Deal or No Deal?

[metta 0]

source

<h2 class="h2-article">Deal or No Deal?</h2> By Gary Andres

My two younger kids love to watch the NBC television game show "Deal or No Deal." Contestants pick a suitcase that could include up to $1 million in cash. And then, guided by host Howie Mandel, they sweat out a series of decisions between accepting a known offer of money to buy their suitcase (for less than a million) or playing on in hopes of winning the big prize.

It's a nerve-wracking process, and the players express wild swings in emotions including fear, greed, doubt, joy and anguish. In the end, some are ecstatic winners and others disappointed losers -- and the calculus of choice is often agonizing and exhausting. It kind of reminds me of the Democratic primary process.

Over the past week, Barack Obama's inevitability has appeared less certain, his political mortality more evident than ever. How the process will end remains unclear, but there is a growing sense among Democrats that choosing Mr. Obama is not a risk-free exercise. Is he the suitcase with the million-dollar jackpot or a risky political bust?

Several factors contribute to a growing sense of anxiety about the Obama drama. First, how does he handle big political stumbles? The answer: like a minor leaguer. In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

This week's heightened press scrutiny on several issues, like the trade matter, made the Illinois senator's cool approach to difficult questions look clumsy for the first time. At a minimum, it lowers "Saint Obama" a few notches off his heavenly perch. How to define victory is also beginning to raise doubts among Democratic voters. As Jay Cost accurately points on his HorseRaceBlog at RealClearPolitics.com, while Mr. Obama likely will maintain his lead among pledged delegates due to the proportional nature of the selection process, wins for Sen. Hillary Clinton in big states like Texas and Ohio continue to close the popular vote gap. As Mr. Cost argues, if you add in the disputed Michigan and Florida results (both states were stripped of delegates due to holding their primaries early), it wipes out most of Mr. Obama's lead in the popular vote.

If Mrs. Clinton does well in the remaining primary states, she could conceivably come out on top in the popular vote, while still lagging behind in pledged delegates. As Mr. Cost observes, that could represent a compelling argument to superdelegates and might tip the balance in her favor.

Mrs. Clinton's performance among key Democratic constituencies also raises doubts about the Obama candidacy. She reasserted her strong showing among lower-income whites, union members, seniors and the all-important Hispanic vote, according to exit polls. Other surveys demonstrate another ominous finding: There are more Democrats willing to vote for Mr. McCain than Republicans crossing over to support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. If Mr. Obama were to capture the nomination, disappointment among Hispanics and lower-income whites could provide a big plus for Mr. McCain in the general election.

Finally, Democrats express other worries about how Obama matches up against Mr. McCain in the general election. The efficacy of Mrs. Clinton's "3 a.m." national security ad suggests Democrats sense Mr. Obama's vulnerability on the key issue of keeping America safe. Mr. McCain could easily capitalize on those concerns. Moreover, Mr. Obama faces ongoing risk in the gap between his rhetoric and his record. When it comes to bipartisan talk versus bipartisan action, the contrasts between Mr. Obama's talk without action and Mr. McCain's record on issues -- ranging from immigration to judges to environmental policy, to name a few -- could produce some devastating results.

Until Tuesday, it looked like Democrats had reached a collective decision, but that now appears in doubt. Do they take the risk, choose the unknown and possibly win the big prize? Or, do they go back to the original frontrunner, who carries her own set of risks and baggage? Or, do Democrats choose another solution -- one that several pundits and superdelegates now suggest more openly: Why not a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket?

The only thing missing is a deal about who gets top billing. Maybe Democrats need Howie Mandel, not Howard Dean.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

[no name 1]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

[boardashell_2000 0]

I thought this thread was about the game show...I hate that show!!!!!

[Dan J 277]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

[no name 1]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

[Dan J 277]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

You see what you want to see, Hillary can do no wrong.

[no name 1]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

You see what you want to see, Hillary can do no wrong.

No, your assumption is not true.

You think he can do no wrong & she can do no good, as evidenced by your numerous posting of hatred towards her.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

The accused said that he said no such thing and there's no evidence that he did. The news report that started this row was inaccurate - the station that aired it said as much. The Canadians apologized for this mishap and characterized as largely unfair to Mr. Obama. There's nothing left to rebutt. It's mud. And only the Hillbots keep slinging it.

[metta 0]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

Untruth? Sling mud?

1. The memo (a concrete evidence) from the Canadian Consul who met with Goolsbee was leaked.

source

2. Obama campaign denied the story

3. then Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments.

4. then the Canadian Consulate issued a statement diplomatically finessing the issue.

5. now the Canadian government is investigating as to who leaqked the document.

6. As it now stands, its a "he says he says' between Goolsbie and the Canadian Consul General with the latter conceding that they may have misinterpreted the message while being profusely apolgetic (ok make that regretting) the brouhaha which they fear might give the impression that the Canadians are interfering in the US election.

You may see it as untruth I call that "caught red-handed'

Edited March 6, 2008 by metta

[Dan J 277]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

You see what you want to see, Hillary can do no wrong.

No, your assumption is not true.

You think he can do no wrong & she can do no good, as evidenced by your numerous posting of hatred towards her.

I think she can do a lot of good. If she stopped running her campaign in a way that reminds me of Karl Rove and Bush. As far as her stances on the issues, I agree with her for the most part. Thats why I will still vote for her if it comes down to it.

You have been a supporter for Hillary from Day 1. You are too heavily invested in her to really see what Obama might offer. I only made my choice a month ago, right before Super Tuesday. I wanted to see how the race, campaigns played out before I made by choice. How a person manages their campaign is a good indication how they would lead as president. Obama did what I wanted to see, Hillary reminded me of Bush and Karl Rove.

[no name 1]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

You see what you want to see, Hillary can do no wrong.

No, your assumption is not true.

You think he can do no wrong & she can do no good, as evidenced by your numerous posting of hatred towards her.

I think she can do a lot of good. If she stopped running her campaign in a way that reminds me of Karl Rove and Bush. As far as her stances on the issues, I agree with her for the most part. Thats why I will still vote for her if it comes down to it.

You have been a supporter for Hillary from Day 1. You are too heavily invested in her to really see what Obama might offer. I only made my choice a month ago, right before Super Tuesday. I wanted to see how the race, campaigns played out before I made by choice. How a person manages their campaign is a good indication how they would lead as president. Obama did what I wanted to see, Hillary reminded me of Bush and Karl Rove.

wow. Why am I not surprised?

[Dan J 277]

In the Ohio debate, he raised eyebrows by saying he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a blatant attempt to pander to Ohio voters of the protectionist persuasion.

Afterwards, one of his advisers tried to calm nervous Canadian officials, telling them Mr. Obama wasn't serious and that the statements were more political talk than serious policy. The sordid episode makes the Illinois senator look either amateurish or duplicitous -- or both.

Repeating this known untruth doesn't make it a fact. It only shows that Hillary's camp continues to sling mud as it seems to be all they have. Clap clap. Point point. How pathetic.

and yet, he has no rebuttal for it.

*shrugs*

False statements need rebuttals?

You assume it's false. Many assume it's true - esp in Ohio & Texas. I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation but from what I've seen so far, Obama's campign really messed up.

You see what you want to see, Hillary can do no wrong.

No, your assumption is not true.

You think he can do no wrong & she can do no good, as evidenced by your numerous posting of hatred towards her.

I think she can do a lot of good. If she stopped running her campaign in a way that reminds me of Karl Rove and Bush. As far as her stances on the issues, I agree with her for the most part. Thats why I will still vote for her if it comes down to it.

You have been a supporter for Hillary from Day 1. You are too heavily invested in her to really see what Obama might offer. I only made my choice a month ago, right before Super Tuesday. I wanted to see how the race, campaigns played out before I made by choice. How a person manages their campaign is a good indication how they would lead as president. Obama did what I wanted to see, Hillary reminded me of Bush and Karl Rove.

wow. Why am I not surprised?

Is it wrong? Even though issue wise Hillary and Obama are effectively the same. You said you would not vote for Obama if he got the nomination. Do issues really matter to you?

[no name 1]

I think she can do a lot of good. If she stopped running her campaign in a way that reminds me of Karl Rove and Bush. As far as her stances on the issues, I agree with her for the most part. Thats why I will still vote for her if it comes down to it.

You have been a supporter for Hillary from Day 1. You are too heavily invested in her to really see what Obama might offer. I only made my choice a month ago, right before Super Tuesday. I wanted to see how the race, campaigns played out before I made by choice. How a person manages their campaign is a good indication how they would lead as president. Obama did what I wanted to see, Hillary reminded me of Bush and Karl Rove.

wow. Why am I not surprised?

Is it wrong? Even though issue wise Hillary and Obama are effectively the same. You said you would not vote for Obama if he got the nomination. Do issues really matter to you?

PATHETIC.

any credibility you had is now gone.

Edited March 6, 2008 by illumine

[Alex+R 0]

Dev, with all due respect, he just asked you a question. I too have asked why you wouldn't support Obama. I don't see how he has compromised his credibility.