9 Comments - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 25, 05 @ 3:56 pm: Shouldn’t this guy DO SOMETHING before we elect him president? Seriously, he is WAY overexposed. - Pat Collins - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 7:59 am: It’s not like he had to do anything to get elected to the Senate…. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 9:50 am: OK, OK…so maybe a little Obama bashing is freeing to some of you, but let’s get a few things out in the open: Obama was certainly helped by the Hull blowup — but he got more than 50% in a seven-person primary. Spousal-abuse allegations or not, that is pretty impressive, and along with polling before the Hullapalooza that showed him in or near the lead, we can probably conclude he stood a decent shot of winning the primary regardless. He’s forming a PAC to raise funds. Even if you’re a skeptic about his governing abilities — you can not deny his fundraising abilities. And the creation of that PAC doesn’t necessarily imply an ‘08 prez run. More likely a sprint up the leadership ladder (see Emanuel, Rahm; for more details). - Pat Collins - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 12:29 pm: > more than 50% in a 7 person primary Well, sort of. Certainly I am amazed at how poorly Hynes did. How someone who’s won statewide can do so badly is shocking. You’d think the “I know the name” votes alone would be 20%. But given the following facts, that Prince O won the primary isn’t very amazing: 1) Rock solid black voting for Obama; 2) Pappas to split the Chicago ethnic vote; 3) Primaries bring out the fringes - they went hard for Obama; 4) Hull-gate to suppress the “I only watch TV” voters. What I can’t understand is why “moderate” in IL politics always generates a politician with the helm firmly heeled to port…… Doesn’t ANYONE actually look at voting records anymore? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 2:02 pm: >> more than 50% in a 7 person primary >Well, sort of. Certainly I am amazed at how poorly Not sort of. He received 52.7% of the vote >1) Rock solid black voting for Obama; And high turnout among black voters too. But that is something you have to work for — it isn’t a given. Just ask Governor Burris. >2) Pappas to split the Chicago ethnic vote; Again, 52.7% without the white ethnic wards. This just bolsters my argument. >3) Primaries bring out the fringes - they went hard for Obama; For sure. Ask President Dean and VP Kucinich. And if they are fringes — are they really so easily influenced by mass media? >4) Hull-gate to suppress the “I only watch TV” voters. Who was suppressed? Turnout was high. And if they “only watch TV” then does it not stand to reason they’d be more likely to vote with Obama than against him if, as you imply, he is a media creation? >firmly heeled to port…… >Doesn’t ANYONE actually look at voting records >anymore? If by “firmly heeled to port” you mean against the Iraq invastion, well, no answers there. But hell, such liberal bastions as the Chicago Tribune, the Peoria Journal Star and the uber-liberal Arlington Heights Daily Herald endorsed Obama. - Pat Collins - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 3:06 pm: >Not sort of. He received 52.7% of the vote That wasn’t what I meant. It was a very wierd election year. That was the “sort of”. >And high turnout among black voters too. But that is >something you have to work for — it isn’t a given. >Just ask Governor Burris. Fair enough - there is a guy who really IS a moderate. Yet he sits on the sideline, career over. As much as I scratch my head, poor Mr. Burris must be doing it more. >Again, 52.7% without the white ethnic wards. This just >bolsters my argument. I’m not sure what your argument is, actually. Certainly Hynes’s polling would have been better without Pappas. In fact, why she jumped in so late is yet another thing I don’t get about that election. >For sure. Ask President Dean and VP Kucinich. And if >they are fringes — are they really so easily >influenced by mass media? Fringe in that those people DO pay attention to voting records. They would like Obama’s. Surely you can’t deny it’s far to the left? >Who was suppressed? Turnout was high. And if Higher than normal for a presidential year? We’re talking the primary, remember. I guess suppressed was a bad word to chose. I meant people who might normally have voted Hull voted Obama after Hull went down in flames. >they “only watch TV” then does it not stand to reason >they’d be more likely to vote with Obama than against >him if, as you imply, he is a media creation? I will firmly state that I “don’t get” the Obama phenon. I can understand him winning. But not by the numbers he did. I guess my habit of not watching TV isn’t helping here, I have no idea what his ads were. I mean, what is the appeal? Certainly not his voting record. >If by “firmly heeled to port” you mean against the >Iraq invastion, well, no answers there. But hell, such To me, the real problem in Iraq is lack of troops. Bush should have bit the bullet long ago & pushed to add 2 additional divisions. It’s too bad Kerry didn’t make this more of an issue in his campaign. >liberal bastions as the Chicago Tribune, the Peoria >Journal Star and the uber-liberal Arlington Heights >Daily Herald endorsed Obama. Actually, I DO consider the PJS to be liberal, as well as the Daily Herald. In fact, only in their spending concerns can you call those papers conservative (as in the Reagan sense). It’s yet another whack at Hynes that he couldn’t even get some big newspaper endorsements. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 3:33 pm: What’s with all this coded talk about Obama’s voting record? The sainted Paul Simon once supported an idea in Congress to allow taxpayers to decide if they wanted to divert their taxes away from the Department of Defense. He also went from pro-life to pro-choice when he ran for Senate, where he quickly became one of the most liberal members of that body. People didn’t care about Simon’s voting record. They cared about his integrity record. That’s why he’ll have his own museum soon. I think they see the same sort of thing in Obama. Only one-issue or two-issue people care about the intricacies of legislative voting records (unless we’re talking blatant inconsistencies, like voting for the funding before voting against it). That’s not how elections are won or lost. And, please, spare me the propaganda about Obama’s record that emanated from the Keyes campaign. That stuff was ridiculous, spewed by a ridiculous clown. - Pat Collins - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 3:47 pm: Well, if you speak one way & vote another, doesn’t that affect your integrity? And at least Simon won a few elections BEFORE he was canonized (and I didn’t think much of the bow-tie’s voting record, either). As for Obama’s record, what is there to decode? ADA gave him endorsements when he was in the State Senate. Obama himself wrote a letter to a magazine distancing himself from the DLC. When liberal groups endorse you & you distance yourself from moderate Democrats, what else am I to think, but that you are a liberal? I well & truly don’t get it at all. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 05 @ 3:49 pm: >As much as I scratch my head, poor Mr. Burris must be >doing it more. I can’t honestly even begin to wonder what Burris is up to. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, I don’t think anything horrible happened on his watch as AG. Politics is funny that way. >Certainly Hynes’s polling would have been better >without Pappas. In fact, why she jumped in so late is >yet another thing I don’t get about that election. Pappas ran an odd campaign. The whole “suits” thing –not much of a message. She added to the millionaire quotient of the race (Hull, Washington, Pappas and maybe Chico?). Don’t forget — there was also another African American in the race (two if you count Estella Johnson Hunt — but since she made her announcement for IL Senate at a college in MO, and I think ran as a write-in, we can leave her out of it) — and one who had run statewide before too. Granted Joyce ran a poor campaign. One wonders what exactly she and Pappas were thinking. Both certainly had the financial resources to run better campaigns. Chico’s poor showing kind of shocked me. Obama’s liberalism is a lot like Howard Dean’s — largely perceived (check voting on Condoleeza Rice’s confirmation today for a recent example). Both were outspoken against the Iraq war and liberals clung to them for it. Dean was a fiscal hawk in his time as gov (note: I was not a Dean supporter). Obama certainly had sponsored legislation with GOP names attached. In fact, few things that I’ve seen in his record scream “Liberal” other than perhaps voting against a superfluous anti-abortion bill (superfluous in that its provisions were already covered under IL law). Obama also fought off “charges” that he was a member of the DLC - the middle-to-right wing of the Dem party. There are probably any number of reasons why he might have become a media sensation. His exotic name. Good looks. Ability to articulate. Certainly all with a good dose of fluff. But he also is now 100% of the black Senators, even though he’s only 1% of all Senators. That probably counts for something too. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.