Obama Slammed As Inexperienced, Untested And Overexposed.

[Carrieyazel]

It happened at the very beginning of this year, but this comment sums everything up; from one of the best men to ever serve in the Senate! If you don't recall it, here it is:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/01/feingold_pokes_.html

[saltpoint]

1. He's leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

I wouldn't fire anybody on his team just yet.

[ccpup]

3. leading?

oh, you mean within the margin of error?

[saltpoint]

7. The trend suggests "leading," and I'm stickin' with it.

[ccpup]

8. okay

but the data might prove otherwise. To each his (or her) own, I guess.

[ElizabethDC]

5. Clinton still leads in NH and SC, and they're tied in Iowa

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Though the SC lead is virtually a tie and NH is pretty close.

[elizm]

12. Depends on which poll you are looking at...

I don't think anyone can say anyone 'still leads'.

[ElizabethDC]

14. I just posted the RCP average of all polls

Thus, I was looking at all of them.

[elizm]

20. Yes, those are 'averages'. The latest polls and the 'trends' tell more of the real story.

...And NO ONE is in the lead.

[saltpoint]

13. Are you sure about that? Reports this past week indicate that

Clinton has likely slipped to second in Iowa, and Obama is now said to lead in New Hampshire:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3880402

(That thread cites a poll -- but it's a PDF file)

Clinton has had a bad week, especially with her husband making odd remarks. The Bill Shaheen comment wasn't exactly a plus either.

Her polling generally has fallen from mid-fall in all three major early primary states. That's borne out in all polling. Obama is rising, as is Edwards. Obama's lead is within the margin of error, but it registers as a lead nevertheless.

[ElizabethDC]

15. Click on the link I just provided. It's an RCP average of recent polls

including the most recent ones from today. So, yes, I'm sure about that.

[saltpoint]

16. Let me ask you something, Elizabeth. Did you feel the OP's intent

was to suggest that Obama's support does not suggest broad appeal?

Do you feel that the polling showing him leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, for example --

_ _ _ _
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/23/mccain_closing_gap_with_romney/

Among Democratic voters, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has opened up a narrow lead over Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, 30 percent to 28 percent. That, too, represents a major shift from last month's Globe poll, which had Clinton with a 14-point advantage. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina remained a steady third at 14 percent.
_ _ _ _


--is published to confound newspaper readers, or do you feel it is an accurate reflection of an existing condition in voter preference?

I ask because you appear to have missed the point.

Obama leads in those states.

The OP purports to find fault with Obama through the intermediary of a third party source.

This would suggest that quite a few million Democrats are wildly misled. I do not believe that to be the case. Do you?

[ElizabethDC]

18. I wasn't responding to the OP. I was just simply stating the polling averages.

I do believe that polling generally reflects the existing situation on the ground. I also believe in looking at polling trends, rather than individual polls. (Obama is trending up in NH, though Hillary still holds the overall lead; HRC has been trending up in Iowa the past week or so.)

[saltpoint]

19. Well, ok. It's a damned tight race in any event.

It might or might not be just as tight on January 4th.

Except for the Republicans. I think they're due for a major shakeup or two.

[fujiyama]

2. Ummm this from almost a year ago

and Feingold does not "slam" him in the least. It sounded like friendly ribbing and Obama smiled.

Your subject line isn't completely accurate.

[Gman]

4. It's not a slam

Obama is inexperienced, untested and WAY overexposed.

[Lucinda]

9. Sums it up nicely for me...

[bigdarryl]

11. The last tiime i checked no one running for President ever served in the office that said there ALL

inexperienced.

[earthlover]

21. Obama is passing the test, and the more he is exposed the better he looks

As to experience, Hillary used her "experience" to explain her vote for the IWR. Seems to me, Hillary learns the wrong things from "experience".

Biden is a good candidate. So is Obama. So is Edwards. I get tired of endless bashing.

It would be one thing for Hillary supporters to say she has lots of experience so that will make her a better president. It is quite something else to say the other candidate(s) are not worthy because they are inexperienced.

Wouldn't it be better, and less Rovian, to tout our own candidates instead of this mud slinging?

[Cha]

24. But, as you point out..

hillary's experience has been to enable the bushites. So, I would rather not have hillary and her "vast experience".

Talk about being "overexposed"..hillary is one big overexposure. She's been overeposing herself since Oct, 2002 when she sidled up to the bushes.

[wndycty]

6. Very misleading. . .Feingold did not call him any of those things. . .

. . .for you to imply that is shameful.

[calteacherguy]

10. That line is getting really old with the voters. Have anything new to offer? nt

[saltpoint]

17. President Kennedy, asked what best prepares someone for the job of the

presidency, replied "Nothing."

He felt that nothing could prepare anyone, no matter how much experience or what kind, for a job of such magnitude and pressure.

I'm a loyal Kennedy Democrat from way back, but I believe a strong case could be made that the man knew what he was talking about.

[earthlover]

22. Kennedy was also attacked during the campaign for his lack of experience...

He compared the experience arguement to looking backward at the wake behind a boat instead of looking ahead....

[saltpoint]

26. Yes. He was attacked. Nixon and his handlers made as much hay with that

as they could, and of course, the election was perilously close.

Kennedy handled himself with absolutely remarkable aplomb in that campaign. It was a young candidate (relatively, I mean), but a sage operating energy informing the candidacy.

God. I just think of Richard M. Nixon and my blood runs cold.

[Nailzberg]

23. "Slammed" is a far reach from "Feingold Pokes Fun..."

Your editorial does not serve your candidate well.

edit: Oh yeah, almost forgot. "Untested" appears nowhere in the article. But don't let that stop you from citing it.

[Cha]

27. And where does Feingold say

"overexposed" in the article? I know that's not the OP's doing but it still doesn't quote Senator Feingold saying, that Obama is overexposed..in fact Russ says that he can't get any press.

"I would like to turn to Senator Obama who has been working on this issue for many years, but can't seem to get any attention from the press in general," said Feingold as a smiling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., looked on.

Rather than flash his trademark grin, a somber-looking Obama clenched his jaw and nodded slightly seemingly oblivious to the joke that had been made at his expense. But when it was his turn to speak, Obama acknowledged that other more experienced Democratic Senators were "ahead of the queue" when Reid tapped him to be the point man on ethics.

"In part, I had the opportunity to work on this issue last year because Senator Reid allowed me to work on it," said Obama. "There were folks, obviously, ahead of the queue and he gave me free reign to come up with the strongest possible bill."

Am I missing something?

[Nailzberg]

28. Yes, you are missing the "disingenuous campaign meme" gene

Suffers are not able to think irrationally when slamming rival candidates.

[Cha]

29. I was hoping that's

all I was missing..I can deal with that!:P

[SoxFan]

25. "January 8, 2007"

I suppose you just happened to stumble across this in the archives, right?

Another faux Richardson supporter spreading the Hillary slime.

[Cha]

30. Not only that..if you

read the article it has nothing to do with what the captions are blaring..so it exposes the manipulation and that's a good thing.