Obama's Ruthlessness?

If this is true...well, one story doesn't change my mind, but it does raise my eyebrows:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Having put my faith in a politician for the first time in my adult life, I'm going to be absolutely crushed to the point of total and complete nihilism in regards to American politics specifically and possibly democracy in general if this is not only true but speaks to who Obama really is...

I read the article as saying that things were invalidated which shouldn't have been invalidated. If that's not the case then I wouldn't be as concerned, but I think, for me, that this speaks to the whole notion of Obama being "different."

I like how he speaks. I like that he's young, net-savvy, and quite frankly not part of the established power structure of our country culturally-speaking. He's as "outsider" as we've had in a viable Presidential candidate in my lifetime.

The only nagging worry in the back of my mind is that he will get into office...and nothing will change. That it'll be the same old bullshit, only much less detrimental and destructive bullshit as we got with Dumbya.

I really, really hope that isn't the case, but I've learned to be incredibly cynical when it comes to American politics. I think it's reasonable to understand how someone who has never had faith in anyone as far as politics goes could be afraid of being let down.

Pessimistic, I know...but I really want Obama to be the real deal and the pessimist in me is waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Hopefully it never will.

...the fact of the matter is, Obama wouldn't let his opponent's get away with cheating.

I considered a possible interpretation. I support Obama, but I'm not an "Obamabot." I want to believe he is different, but I will be ready for him to prove not to be so that IF it happens, I'm not surprised.

It's a reality check. I think he's by far the best candidate of those available, but I think a lot of people around here may be expecting him to march into Washington and change the world.

I think we need to be realistic. He's still going to be working with a Congress filled with Old Democrats. There are still plenty of conservatives in office. Obama's strength is going to be his ability to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to project the international American identity in a positive light for the first time in eight years. His strength is going to be his ability to inject some new ideas into the process because he isn't bought and paid for.

But he isn't the Second Coming. One bitter pill I've been forced to swallow is that meaningful change takes a painfully long time to come around the bend. Obama is a step, and a good step, but I have to be careful not to fall into the cult. That way leads to dissapointment.

SYATC!

THE OUTRAGE

Furthermore, challenging petition signatures is not a practice that is unique to the "Chicago machine" (nice hyperbolic touch in the article to make it seem so much more ominous). I've been involved in numerous campaigns here in AZ and everyone knows that turning in a bunch of bad signatures indicates that you're either unethical or a sloppy amateur. There's no excuse not to check your signatures to make sure you have enough valid ones.

... and most were bogus.

We kept Nader off the ballot in 2004 because the Republicans were cheating to get Nader on the ballot.

It was a simple matter to find numerous invalid signature.

Challenged because a sig was printed rather than cursive, signatures that were good but the signature collector wasn't properly registered - that's sketchy.

The guy running against Sen. Kerry is having signatures challenged because there were 2 dead people's names on the petition and 1 person's signature who is supporting the other candidate and swears he did not sign the petition. This was discovered when the signatures were being validated at Town Hall, by the Town Clerk - not by another campaign. But they should legitimately be removed.

The challenges mentioned in the article are not what I would consider bad signatures though.

A printed name is not a signature (it could be anyone) and there's nothing unusual about invalidating signatures because the collector isn't registered. I'm not familiar with IL laws but here in AZ petitions are rejected for similar things. In a campaign I worked on 2 years ago, my candidate's petitions were misprinted, with the signature lines being a tiny fraction of an inch shorter than what the statute mandated. Guess what? We had to shred them and get ALL our signatures again. That was about 500 perfectly good signatures otherwise. It sucked, but we didn't want to take a chance on her opponent being able to challenge them after we filed and get her thrown off the ballot. It's basic campaigning: You make damn sure you have enough signatures (get way more than the minimum so that you have a buffer in case of bad ones), check every one against the voter rolls along with the gatherers (if they are required to be registered), and make sure they are in the proper format. You and I may not agree with the rules but when you file as a candidate you are agreeing to abide by them. If you think the regulations in your area are too onerous then work to get them changed but don't complain after your opponent catches you in violation.

just and some are not and I can make my own decision about what is fair and what is not. While I don't doubt that Obama legitimately disenfranchised these voters due to the "rules", morally I don't think what he did was right.

I seem to recall someone named Ken Blackwell who tried to invalidate voter registrations because the paper stock used to register was not the correct weight. That was the law in Ohio. Not just.

Did you guys run out of polling material?

Hillary's RW hate site.

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=13708

DU is being used. Evidently they don't care.

What site is giving you guys your marching orders? You need better coordination. It works better if you kick and make comments on the first thread to keep it up near the top. Get lots of sockpuppets to reccommend the thread.

You need to learn how this stuff works before you simply spam openly and everybody sees right through it.

by being a fucking creampuff? That's the guy you want to send in against the opposition. For all the BS about Hillary being tough, Obama is at LEAST as tough, politically.

Just like too black/not black enough.

You guys are completely full of shit. Nothing else. Just shit.

The mainstream media has done a terrible job vetting Obama and telling us who he truly is... just your standard, run of the mill Chicago politician who is willing to smear and obfuscate the facts to win a political race.

It amazes me the naivety of most of Obama's supporters.

"can't take the heat". Except when he isn't. And then all of a sudden he's "ruthless".

I knew who I was voting for all along. The trick is to be tough but make everyone think your weak.

Just running it by you to make sure. :eyes: :eyes:

I guess anybody who doesn't support the altar of St. Obama should be TSed, right?

But you performed a total 180 for no other reason than Hillary's "electability," so the fact that you used to gun very hard for Obama and against Hillary and then flipped overnight gives you little credibility.

And for a time, so did Hillary Clinton.

Obama, not Clinton, has expressed a willingness to compromise on this issue, and is willing to accept seating Florida and Michigan delegations that are majority Clinton delegates. Hillary, however, seems uninterested in any compromise and will only accept seating the delegates based on the un-sanctioned "primaries" held in those states in clear violation of party rules.

.

I guess it was just a campaign slogan, huh?

"Hope and Change!" :puke: :puke: :puke:

It means dick to me.

I just know winners when I see one. And that is all I fucking care about.

I know that is a hard concept for a recently-converted Hillary supporter like yourself to understand.

Just sayin'

- as

Petition challenges are common. If you've never worked on a campaign before, then you aren't familiar with the notion. It's particulary used when candidates declare that they are running and they are required to have so many signatures to be put on the ballot. It's not just in Chicago. It is very common in CA because of the idea that many names may be of illegals...

I remember months ago, Obama was asked about facing up to the Republican smear machine. He answered that he came from Chicago politics and he knows how to fight tough.

Really, this is not a problem.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and then complaints because Obama rooted out a nasty ploy used by establishment Chicago politicians -- bogus signatures on petitions. Think about it.

This story has been around ever since he started running for president. This is not new. Try again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6171014&mesg_id=6171014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6172542&mesg_id=6172542

I agree that it shows that Obama is both tough and high minded but you people really need better coordination.

Can their be any surer sign of a campaign that has nothing to say that it keeps posting articles that were discussed here

3 months ago?

Fuck them.

I couldn't even finish reading that thread. It was starting to make my head hurt.

- as

himself against bogus votes or petitions.

Make up your minds, Hillarians!

Now... a replay in 2008.

Youthful naivete is fine, but there's a limit.

...then I'm fine. I want Obama to deliver on the ideology he sold himself to me on. I don't think that's asking too much.

I want to believe, but I'm cynical. Watching our political system fall apart in 2000 and the last eight years' worth of results gives me plenty of reason why hoping is a scary proposition.

I see this election as perhaps America's last chance to put ourselves on the right track for the 21st century. If it doesn't happen...I think we're fucked. Royally. We're beginning to feel the pain just about now, and if we don't start fixing things now, this economic train wreck is just getting started.

I've never really worried about the economy before, but now I am. Ignorance was bliss, but I can't afford it anymore. And knowledge is scaring the shit out of me.

I think that by the time someone has been in politics long enough and has fought hard enough to campaign for the presidency of the Unites States, some hardball is only realistic. I'm glad he knows how to play the game; that'll help him win.

I think there's a big difference between his Chicago experience and George W. Bush's political maneuvers. I'd be extremely disappointed if Obama was that corrupt, but you have to expect something.

To me, that statement among others, hints of something else. Too in line with Clinton supporters complaints or something, I dunno. On top of the fact that, as pointed out upthread, this story is being pushed on a Clinton site, and you as an Obama supporter just happen to be bringing this up now? Of course, given that you're a fan of skepticism I'm sure you won't hold it against me. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Time will tell.

Believe me, I think he's the best thing out there since....well, since ever.

but at GihrenZabi #39! Must've pushed wrong 'reply'. Keep up the good work!

Good job Obama.

Obama her blessing to run for her seat. She was who introduced him to some of her supporters - that was the Bill Ayers meeting that the RW now talks about so much. Ayers was a Palmer supporter.

Palmer lost the primary to run for Congress so she decided she wanted to run for her state senate seat again - the seat Obama had decided to run for when she decided to run for Congress. She had initially been helping him and then decided to change her mind. Obama said - too late, you already told me you weren't going to run this seat again. She had very little time to try to get the signatures to get on the ballot which is why they knew they were probably bad.

Obama played hardball after she went back on her word.

As we have seen in our msm(ie. Iraq), the press does not always tell us the truth. Hate to break it to you, but it don't. With this in mind, you need to know something about the Chicago Tribune, it's a right wing rag. Now I don't the whole story here, but I do know that more than likely this article has a severe bent to the right.

With that being said, if you are not a Obama supported and you just put this out here to stir up shit, then I say FAIL.

He aint no puss.

Isnt that your argument for Hillary anyways, that she is a fighter? And now Obama is bad because he was a fighter? WTF? Give up the hillaryclintonforum hillis44 bullshit.

Those rules are in place to prevent fraud. It isn't breaking the spirit of the rules to throw out signatures based on noncompliance with the law. That is exactly why those rules are in place. To force people to collect signatures in a valid way and to curb fraud. If that hasn't happened then yes those signatures should be thrown out, invalidated.

Yes it's political hardball. If you don't think Obama is capable of playing hardball then you're not being realistic in your view of him. And why would you want him as the nominee if he's not capable of being a hardass?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

no defense? Then I have to assume it's true.

If anything, the real conlusion to be drawn from this story is beneficial to Obama.

A couple things: First, Obama's people prevented invalid signatures from being used, and everything they did was legal. In other words, Obama won an election in one of America's dirtiest political cities without breaking the law. He should be praised for this.

Second, this invalidates any Clinton charge that he isn't a fighter. He unseated an incumbent without resorting to smears or negativity. Though some may see what Obama did as a technicality, it's really not: If your petition isn't up to snuff, you don't deserve to lead a general election campaign. CNN quotes the Tribune columnist as saying that Obama is not about bringing people together, but just muscling into office. If anything, it was Palmer trying to get into office with phony signatures. Palmer may not have been aware that these signatures were bad, but a good campaign should be able to verify their signatures before proceeding. They bumblefucked their campaign, and the Obama people were smart in not allowing themselves to be defeated by such a move. They had doubts about whether Palmer's signatures were valid, they challenged them, and it turned out their hunches were right.

What happened in Chicago in 1996 is the precise opposite of what this story implies. Saying Obama played hardball is accurate and even laudable, but to suggest that the kind of hardball he played was unethical is wholly untrue. CNN should be ashamed for raising this. It's nothing but gotcha politics. It's a ratings game.

about Obama. If you delve a little further, you'll find that they waited until new voter lists came out (after people who'd moved away or died were eliminated), whereas she had verified her signatures against an old list. She had tried running in a special election, and didn't get the nod, so came back for her old seat. She was popular. So he managed to knock her off the lists (and we get the usual line that he felt bad about it - not bad enough to desist, apparently). Worse, after he won the seat, he barely stayed in it before he started running for higher office.

Presidential candidates don't just appear from nowhere. As we know, his competition for Senate mysteriously vanished too - one in a nasty divorce scandal that, some people say, was leaked by David Axelrod. It must frustrate them immensely that Hillary can't be dealt with so easily.

At times, it doesn't seem to me that if he wins, he'll even stay in office more than four years before setting his sights on something else - I don't know what, but he hasn't lasted anywhere else more than a few years.

from Chicago-and its politics ain't beanbag.

and ensured that others did as well?