On the eve of Barack Obama's major speech on race and politics, most Americans said they had heard at least a little about the videos showing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright making racially-charged statements to his Chicago congregation.
At the time of the survey, however, there was greater public awareness of other recent campaign events. Last week, in fact, more Americans said they had heard a lot about Geraldine Ferraro's statements asserting that Obama's race has been a major advantage in his campaign than had heard about videos of Wright preaching to his congregation; 40% said they had heard a lot about Ferraro's statements, while 31% had heard a lot about videos of Wright's sermons.
Looking at the major campaign events of the past month, more Americans heard about accusations that Obama had plagiarized sections of a speech by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick than heard about the Wright tapes. Fewer heard about Obama's connections to Tony Rezko. The most widely known campaign story over this period of time involved reports that John McCain may have had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist - 48% of the public heard a lot about this.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
By the way, where's that survey from?
If you were to take an everyday example of the value of experience, there is not a woman I know who will say they knew all there was to know with their first baby...they think they do until the time comes...and many will say, this is not what I expected...but I am learning...same thing here for Mr. Obama...he is asking us to give him the responsibility of one of the greatest countries in the world, because he knows how to communicate....well, sorry folks, but my years of experience after raising a family of four, living in many different places, can now say I understand what it is all about...time is the best teacher....and a lot more experience in political activity is all Mr. Obama needs to one day be a great leader....actions speak louder than words...and he dose not have enough activity on his performance sheet to satisfy me.
Both candidates have gotten plenty of negative coverage, as the Obama campaign would no doubt point out because of the Rev. Wright comments. Much of the recent negative coverage of Clinton is related to her use of innuendo and misrepresentation to create conflict. Understandable because she was in desperate straits due to lack of a message that resonated with the voters, so she needed to shake things up (the "kitchen sink" strategy, as her own campaign openly phrased it). When you spew negative, the coverage is negative. None of this had anything to do with the fact that she is a woman. That's merely a creative deflection, something her campaign has been very good at (aka, the Karl Rove political manipulation theory of campaigning). In this her Washington experience has served her well, but is gamesmanship really what we want for the future?
People are free to support whichever candidate they choose, but that support should be based on facts, policies, and capabilities. If people believe Clinton's time as lawyer, first lady and US Senator make her more qualified to be President than Obama's time as community activist, state legislator, and US Senator, and that said time outweighs the leadership and inspirational aspects of Obama's message, then by all means vote based on that information.
Let's make up our minds based on the candidate and their actual views, not the spinmeisters or the slime machines. Frankly, the Clinton's wouldn't fare well in the "guilt by association" area.
David, you made the point - and it is well understood: If people believe Clinton's time as lawyer, first
lady and US Senator make her more qualified to be President than Obama's time as community activist, state legislator, and US Senator, and that said time outweighs the leadership" that comment itself puts Hillary in the forefront...
Briefly....Hillary has been in the US Senate since November 7, 2000, after years of public service on behalf of children and families. She is the first First Lady of the United States elected to public office and the first woman elected independently statewide in New York State. Mr. Obama has been in the US Senate since 2004, when he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate.
(If my math is correct she has already been in the Senate 4 years longer than he)
She serves on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and she is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Senator Clinton worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero. . . .theres more.....She has introduced legislation to provide for direct and threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that first responders and high-target communities have the resources they need.
In 2004, Senator Clinton was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; at Fort Drum in New York, home of the 10th Mountain Division; and at Walter Reed Military Hospital to learn first hand the challenges facing American combat forces. She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves.
Mr. Obama: t has been the rich and varied experiences of Barack Obama's life - growing up in different places with people who had differing ideas...On a local level in the state of Illinois.."n the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases." As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.
However, I would submit that being President is not simply about who has the most notches on their bed post. In fact, the vast Cheney/Rumsfeld experience was what got us into the mess we're currently experiencing in Iraq and the damage caused to our international reputation and influence. My opinion is that Hillary Clinton would continue the divisiveness that has characterized not only George Bush's presidency, but also her husbands. Perhaps there is a strong argument that it was the Republicans who caused the divisiveness of the Clinton administration, though I think Bill would have to take at least some responsibility for his actions as well. Indeed, Hillary would also have to take some responsibility because of the secrecy under which she plotted out the universal health care initiative early in Bill's first term. Hardly a bastion of transparency; in fact, it rivaled Cheney's "energy task force" in its secrecy, as well as in its failure to move any legislation forward. In any case, she herself has said part of the benefits of her experience is that she is "vetted and ready to fight the Republicans." Personally, I would rather our elected officials spend time fighting for the people rather than for their own partisanship. When parties fight (as they have been for the last 16 years), the people suffer because nothing gets done.
I also worry that she hasn't run a particularly good presidential campaign. Her hubristic assumption of a preordained nomination left her unprepared for the rise of a viable alternative candidate. She clearly assumed that the nomination would be all wrapped up by Super Tuesday, and when it wasn't she turned to manipulative and divisive tactics to prolong her candidacy. This disregard for common decency against members of her own party makes me question her capacity for leadership. In fact, the Republicans are actually helping her out in these latter primaries because they know they could dredge up the old divisive issues. Even Independents have said they would vote for McCain if she is the nominee. Thus, her ability to actually win the general election is doubtful.
In the end it comes down less to number of years in Washington as it does the ability to inspire and to lead. Obama's campaign has shown that he inspires people to support his candidacy. His speeches and answers to questions show he listens, and he also provides context to his handling of each issue rather than speaking simply to the lowest common denominator in the room. He talks to people like they are intelligent. Whether you choose number of years of experience as your selection measure or not, it is clear that Obama thinks. And given the last 8 years, we need a President who thinks.
You are of the thought then, that being able to inspire and lead the masses will guarantee his ability to turn this political financial disaster around...and he will do a good job...well my thinking is the fact that she has already done and been doing that longer than he has been a Senator, will guarantee her being able to get to the heart of matters, know who to talk to to make things happen a lot faster than all the folks and problems Mr. Obama will be dealing with - unless he plans on working on one problem a day that will allow him the time it will take to be introduced, meet with and speak to all the folks he feels he needs to to make a decision...Its going to take him a lot longer to make all these changes he says people are telling him need to happen...There is a side of me than even would go so far as to say - the Republicans will love to have Obama in there as a Democratic President if their boy dose not make it....they will be able to block Obama a lot easier than they will Hillary....She has played the high stakes games...If only Obama had at least 4+ more years in the Senate I would be a lot more comfortable with his running for the office....
Again, thank you for a good posting...some food for thought...
With that in mind,
Obama has been brought back down to Earth by this latest Jeremiah Wright controversy, and suddenly Hillary isn't looking too bad, by comparison.
If Hillary had divorced Bill at the height of the Monica Lewinsky controversy in January of '98, she would have gained instant credibility with the female vote. However, she wouldn't have had the political clout to get as far as she has this time. So her own behavior has both helped her and hindered her.
But the media clearly uses her as a punching bag.
Not so sure I go along with your comment about the female vote if she would have divorced him...as I have 3 friends who are aware of their spouse and other relationships...and they choose to look the other way...as the one friend said to me when I point blank asked her why...she simply said...I have everything I have ever wanted and am willing to put that out of my mind....interesting...although I had never had to consider that decision in my marriage of 46 years, I can remember jokingly saying I would put up with just about anything but not that, and if he chose to take the chance, there was only one other man that was crucified..and that was Christ...so I probably would not have accepted that behavior...