What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. […] This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game.
He lays out exactly what I’ve been trying to say for a long time, in a better way than I could have ever said it. Very much worth a read - even if you disagree, because it will force you to THINK A LITTLE to defend your own POV.
Long game > crying game.
Meanwhile, for Republicans, it’s game over.
This one’s dedicated to the folks who don’t take Andy seriously.
» His opponents: Not even close. While the Obama campaign denies trying to raise a bold-sounding $1 billion for his campaign, he is doing quite well on the fundraising front, especially in comparison to next-best Mitt Romney. Mitt scored $24 million in donations in the same period. But not all that money will go straight into the Obama campaign: Roughly $24 million will go to the Democratic National Campaign’s efforts reelect members of Congress and the Senate.
» Bye bye, Ben: Bowing out from what was expected to be a heavily-contested race in Nebraska, Democrat Ben Nelson has decided to retire from his seat in 2012, a move likely to disappoint those concerned with the Democratic Party’s ability to maintain control of the Senate. Nelson was one of the most rightward leaning members of the Democratic Senate (perhaps less so than Joe Manchin), having supported the Bush tax cuts and railing against the health care reform law as a “government takeover” before ultimately supporting it, with some big conditions: recall that infamous “cornhusker kickback?” Yeah, that was him.
» What this means: While the movement does enjoy a plurality of support (in this poll, at this moment in time), a huge percentage of people haven’t yet made up their minds about it. This means there’s a lot of room for public opinion to swing either way, so decisions on the part of OWS’s still-emerging leadership over the next couple of months will be crucial in solidifying public support or rejection of the movement. This, in turn, will help determine whether or not OWS’s message actually ends up affecting legislation that comes out of Washington. Will Occupy Wall Street become the next Tea Party, which has had a huge impact on national politicians, or is it just a passing fad? According to this poll, the answer to that question is “to be determined.”
» And he wasn’t even at his peak powers: Thanks to the long-running debt ceiling debate that boringly captivated the country earlier this summer, Obama had to turn down a number of major fundraising events, lowering his total from the previous quarter. He’s miles ahead of every other candidate, for obvious reasons: The still-splintered GOP field has to fight with each other for the right to take on Obama next November.
No one is going to get perfect in a general election candidate. That is why we think the Senate is a better place to focus.FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe • Effectively saying that Tea Party groups plan to focus on the presidential election, and instead put their energies towards helping the GOP win back the U.S. Senate, which the Democrats control with a slight majority. The race totals favor the GOP winning more seats — 23 of the 33 seats up for grabs next year are in Democratic power, and at least a few of those seats up for grabs because Senators are retiring — most notably those of Jim Webb and Kent Conrad. Do you guys think the GOP has a chance at getting the Senate back in 2012, especially considering increased Tea Party focus? source (via • follow)