like the War I would expect every candidate to have role-played with his campaign team for hours already.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:28:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a bit of Twitterworld at work here (4.00 / 2)

all the same. Agreed on the getting out of Iraq if president question.

On the question everyone is freaking out about, however, Obama is currently guilty of bad framing, but that's it so far. I have a feeling the new 24/7 news cycle, as hungry as it is, tends to give these things too much weight. It makes things seem like slides and concessions which really aren't.

If by end of week he comes down somewhere solid, and sticks there when the bill comes back, who cares.

I do have to say Edwards is clearly a veteran of this campaign news environment, and it shows -- he seems to get everything right the first day. That's nice, but not a requirement for me.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:01:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where's Marshall Tito (0.00 / 0)

when you need him ? Yeah just maybe 41 was right about not taking down Saddam, huh, Jr, ya think ?
IMNSHO, we need to end the War...it is an occupation w/o end. We need to protect as best we can against a genocide...we didn't cause the hate, just exacerbated it greatly...perhaps our leaving would ultimately end the violence. Leaving Vietnam was a good thing in the long run for both countries. We were sure the Chinese would overrun
SE Asia and it would fall like dominoes(The Domino Theory)
It like everything else the geniuses at the Pentagon cooked up was dead wrong.
I would rather take our chances with uncertain success, than stick with certain failure...
Bring the Troops Home Now
Put the heat on Congress NOW
Impeach Cheney First !(best bumper sticker of the year)

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 21:03:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Outsourced (0.00 / 0)

The "geniuses in the Pentagon" had very little to do with the decision to go to war, or the way the war was run. It was the chickenhawks in PNAC and the Vice President's office. Whenever a career military man spoke up, he was dismissed.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 21:11:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you think? (0.00 / 0)

I'm reading between the lines here that you don't think my concern about a potential bloodbath is warranted?  Dude, I din't say if the Shiites take over Iraq, the rest of the Arab world will fall like dominoes.  I respect your deep support of John Edwards, I like Edwards, too. That doesn't mean that you should react with snarkiness over a legitimate concern that just because Bush created a mess, we should ignore the possibility that our walking away may result in the deaths of a lot more people simply because of their religous beliefs.  I may not know the answer, but I do know that Iraq is a lot more complicated than a bumper sticker slogan. 

---

by: Frodo @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:13:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Photos from the event (0.00 / 0)

Courtesy of a friend of mine and the Cheshire Dems flickr account.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 19:45:29 PM CDT

sorry -- photo link here (0.00 / 0)

http://www.flickr.co...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 19:45:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama (0.00 / 0)

I have been following Barack Obama very very closely.  I have heard all of his speeches (except perhaps two), I have watched his interviews and I pay attention to the questions he is asked by audience members and the way he responds to those questions.

I have yet to hear him actually give a questioner the answer he or she wants.  Barack Obama rambles on and seems to have nothing definite or concrete to say about anything.

He is running for President of the United States.  It is time voters awakened to this vague, seemingly detached candidate and demand more from him.

---

by: Carl Durst @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:20:32 AM CDT

I saw him at the VFW yesterday (4.00 / 1)

  When i look for it on web, there is twenty million reference's for this womans statement.  I don't want money to pick my next pres, i wanna blah blah blah.  Twenty bucks says she was a plant, along with the knitter.  I sat between four republicans, one who said she was ready to make the leap.  You  could tell every time someone said anything about truths you will not hear on fox news, their was stone cold silence from some and wild clapping from the dems.  Guess you could make that main stream media.  I think he respects peoples intelligence and think they can handle a complex answer.  I thought he was good on his feet, and not only got to ask a question, half of which he heard i got an answer.  This was a small event so i don't want to out myself.  I also shook his hand, I think he scares the hell out of the establishment.
  I left very pumped up, i am wavering between him and Edwards.  I think he has the Charisma to empower a lot of people to get involved.  And he said he does not have all the answers and is willing to listen to other ideas.  He explained the situation about Abu G acting like Bush's lawyer instead of the country.  So i think he had an idea there would be plenty of republicans there.  He spelled it out quite well.  I admit i got his autograph and liked him.

---

by: Pat @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 19:15:52 PM CDT