The Risks And Potential Rewards Of An Obama GE Candidacy

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I favor Barack Obama in this contest because I see no substantive differences on the issues meaningful to me (others see such differences, it is due to their taking meaning in differences I do not find meaning in) and because I find Obama more electable than Clinton (mostly because of how each is perceived and treated by the Media and existing negative baggage (unfair baggage no doubt) for Clinton.) Obama is also an electoral map changer in the West, where Democrats can make real short and medium term gains (as opposed to the South.) The one worry on that front is his weakness with Latinos.

Ron Brownstein reports on these electoral differences:

With the general election choice still so unformed for voters, the trends are not consistent across all surveys. Still, the emerging picture indicates that against McCain, Obama might cast a wider net than Clinton, but also need to plug more leaks in his boat.

. . . [M]any Democrats think Obama offers greater potential rewards as a nominee, but also presents greater risks. If Obama runs well, he seems more likely than Clinton to assemble a big majority and trigger a Democratic sweep -- not only by attracting independents and crossover Republicans but also by increasing turnout among African-Americans and young people.

But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain, principally on security issues. Clinton's reach across the electorate may not be as long, but her grip on her voters could be firmer.

The larger point is that each of these talented candidates continues to display stubborn electoral vulnerabilities that the other might reduce. That's why talk of their running together is likely to continue no matter how much they bruise each other in the grueling and probably inconclusive weeks ahead.

I say yep to every point Brownstein makes here. My choice is to roll the dice with Obama and go for the bigger victory. Clinton is no guarantee. Neither is Obama. But Obama's potential reward is greater. Still, the best ticket is the so-called "Dream Ticket." Obama-Clinton.

< FL Dems: Your Chance Tell The FL Dem Party What You Want Done About A Revote Primary | Report: Agreement Imminent on Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Over at openleft, Stoller has an (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    article about older white democrats who intend to vote for McCain over Obama. He bascally explains it as racism.

    He just doesn't get it. In a contest between a war hero, 20 odd year Senator and a guy who was a state senator a few years ago race is not the problem.

    Experience, experience, experience.

    That is on Stoller (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    who is prone to write very silly things at times.

    And Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:51 AM EST
    Who is not a war hero, nor has 20 years of legislative experience.

    If it comes down to nothing more than experience, then McCain beats the living hell out of both of them, and we should be running Ted Kennedy.


    As I have said before, McCain has (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    more experience then Clinton, but she has enough to at least comptete. 8 years as Senator, First lady (which does actually count). Obama does not have enough. And he often admits that.

    Take a page from Hannibal. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    Do not let your opponent dictate the field of battle.

    Better to discredit the judgement of his experience than to try to fight against the experience.

    "We both have lots of experience.  Him as a war hero, and me as a first lady."  

    Doesn't sound very convincing to me.  Maybe it does to others though.  Not sure.


    Hannibal lost. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    Not to mention: do we want (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    our candidates assoc. with elephants?

    Not because of strategy. nt (none / 0) (#57)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:32 PM EST
    Perception (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    Because of her longevity in the national psyche, because of her age, because of her gravitas and because Americans associate her with peace and prosperity, she automatically comes across as more experienced.

    You can say, "yeah, but-" all you want, but the perception is there.  America has known Hillary Clinton for almost two full decades.  That history translates into experience.


    They Both Have Problems In The General (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    ...and i agree with these as stated, so i think that it is pointless to try to argue down the problems as a partisan of either candidate. It is like investments: Obama is the riskier candidate, who has more unknowns on the national scene, and therefore might lead to either a bigger upside or downside. Hillary is a steadier investment, but this includes a well known downside and less potential growth. She is less likely, though, IMHO, to lose support than to gain it.

    The Obama supporters have to face it honestly: Obama has less experience than any other candidate run for president by any major party since the civil war. This makes a large number of democrats nervous, including myself, and trying to explain or argue it away doesn't cut much ice. On the other hand, it can't be denied that Hillary stirs up a firestorm of negative emotions. I favor Hillary, but not by much, and Barack has enthusiasm of support that is invaluable. Too bad we can't combine Barack's and Hillary's positives - or maybe we can...

    We have to honestly face that both candidates, while better as candidates in many ways than most of the people we have sent up in the general in the past thirty years, have serious drawbacks that are not going away, no matter how much hot air we expend on counteracting them. Yet, both candidates have mostly been polling ahead of mccain lately.


    BS (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    The Obama supporters have to face it honestly: Obama has less experience than any other candidate run for president by any major party since the civil war.

    Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and I am sure that there are more.


    One cannot state that FDR was (none / 0) (#199)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    inexperienced, if that is what you were trying to convey.

    He was a state senator,  Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a VP nominee, and Governor of New York before being elected President.  

     Asides from being a war hero, Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was a well respected Governor of New York.

    Not inexperienced, either


    OK (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:13:26 PM EST
    I missed the senator part of FDR. But still,  in terms of political experience, Obama does not have the least amount since the civil war, that is what I was responding to.

    I think it is a false and silly argument though. Because we cannot know what kind of experience is going to be useful for POTUS. Life experience is what matters and not quantity.

    McCain's experience seems like he will get us into wars and that he will be fooling around on the side. But he does have more experience, a indisputable fact, not good for POTUS though.


    DO you acknowledge (none / 0) (#89)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:38:03 PM EST
    that some of the people who have known her for 2 decades dislike what they know? Just simply knowing someone does not automatically equate to supporting that person.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    but you have to look at the other side of that: many, many more people like her.  She wouldn't be winning states if that were not the case.  She is within 50% of him.

    And if you want to talk about negatives, they are both for all intents and purposes tied in negatives.

    But, even people who dislike her would not say that she doesn't have "experience."  Some of the foundation for their dislike is that she has too much experience to begin with.  Perhaps you weren't around, but I clearly remember, "impeach the president...and her husband, too" bumperstickers back during the Clinton presidency.


    Right now (none / 0) (#102)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    mostly Democrats are voting. Her biggest issues are not with Democrats. Winning states in the primary is very different from winning them in the GE (as I have seen pointed out on this site by MANY Clinton supporters.)
    I do not agree they are tied in negatives. Obama will not inspire the abject hatred that Clinton will in the Republicans. I am not saying it is fair, it just is.

    And yes, I was around, and I voted for Bill Clinton both times, and would have happily voted for him a third. I started out fully supporting Hillary Clinton...12 months ago I would have sworn nothing could change that.


    I invite you to investigoogle (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    I do not agree they are tied in negatives

    poll after poll shows otherwise.

    You are, however, entitled to your own opinion.


    I investagoogled. You seem to be mistaken (none / 0) (#191)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    Gallup gives Obama a huge advantage in favorability.

    Obama is 58 - 34 to Clinton's 48 - 49

    There are more here

    Most of these polls show a much better favorable rating for Obama than Clinton.  

    I just grabbed a few of the most recent.
    The Favorable number is first
    Obama   61 - 28
    Clinton 56 - 40

    LA Times
    Obama   61 - 27
    Clinton 51 - 42

    USA Today
    Obama   61 - 32
    Clinton 48 - 48

    Obama   45 - 23
    Clinton 35 - 43


    It seems to be a rule here (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    if you are presented with facts that refute your belief, you just stop responding to the question.
    Thanks for backing me up!

    negatives again (none / 0) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    I do not agree they are tied in negatives.

    Doesn't matter if you agree. They are. Just look at the polls.

    The polls, BTW, aren't Democrat-only.


    You call a 4-5% difference (none / 0) (#145)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    a tie???? Did you bother to look at the poll? Clinton got over 50% favorable only 3 times.
    If you realize how close the prior elections were, how can you say 4-5% does not matter and is a tie?

    4% margin of error. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    OK....it's very consistent (none / 0) (#169)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    Do you have no concern that Clinton can only get over 50% less than 10% of the time?

    I mean as a favorable rating (none / 0) (#173)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    She's consistently getting over 50% unfavorable

    But they won't go up. Only down. (none / 0) (#184)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    Many many Democrats (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    like her.  There is much loyalty to the Clinton brand among Democrats, as there should be.  That does not translate to general election performance.

    Right and Obama will have his head handed (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    to him in the general election.  That's my opinion and I don't care for anyone else's.

    You keep forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    His 65% approval rating when he left office included Republicans.

    I didn't forget that (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    I also don't forget that that was 8 years ago, and that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton aren't the same person.

    "The Clinton brand" - your words. (none / 0) (#192)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    What electorate are you looking at? (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    The electorate I see is sick of how our govt. goes about the business of governing....sick and tired.

    Am I the only knucklehead who sees more experience as a negative?  I'm on my knees begging for an amatuer over here...any amatuer.


    With HiIlary you win either way (none / 0) (#167)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    Obama supporters say she has no experience. Vote for Hillary!

    Over my dead body.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    I'm through with wanna-be tyrants.

    that's your opinion (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    please state it as such rather than a fact.

    Yes, some do dislike her. (none / 0) (#200)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:33:50 PM EST
    But, others can look past the rumors, inuendo, and misinformation.

    Stoller Is Painting With A Very Broad Brush (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    and I do not think that defining any opposition to Obama as racist is good for him or for the country. I can give you several alternative reason why older people are not real keen for Obama.

    1. They tend to value experience
    2. Older people tend to prefer security over change.
    3. Obama put Social Security back on the table.
    4. Older women are really ticked off about what they perceive as sexism displayed by both the media and Obama's campaign.
    5.Older Dems appear to be more angry over Obama's positive remarks about Reagan and by having the Clinton's being labeled racists.
    6. Many of them have probably had the experience of the "new guy or just the guy" without any experience getting the promotion that they worked long and hard to get.
    7.They have heard every variation of the "new kind of politics", "change candidate" and "uniter not a divider" imaginable and they know it is all B.S.

    It's not so much the experience (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    It's the familiarity.  For better or worse, people feel they know where Clinton and McCain stand.  With Obama, they are not so sure (and the RNC will be working hard to help them).

    Think New Coke (Obama) vs Old Coke (Clinton) vs Pepsi (McCain).  Older voters are more likely to stick with what they know.


    I don't think it will work (none / 0) (#45)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Keith Olbermann already made that political ad.  If experience makes a good presidency, what happened with Nixon?  With Cooledge?  With Rumsfeld and Cheney?  If low experience is bad, what happened with FDR?  

    Experience, as HRC has shown, is not a winning argument.

    Also, I think it would be interesting to throw out something like "The McCain we see today is an invention of 2006.  This McCain hasn't been around very long.  This McCain doesn't have much experience."  Hit hard how McCain has drifted right and how his new positions on tax cuts and foreign policy are not tied to his experience.  


    Did Bloberman Really Say FDR Had Low Experience? (none / 0) (#189)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    25 years of politics?  Secretary Of The Navy?  Governor of New York?  Shows you what Bloberman knows.

    Before He Was President (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    Four years as Governor.

    And Not Once (none / 0) (#202)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    caught in a prostitution ring.

    The Above Was My Attempt At Humor (none / 0) (#203)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:16:57 PM EST
    But FDR was a NY Senator, the Secretary of the Navy, and the NY governor.  In all, 25 years in politics before being elected president.  If Bloberman calls that low low experience, then he'll spin anything.

    And he does.


    I think a recently louder (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    strategy by Obama and his supporters has made him vastly less electable.

    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:50 AM EST
    we are trying to avoid that subject now because of the civility concerns I explain below.

    I think it's essential (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    to a thorough discussion of this topic. But per your request, I have only alluded.

    That thorough discussion (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    will not take place here. A coherent, rational and civil discussion will take place nowhere.

    Understood (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    tilting at windmills anyway.

    Agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    Obama needs to rein in his people.

    I do actually see a real (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    difference between Obama's and Hillary's health care plans, and certainly Obama's rhetoric (and ads) underlines that he is different.

    Re-read the first sentence of (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    BTD's post.

    I read it. I'm saying I do take meaning (none / 0) (#40)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    in their differences on health care.

    Hillary Clinton's plan calls for universal coverage, which Obama's camp has essentially criticized as undermining choice (using, IMO, Republican memes as evidenced in the ads).  The whole issue there is that a program must be a mandate, like Social Security, for it to work.

    For me, that's a big difference.  


    Yes I Want UHC Too (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    But I guarantee you that we will need at the very least 60 democratic Senators sitting in congress in order to make that happen.

    I do not see it as a possibility even with HRC as president, without huge Congressional support.


    It will take.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    60 senators not in the pocket of the insurance industry.

    May as well be 60 unicorns.


    Yes That Is True (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    But the front end of story that most of the Senators constituents are buying, is that UHC is socialism and our golden capitalistic HC system will turn third world if it is messed with.

    Yes, the insurance industry is spending lots to get that message across.

    One can argue that our reps are truly reflecting the wishes of a gullible electorate.


    wrong (none / 0) (#190)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    You only need 60 senators if you know a bill you are trying to get through will be vetoed by the president. If the president is for a bill, you only need a simple majority in both houses. This, quite frankly, is why we need a dem president.

    Sixty (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    Was because I do not think the dems would come close to voting lockstep for the measure while the Republicans will vote lockstep against it.

    Well.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    60 Votes advoids a fillabuster.  That's what the poster meant, I think.

    NO (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    I do not think that UHC is popular among democratic senators and we will need at least 10 more democratic senators in congress in order to get the 51 votes required to pass it.

    In August of 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002, and exempted small businesses. However, "Even with Mitchell's bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill, let alone stop a filibuster."[23]


    I think it will still be a hard sell for democrats, GOP will vote lockstep against


    Coattails (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NYMARJ on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    The larger majority part - In Texas there was the article about the Obama voter downticket drop off.  A good percentage came to the polls voted for Obama only and did not vote for the down ticket races - that does not help with coat tails if he were the nominee.  Has anybody seen any other studies or articles about this happening elsewhere?

    No... (none / 0) (#47)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    But I did read about the major election in the IL-14.  TX is not a definitive indicator of coattails.

    republicans were allowed to vote in TX (none / 0) (#51)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    I think.  So maybe they voted for Obama hoping that he'd be the one the GOP would get in the GE.

    For the life of me I don't understand states that allow crossover voting in primaries.


    There was no (none / 0) (#201)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:45:12 PM EST
    indication that those cross overs amounted to much, or impacted the primary results in any significant way.  The problem (if you call it that) was that a good portion of the primary voters came out only to vote for Obama, without bothering to look at the rest of the ballot.

    According to Pew Research... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Alvord on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    ... 25% of Hillary's voters will go for McCain over Obama. The defections are primarily among older white Democrats and among women. The defections to McCain of Obama voters is 10%. The blog Open Left has a discussion going on this topic.

    Couple this with the fact that McCain is very popular with independents suggests to me that in a general election the risks of an Obama candidacy are pretty high.

    There has been a lot made of the downsides of a Hillary candidacy because of her lack of appeal to independents and her supposed ability to motivate the GOP base to turnout. There has been relatively little examination of the high risk that an Obama candidacy will fracture the Democrats.

    I think at this rate either nominee (none / 0) (#53)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    could fracture the vote, for different reasons.  That's why I want a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.

    I think it could mitigate some of the hard feelings.  Of course there are some who will not vote or vote for McCain if their candidate is not the nom.


    Obama's defection rates. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    Are low, but it says nothing of those who would stay home.  They wouldn't cross over to McCain, but that doesn't mean they would vote for Clinton.

    Same Goes For Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    Many would also stay home rather than vote for either Obama or McCain.

    I totally disagree (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    There is no evidence for a down ticket sweep with Obama - infact an argument could be made for the opposite.

    With pro-Obama blogs decrying democratic politicians who are not standing with Obama, it makes him seem like he doesn't need them.

    He does not promote democratic principles, Republicans have been the party of ideas... and all that.

    He seems to have peaked - anytime he's attacked he does Mr. arrogant, race, race, I'll take my toys and go home.

    Clinton's baggage is front and center, what can be said about her again, she's been called a monster by someone who should know better.

    Obama has all the negatives not discussed here, like the videos of his pastor, his vote absence, his missed votes, his ... . I'm sorry I don't understand how a Democrat could believe a man with no serious accomplishments, and no history of having done anything, is going to step into Washington DC and everyone will fall in line. That to me is illogical, strictly fantasy realm.

    That's *iff* we vote for Obama (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    And up this point, he has made no effort to suck to me for my vote.  In fact, he has done quite the opposite.  
    The economy is tanking and the the military is overextended.  We've pissed too many countries off and there are ticking time bombs in every level of government.  If we had Hillary, there is a good chance of resetting the clock and getting it to go forwards again instead of backwards.  
    I don't like the way this whole primary season has been rigged to give me Obama and I don't like the prospect of the currently out of power party leaders setting him up with gift coalitions so that he will be beholden to them.  The whole Democratic process has been subverted.  
    If he's the nominee, I will consider it a stolen nomination and I will write Clinton's name on the ballot in November.  

    What (none / 0) (#67)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    Has Hillary done to court the young vote, the Black vote, or the affluent democrat vote?

    Seems to me she's written them off as people, as 'those who need a president' are voting for her.  And she's written off entire states and racial demographics.

    Neither candidate has been good at actually getting the other's vote, but I'd say Obama's made the effort more than Clinton has.


    AFAIK, she didn't write anyone off (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure it was not HER intention to alienate AA's.  That's what makes the charges of racism so illogical.  What did she possibly hop to gain from it?  There was no motive.  
    As for the young, I'm thinking that Chelsea has probabaly worked her ass off for that contingent and from the pictures I've seen of the lines at her events on college campuses. she seems to be packing the house.  
    For the affluent Democrat, well, according to some polls, I and many of my asian colleagues would fall into that category.  She appeals to us very well because we evaluate her based on things that actually count like experience, knowledge base, thoroughness diligence, effort and confidence.  Those of us in the hard sciences find her very appealing because we're data evaluators and the values on her data points are good.  
    When you say affluent Democrats, what I think you are referring to is "pretentious" Democrats.  Obama is appealing to their sense of self-worth.  He has made them part of his tribe and granted them all kinds of positive characteristics by extension.  Most of the creative class Clintonistas don't give a rat's ass about what is cool and groovy.  We're into solid, chewy things.  She's like energy bread; he's like a cafe macaroon.  

    Anecdotes aren't data (none / 0) (#105)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    The notion that Clinton appeals to the young, educated, and affluent to the same degree that Obama is refuted by all the exit polling.

    Actually, she does as well as BO... (none / 0) (#121)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    ...across all age groups with the exception of the young and the stupid.  NJ went for Clinton by 10 points.  This state is FULL of affluent, creative college educated Democrats.  There are enough PhDs here to bore you to death with niche level lectures on every topic than you will see nearly anywhere else in the US.  I looked at the fundraising numbers for my township and it was overwhelmingly for Clinton.  All of my Asian colleagues, and there are a TON of them here, are Clintonistas.  
    We're not snobs about it though.  That's the difference.  

    More anecdotes and name calling (none / 0) (#124)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    If that's all you have don't bother

    JJE Who? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:45:03 AM EST
    Who made JJE the arbiter of what someone may post and when they may post on here?

    from memory Clinton won the youth demographic in (none / 0) (#135)
    by pukemoana on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    California, NY, Florida, some populous NE state I can't remember, and I dunno if there are other states as well.  If so, there's some caveat to the 'Obama wins younger voters' claim--Obama wins a specific sort of younger voter, and it might help to be able to clarify what that specific sort is

    What outreach has Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    done to Asian, Latino, Native American, gay and lesbian voters that actually worked? Despite his efforts, he still looses these groups 2 to 1. Plus I don't think any Dem who does not have appeal to Latinos and Asians can win in the West.

    Honestly. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    I'm part Asian, and I don't know a single thing either candidate has done to reach out to the demographic.  Maybe she did a lot I don't know about, but as far as I know, the demographic is largely an afterthought.

    He's tried to reach out to Latinos, and for some states, it's worked decently (see: younger Latinos).  

    I wasn't aware that Clinton was winning the GLBT crowd by huge margins.  It's one of the more underreported statistics though, so I apologise for my ignorance.

    Neither of the reaches have worked.  But I see more effort on his part than I do hers, and I don't see him saying that states or demographics of people simply don't matter.  To me, that's a problem in a candidate for POTUS.


    there's this (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    There is an "institutional memory" of people when it comes to the Clinton name, the operative said: "It was the Clinton administration that appointed the first Asian American Cabinet member. Also, you saw the creation of the Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. They reached out to APA communities. [They said,] `I want an administration that looks like America.'"


    You can find more if you google Clinton and Asian American community.  HRC has done a lot of outreach as a senator as well.  There was some pledge that was brought up a while back that Clinton signed but Obama would not--I think it dealt with promising to have Asian American representation on their cabinets?  That was a pretty big thing for the Asian American community in Atlanta.  It was all over the local paper.


    I knew about the GBLT thing and Clinton (none / 0) (#132)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    I think she's been pretty straighforward and sincere with them about her views on their concerns.  I can't speak to their other reasons.  
    As for asians, I can tell you why they favor her.  It's the language barrier.  A lot of them speak English very well but they don't get all of the flowery language.  So they tend to pay attention to what the candidates actually say in a more literal sense.  And she wins because they know when a person knows their $&*).  They just see Obama as a smooth talker who hasn't done enough homework.  They value hard work.  They are intensely interested in politics.  They don't expect her to grovel for them and probably wouldn't appreciate it if she did.  They pay attention to body language details and clothing and what it all means.  They find her more intelligent, hard working, sincere and capable.  That's why they like her.  

    That's why I like her too (none / 0) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    So they tend to pay attention to what the candidates actually say in a more literal sense.  And she wins because they know when a person knows their $&*).  They just see Obama as a smooth talker who hasn't done enough homework.  They value hard work.  They are intensely interested in politics.  They don't expect her to grovel for them and probably wouldn't appreciate it if she did.  They pay attention to body language details and clothing and what it all means.  They find her more intelligent, hard working, sincere and capable.  That's why they like her.

    In California (none / 0) (#133)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    Hillary had an outreach thru the Asian language papers and media. She won 72% of the Asian vote. In CA, there are twice as many Asian voters than there are black voters. And this appears to be a community where McCain can make inroads.

    The LG vote is only polled in CA and NY for no clear reason. Once did a diary and discovered that about 30 states have more gay voters than black voters. In any event, Obama started an outreach to GL voters in Ohio. Clinton has been onboard with us for years. She lead the procedural battle against the FMA. And won an enormous victory for GL's. She also has out people in her campaign, something Obama does not appear to have.


    Chelsea Clinton is out on the (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    campaign trail speaking to college students.  Hillary Clinton appeared at that AA newspaper event while Obama declined.  Hillary Clinton yet again apologized to AAs.  

    Clinton has young vote support (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    Not as much as Obama, but she has reached out, as evidenced by the University paper in Austin endorsing her.  Chelsea has been to many campuses and Clinton herself has spoken to tons of campus groups.  Speaking as an affluent dem myself, I feel like she's reached out to me plenty.

    The core of the dem vote is working class, and Obama has done nothing to reach out to them, which we saw lead to the direct result of his defeat in Ohio.  He has also made this a "young vs old" election, and that has worked to alienate many, many older people-you know, the reliable voters.

    Here is the thing, and I hate to agree with BTD because it make him preen, but there is no way out of this without a Clinton/Obama ticket.  I heard it on BBC the other day: they both have a gun to each others heads.  Each needs the others voters.  The only way to make this work is a joint ticket.


    There is no "core" of the Dem vote (none / 0) (#104)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    Working class white voters go to the GOP.

    That's one of the reasons Clinton's "big state" argument is so specious.


    data is outdated (none / 0) (#137)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    The data was compiled from 1992 to 2005.  The self-identified Republicans were 34% in 2004 and are now 30%.  The self-identified Democrats were 33% and are now 34%.  The total Democrats plus leaning-Democratic Independents is 50%.  The total Republican plus leaning-Republican Independents is 40%.

    And what do those aggregate numbers say about (none / 0) (#149)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    how white working class voters identify?  Your chain of logic is missing a few links.

    HA (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    Your link proves that Republicans have made gains, but in hard numbers, working class is still Democratic.

    If you are concerned (none / 0) (#79)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    about our having "pissed too many countries off" Obama is by far your best choice.  

    His opposition to the Iraq war, aggressive insistence on diplomacy, and identity as the son of a Kenyan immigrant will do wonders for our international image.


    you know, I keep being puzzled by this claim that (none / 0) (#150)
    by pukemoana on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    other coutnries are going to be impressed by the US president being AA.  Speaking as someone who's not a US citizen and not living in the US (though I did in the past), this seems to be something that Americans are impressed by, and I understand why that is so and should be celebrated in the US context.  But the rest of us?  There seem to be quite a few non-white leaders of countries . . .

    I'm sure people outside the US could care less (none / 0) (#156)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    about the race of the president.  makes no sense to me that they would, but people have to sell Obama someway.

    Name a non-white leader of a white country (none / 0) (#185)
    by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    I was gonna say that! (none / 0) (#186)
    by CST on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    Also, I lived in Germany during 2000/2001 and I remember all the Germans talking about how racist America is.  GERMANS calling us racist.  Then again, they think the U.S. is made up of Texas and Manhattan.  I think it will make a huge impresion on the rest of the world.

    Obama does not allow (none / 0) (#181)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    himself to be identified by race. The Obama Rules do not allow such observations. I assume that applies to everyone, including those in other countries. Also, define "immigrant".

    Unless it benefits him. (none / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    I view their individual capabilities as almost (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    Opposite. I have worked for both Obama's leadership style (inspirational) and Clinton's Leadership style (influence) Clinton's style is more effective in obtaining result and creating meaningful change and study of effective bears that out.  I also believe partisans overestimate the People desire to vote so Party power grows if they believe there is a risk in to them in doing so. I also don't by the polls on Independents why because Obama's beating has just begun and the resume, trial, current events, church and rookie adviser is no small minus when exploited.

    Unacceptable risk (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by dwmorris on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    I don't see how you can make any meaningful projections about Obama's electability, ability to change the map, coat tails, etc. in the GE until he has been tested by the Republican 527s?  My concern is that they drive his negatives into the stratosphere and he's DOA on election day.  I just haven't seen any evidence that he can withstand the onslaught that we all know is coming.

    State Senator Barack Obama for President? (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Alvord on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    Does that inspire confidence? Not for me it doesn't. Many people know a state legislator. He/she may live down the street from you. You probably even like them but do you think they are ready to be president? Would a year in the United States senate qualify your state legislator to be president?

    Barack Obama is not qualified for the job he is seeking. I think older Democrats see Obama's impressive campaign skills but they also see through them. They see through the skills to the ambitious but thinly qualified person underneath. If Obama is the nominee the Republicans will help a lot more people see through the campaign persona to the real person.

    Obama will protect Obama, not Dem issues (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    Obama is a pleaser.  He will always do what will please his donors and to keep his popularity.   Make no mistake, Obama's backers are mostly from Wall Street and Corporate America.  Yes they give individual donations, but cumulatively they are a block.    The first term will be wasted in gaining his footing and none of the Democratic issues will get tackled.   He will dork around pandering to the "blogietunes" and get nothing done.  He will lose on the second term.   He is ready in day one to pander to all sides with the end result of getting nothing.  No reforms in banking, no economic justice issues will be tackled, it will be a wast of time.  

    Hillary, well she has been around a few blocks, her original lefty leanings, can now be satisfied.  In reading both of them, I believe, Hillary will be the one that will try to implement the critical issues:   Restoring the workings of government.  Healthcare.  Diligent foreign policy/getting out of Iraq.   I think just by who she is she will be more aggressive, and right now, we need aggressive.  I truly find that she is honestly running to get back all the things we lost during this Republican coup d'etat.  

    Obama does not have the passion for getting these things, he has an aura to protect and preserve.  All the idiocy about Clinton voters being racist etc, this is what they see.  They see someone who will stand up, vs. someone who will stand back and protect his ego.  

    Frankly, the more I think about it, the scarier an Obama nomination is.  

    Absolutely yes (none / 0) (#170)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    This is totally my view.

    IF he is elected, I see nothing that indicates he will be a forceful president that can get anything done. I expect his term to be a mess, that disappoints everyone and drives people back to a Republican. I expect the exact opposite from Hillary.

    BUT he is not going to be elected. He is SO vulnerable. The Wright issue is huge. Rezko/Farrakhan too. The experience issue is huge. McCain can easily paint him as an inexperienced, corrupt, white hating, unpatriotic lightweight. There have already been some very effective cartoons. He has only his charisma to set against that and he has already used that up. The hope/change support he has now is all he's going to get and it isn't enough.


    HIllary (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    has always been popular with AAs. Always. She's built that support over decades of work.

    Call me Geraldine, but I don't see where he's got such a great record on civil rights, or other AA issues.

    From the looks of it. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    I'd say she isn't that popular.  I'd say Obama is more popular among women than she is among AAs.

    Not by my own judgement, but by the voting.


    Bill Clinton built that support (none / 0) (#131)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:10:36 PM EST
    And Hillary Clinton's campaign tore it down.  A pity but there you have it.

    Whereas Obama never had (none / 0) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    anything to tear down, and yet he still can't make a decent appeal to women.

    The Large Moose in the Kitchen (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by jginnane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    I disagree that Obama should be on top of a joint ticket.  Here's why:

    The person who "wins" is only 1 human being.  What's next is staffing up the other 1500 or so positions in the West Wing.  Plus all the agencies, departments, extended patronage ... it would realistically take Obama halfway to the first midterm election to start putting everything in place.

    While Obama has successfully poached a lot of the top tier Clinton team from 1993-2000, he hasn't come close to getting all that he'd need.  And his next-best available pool is the people he worked with and around in Chicago, as a state senator.  In short, the team isn't tested -- other than the several who have prominently self-destructed in the media recently.

    With Clinton, you've got a gene pool of talent at least 2 orders of magnitude larger than anything Obama can produce ... "on Day One".  (You know what the first Clinton 3am phone call was?  Waco, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.  Let's see some Kumbaya chanter deal with Texas fundie crazies with guns.)

    But, with Hillary, in addition to the good Clinton-1 people who could essentially swing right into their old staff positions, you've also got the gene pool talent of New York State.  In Hillary's first 6-year term, she got to interview a lot of people who could be a worthy addition to a Presidential staff.  Obama never had time to do the same because, as soon as he got to Washington, he decided to double-up (and shoot for the Presidency).  In short, the important part of actually putting together a government relies on a lot of unknowns.

    A final factor -- maybe Obama has succeeded in "uniting" a bunch of progressive blogs, but I'm college-educated, white, above-average income ... which "should" be BO's demographic ... and all I see is a rather sad Willy Loman character.  At the end of the day, all I see is a bunch of warmed-over policy statements where Obama's minions have tried to convince the world they'd be as good as the originals (that they copied).

    For the first time since I voted for George McGovern in 1972, I am facing an autumn prospect of not having an acceptable candidate to vote for.  I will not vote for a Republican.  I will not vote for an idiot, like Nader.  And I will not vote for a Democratic candidate I consider worse-flawed than Michael Dukakis.  We can do better!

    "One Should Always Forgive Republicans, But Not Before They Are Hanged."

    Something I think. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    should be considered is the difference between an Obama loss, and a Clinton loss.

    As has been noted, Obama supporters may be drawn more to the candidate than the party.  If he loses the primary, then they're less likely to turn out for the GE than if he wins the nomination.

    But what happens if he wins the nomination and loses the GE?  Do they not vote again in four years?  Or do they remain active in the political sphere?

    losing seniors and blue-collar whites (none / 0) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    He left one out. Women.

    Yup (none / 0) (#176)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    they always forget women.
    A mistake.

    weak in some demographics.. (none / 0) (#212)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:43:42 AM EST
    but also, I think the ones drawn to Obama the candidate not the party, is also reflected in the poorer downticket voting patterns.

    They also may not turn out for the GE even if he wins the nomination, as he is yet to undergo the fire of the Republican machine. A significant number may then find the personality they were initially drawn to, becomes tarnished in their eyes, and that they regret their primary vote and switch back in GE anyway.


    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    I really do

    Just add another piece of the puzzle (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    Obama's 45% job approval rating in 2012.

    Of course, yeah, you're right.  You do have to get elected first.

    Carnac? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    Thought he was dead...

    I have a case (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    It would be off topic to present it here.

    I find it a little silly that on blogs and in the media, no one has ever bothered to ask themselves a simple question:  Who would be a better president?

    Look at the case BTD presents above.  Where is that question.  No where to be found.


    I thank you for not going off topic (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    I think I know your case. If it is what I think, it has some merit IF Obama does not adjust his political style.

    See some of my previous wrtings on the subject.

    But now I am going off topic.


    Well I do think it's important (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    Everything else goes out the window if the lives of Americans are worse off in 2012 than they are now.

    And the refrain is, "How can that be?  How can the lives of Americans actually be worse off than they are now?"

    Listen.  It can.  Jobs can keep drying up.  The cost of living can keep going up.

    To wit:  Building alternative fuels is not the only challenge.  Keeping gas under 6 bucks an hour while you're doing it is also the challenge.  Cause if you can't do that too, then you're out in 2012, and the meme goes back to "Democrats can't run things.  They're good legislators but they can't run things."

    Where's the map then?


    I think it is important too (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    and have written on it frequently.

    But it is not the subject of THIS post.


    Yes I could make a case (none / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    that He is the 2nd coming of Lincoln.

    The truth is Obama is a roll of the dice. Hillary is too, for a different reason. While I believe she would be more than a competent president (without Bill's help I would add), I am not convinced she would win a GE.


    Didn't Obama make that case (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    when he announced his candidacy on the steps in Springfield?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    I prefer my candidates to claim they are the 2nd coming of FDR. But then he wouldn't satisfy Democrats these days either.

    NE liberal. Not liberal enough. Too slippery.


    Keep your comment on topic (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    and by fiat, we have declared discussion of a certain pastor off topic at this site in ALL threads.

    Hagee? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    Shouldn't we discuss why McCain should denounce, renounce, and reject him?

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    You know who I mean.

    We are a partisan site.

    Ripping the GOP is our bread and butter.


    ok (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    now I know that

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    I know it is not fair and all, but we deem it necessary to maintain site civility.

    It was a tough call.


    I understand actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    its a horrible story.

    OK, I respect your moratorium on that issue (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    But can I at least point out that TPM has shamelessly made that issue Clinton's fault in their front page post?

    Kay, I'm done. Delete if you must. Apologies in advance.


    I'll leave it (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    because I am chomping at the bit to rip Josh for that rubbish.

    No more comments on it though.


    Probably Champing (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    But I have never been around horses so what do I know.

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    Fiat? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    Do they even make those anymore?  I dated a guy in high school who drove one.

    Good analysis (none / 0) (#6)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    One of my primary reasons for supporting Obama is because he is a game changer.

    To put this in cliched sports terms.  I see Hillary as the seasoned veteran who is reliable.  She can't really put the team on her shoulders and carry them but you know what you can get out of her.  Obama is the young star who is both capable of carrying the entire team when he's on but also crippling the team with a bad performance.

    Obama represents a potential sea change in the political landscape of America.  He could usher in 20 years of Democratic control of Washington, much as Reagan and FDR did.  Yes he poses greater risk but, IMO, it is worth it.  

    I'm tired of Conservatives dominating discourse.  

    Today (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    I am an Obama shill.

    Yesterday, a Clinton shill.

    Tomorrow? Who knows?


    Well as long as (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    you don't become a GOP shill. ;)

    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    I was for  a day, when I criticized the NYTimes for its McCain story.

    Please link to the part where (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    you were a Clinton shill.  I missed it.

    LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    I would say never. Some Obama supporters would point to everything i write, including this post probably.

    Partisans don't like criticisms (none / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    Which is why I am asking BTD not to endorse my candidacy for anything.

    Well (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    I'll criticize them anyway.

    Yes I know (none / 0) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    Therefore I would be screwed either with or without your endorsement!

    I withdraw my non-existent candidacy.


    Best ticket - the "Dream Ticket" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST

    Don't care who is on top.

    Hillary has unfair baggage. And the primary seems to have added to the unfair baggage (and some fair criticism too).

    That is unfortunate and unfair. I am not sure if that dynamic can be changed. O

    I would enjoy the exploding heads among conservatives if Hillary was on the ballot.

    If she takes VP, she's a fool (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    She'd just be another woman doing her boss' work and not getting any credit for it.  

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#112)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    The retort is so obvious and inflammatory I won't bother stating it.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    She'd just be another woman doing her boss' work and not getting any credit for it.

    I would be furious.


    I resemble that remark. (none / 0) (#114)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    I don't believe you could ever say that (none / 0) (#174)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    about HRC

    that she is a fool
    that she is

    just another womanoing her boss' work and not getting any credit for it.  

    Dream Ticket (none / 0) (#37)
    by sar75 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    I tend to think that Clinton/Obama would be a strong - and necessary - ticket, but I just don't think Obama/Clinton will happen. I don't think Clinton would want it, and I don't know if it's as necessary.  Frankly, I don't think (and we'll never know, but if I had to guess) that Clinton will even vote for Obama when she's alone in the voting booth.  I think she'll vote for McCain and hope for another shot in 2012. The same might be true of Obama, although I doubt it, mostly because I think he'd be on the Clinton ticket.

    Also, and I hope this doesn't get me in trouble, I am concerned about just how much diversity a single ticket can have. How many glass ceilings can we break at once?  I wonder if a moderate white male might be best. I also would like to see a VP who turns a red state blue, possibly Evan Bayh or - you're going to think I'm nuts - North Carolina's soon to be former, and still quite popular, Nascar driving Mike Easley. Mark Warner would have been fantastic, but he's going to build our majority in the Senate.

    Anyway, just thinking out loud.... I agree with BTD that Obama is, overall, the better candidate, although I'm optimistic that this economy - and the general political climate - is going to push any Democrat over the top in November.


    Agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    A dream ticket is getting to have our cake and eat it too. How the layers are arranged are irrelevant, imo.

    Not sure... (none / 0) (#9)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    ... who'd be the stronger candidate. Obama certainly starts with lower negatives, but the GOP machine hasn't started with him yet, and if there's one thing we know about Clinton, it's that she'll fight the GOP to the death.

    I'm trying to figure out the importance of the Jeremiah Wright story. Hillary Clinton has apparently made a decision not to touch this--good for her. But the GOP will climb all over it. You can see the commercials already. And while Democrats are chastened by charges of race-baiting, the GOP won't care and go full steam ahead. My sense is that this would be seriously damaging in a general election. Am I too worried about it?

    Lower negatives - not (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:46 PM EST
    When can we finally lay this myth to rest?

    His negatives are within a few percent of hers. Have been for weeks. Rasmussen polls

    Welcome to the show, Mr. Obama.

    If I have to keep posting this every time someone makes the ill-informed claim about her "higher negatives" or his "lower negatives" I will.


    The GOP Machine vs. the Clinton Machine (none / 0) (#106)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    Wolcott does a masterful job of explaining the power of the Clinton Machine and dubs the Obama Phenomenon a possibly "melting irridesence".

    I don't doubt that Obama could beat McCain, but only if he doesn't trip himself up (an uncertainty) or if McCain trips up worse. The Clinton Machine, as Wolcott notes, thrives on the negativity thrown at it -- and can throw it back ten fold.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    Another thing you can count on with Hillary - she's not Teflon but she is media-proof. His negatives could go a lot higher - I don't think hers will.

    As a political analyst (none / 0) (#141)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:16:22 PM EST
    Wolcott makes a good pop-culture columnist.  Kind of like Hitchens but not as smart.

    Wolcott knows New York and New Yorkers (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    And that's what he bases his political analysis of Clinton on. I prefer to hear from New Yorkers about what kind of Senate candidate and what kind of Senator Clinton has been, rather than from the self-important lefty bloggers like Kos who hail from Berkeley.

    As for Hitchens, his drinking and his underlying bitterness have warped his delivery.

    But now this is off-topic and I don't wish to raise the ire of BTD.


    I live about 8 blocks from Wolcott (none / 0) (#151)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    And think he's pretty vapid.  Now that's two New Yorkers you've heard from.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#210)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:41:20 AM EST
    I know tons of New Yorkers. Some who disagree with you.

    Although you seem to be rather fond of trying to shut people up here who disagree with you, I am entitled to my opinion of Wolcott and anyone else I care to opine about.

    Deal with it.


    Oh by the way (none / 0) (#211)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:45:11 AM EST
    I notice you didn't address the substance of either Wolcott's post OR the Wayne Barrett piece.

    I Agree With Brownstein On Where Obama Will (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    have trouble - seniors and blue collar whites. If Obama encounters problems with those groups due to security issues, I believe based on past experience that he will lose the Soccer Moms as well. I don't think he has a chance in getting the majority of older women. Don't know enough about Latinos to state an opinion.

    his problem with blue collars (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    won't be on security it will be ticked off people who wanted Hillary to win.  The Clinton years were good years for the middle class, the last eight have seen some decent highs but some lows as well.  The lows get compounded though by the cost of everything..especially gas.  A lot of middle class people wouldn't mind a return to Clinton fiscal policies.

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#39)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    security will work the way it did in '04.  If the GOP tries, we'll just have to play clips of McCain and Bush/Cheney saying the same kinds of things with the simple question, "Where has this gotten us in the past?"  McCain simply won't get the same kind of water-holding support from the talk radio right.  That crowd will attack Obama, but not endorse McCain, so if Obama's team works hard to push the conversation to McCain's side, asking him to demonstrate how he is substantially a departure form Bush style politics and policy, we'll win with no problem.

    I think Obama has trouble (none / 0) (#66)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:22:07 PM EST
    with women.  I talk to a lot of people and read a lot of blogs - women are not happy with Obama and his camp.  I know I'm not.

    This seems true and why doesn't he try to fix it? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    Certainly, many women support Obama. But many, many women don't and they seem seriously alienated from him. It may not all be fair - in other words, the alienation and anger may have resulted somewhat more from Obama's supporters and the media's treatment of Clinton than from Obama's words or actions. Or a mixture of those. Nevertheless, it is curious to me that he doesn't seem very interested in fixing this problem.

    I think O truly believes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    that the women will "come around" when he gets the nom.  He said as much a while back: Clinton's voters will vote for me, but I don't think my voters will vote for her.

    I suppose he thinks we'll just see him as "likeable enough."

    I also think that he assumes he's done his bit to ensure us that abortion will be protected.  Frankly, from his rhetoric of late, I have serious issues about the soft language he's adopted because it sounds very much what the right wing anti-choice nutballs say.  They make it a "moral issue" and seek to regulate abortion out of existence with "time out" laws and "waiting periods" and ultrasound legislation and notification legislation.  The real threats to Roe have not come from the SCOTUS, they have come from the "moral issues" folk who are restricting the procedure out of existence.

    And don't even get me started with the incest/rape exception, which basically means: if a woman enjoys the sex, she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

    That's where moral issue crosses into legislating morality.


    Well, it could be that he doesn't want (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    to alienate his base - the misogynist vote.

    Really (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    You think all young people and African Americans are misogynist?  Maybe we just like him better.  I'm not gonna say he doesn't get this vote too (kinda like Hillary gets the  racist vote, duh), but I certainly wouldn't call it his base.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    and with arbitrarity. But I wish Obama would try harder to win over more women.

    Not what I said. (none / 0) (#125)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    I said his "base." Not all of his supporters. As you acknowledge.

    And I'm half kidding.

    But only half.

    Racists will vote for McCain.


    Not All The Media Or Supporters Fault IMO (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    I am really turned off by his body language and how he speaks to Senator Clinton during the debates. He talks to her like she is a stupid child and does his eye rolls to the other males around to indicate well we have to humor her no matter how stupid. Typical tactic of discounting what a woman has to say.

    Also, telling everyone that Clinton's supporters will vote for him but his voters will not vote for her just makes me angry.


    You do recall (none / 0) (#115)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    that is was she that said "Shame on you, Barack Obama". Scolding a grown man is not flattering.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    for the same reason.

    I bet you thought Gore's sighing (none / 0) (#117)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    was an unconscionable sin as well.  Also, if you could link to any actual evidence of Obama doing any of this it would make your accusation much more plausible.

    Latinos I know (none / 0) (#98)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    are very fond of Hillary. Not sure why, but they really like her. She's almost a spiritual type figure. They also admire McCain. Many of the ones I know, grew up poor and did the military route to the middle class. With Obama, there is little spark. He and his supporters seem to represent all the slights and insults from the poor years. Not much, but what I hear.

    People have (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    fuzzy memories about the Clinton years lately, but many, many middle class voters remember those times, and that Clinton did more to grow the middle class than most presidents before him, and certainly any president after.

    HRC also did tremendous outreach for the working poor.  She was the first first lady to march in a gay pride parade.  She had an openly gay staff member (who wasn't openly gay in the beginning, but he got outted by the repubs and she refused to accept his resignation).  They actively worked to make sure their cabinet and support staff represented more a reflection of all of America rather than just white America.  This was revolutionary at the time.  Even some folks who were alive back then forget how lily white the face of America was.  And they weren't pulling quotas, they were looking at who was the best person for the job.  It wasn't like Heckuva job Brownie.  It was the brightest of the brightest, the best of the best.  

    Heady times.  I wish more people remembered the first seven and a half years rather than the last six months.  There is a reason Bill left with a 65% approval rating.


    Brownstein's thoughts sound more (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    than vaguely familiar.  

    Indeed (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    I agree with every word (none / 0) (#55)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST

    Roll the Dice (none / 0) (#62)
    by Decal on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    I think this election is too important to "roll the dice" for the potential of a bigger victory.  The war, the Supreme Court, etc., we've got to win now. I respect that a lot of smart people think Obama gives us a greater chance of a landslide but Hillary's floor is a lot higher than his in my opinion.  I don't see her losing much if any ground than where she is right now vs. McCain, but I can see a total collapse coming among those independent/moderate types who right now say they're willing to give Obama a chance.

    I am not sold on Obama's potential reward (none / 0) (#64)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    His gains in the West are more than offset by his potential vunerabilities in PA, FL, and OH.

    If we lose this election, we may enable the Republicans to get out of their box as the party of extreme ideas.  I beleive that Obama is sincere about his post partisan approach to the GE.  His running as a reformer/game changer is running into McCain's strengths.  McCain and the RNC may be able to define Obama as out of the American mainstream.  They are already starting.

    His efforts on behalf of party unity so far have been underwhelming.  It seems that he is willing to trade the loyal base for independents and republicans.  This is worrisome.

    Our strongest ticket would be Clinton/Obama.  It would be much easier for Clinton to reach out to Obama as her supporters generally have a favorable impression of him.  Obama/Clinton could work but the animosity of the Obama campaign and supporters against Clinton (and his GE themes) make this hard to see.  I still don't see what Obama can do to unite the party.  Without a united party we will lose in November.

    There is a (not so quiet) battle going on right now for leadership of the party.  Sides are being taken.  One wing of the party seems to think that we can change the perception of the country about our party by appealing to values and bipartisanship.  The other wing of the party wants to reinforce the view of the party as the fighter for the people.  I am siding with the fighters.  I remember how old Coke vs. new Coke turned out.  Regardles, it would be just like the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    I For One Am Not Convinced That Obama Will (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    win the west. Too many "don't touch my gun" folks and Obama is on record with what was labeled radical gun control positions. Don't think that will position on letting the undocumented have driver's licenses will go over well either.

    Other than the Pacific Coast States (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    He is not going to win the hardcore western independents, gun owners, landowners, farmers, etc. Winning red states in the primaries and caucuses doesn't account for much AFAIK. I live next door to Idaho and I ask, in all serious, does anyone really think Obama -- or any Democrat -- is going to win Idaho in November?

    Not bloody likely.


    What the hell? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    Obama thinks that gun rights are a state issued and should be left up to said states.

    I don't see how in the world that would be damaging to him.

    He's fought against handguns within the city of Chicago, but that's because he thought it was best for the city itself, and not for the state or federal government.


    1996 Questionnaire Will Be What Is Being (none / 0) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    distributed by the NRA and Republicans.

    In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" -- a fairly extreme position.

    "Well he has to speak to his own record, which has obviously changed over a relatively short period of time," shot Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

    HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help.

    You guessed it -- his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.  Link

    Neither. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Is an example of being able to find good help.

    The wastefulness of the Clinton campaign fiscally is a testament to that.

    But Obama is not anti-gun.  And if McCain challenges him on it, he's going to state his position and be done with it.


    Wastefulness? (none / 0) (#197)
    by bodhcatha on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    Let me remind you that Obama spent up to 4x as much in Texas and Ohio as Hillary did, and got diddly-squat for it.  He makes Romney look frugal.

    you need to watch your language (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    I deleted one of your comments in this thread for use of profanity. Please read the comment rules, as it seems you are new here. We can't edit comments, only delete them and I'm very zero tolerance about this.

    Thank you.... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:46:46 AM EST
    There is a (not so quiet) battle going on right now for leadership of the party.  Sides are being taken.  One wing of the party seems to think...  

    Thank you, this is the first time I've seen the idea of an internal Party faction-fight mentioned.

    There have been close Dem primaries in the past, but IME, none so divided-from-within. Even close bitter primary fights leave the supporters not that concerned about the eventual nominee, as it clearly has this time.

    It is two political wings of the Party fighting for control, and the two candidates represent the two factions. wow, great timing for an internal Party power struggle? sigh

    One wing is pushing the spin that there isn't much importance or significance in the policy differences between the two factions, but others of us do see important policy and political differences between them, that go beyond the personal negatives of the individual candidates electability.

    I'm a centrist, (actually a bit of a lefty) but happy with a solid performing centrist leadership, but I'm seeing the right-wing bipartisan faction making a bid for Party control this primary season. (Maybe much longer, wasn't paying much attention before the primaries started)

    If they win the power struggle, so be it, if thats the way the majority-rules numbers fall, thats democracy - all I can do to honor my personal principles is by then withdrawing my support, not responding to bullying, threats and blackmail etc - as it will have become a political Party that no longer represents my political interests or concerns.  Maybe the power pendulum will swing back again in 4 years? Come back to fight again another day. -shrug-

    As for electability, I've read too many MSM recently pushing that the superdels will still flow to Obama even if they did privately think Clinton was the more electable.

    I think she's more electable, because of her solid support base. Old rule-of-thumb in politics : "Never piss off the base".

    Obama has been doing that in various groups, women, seniors, latinos, working-class etc. In Ohio for example, blue-collar workers see him as a spoiled Harvard frat boy, who has never done a hard day's work in his life. Gore, Kerry, Edwards & co all had this problem too.

    Seniors have been there, done that, bought the original T-shirts and bumper-stickers back in 19xx. Some were college kids and excited enthusiastic Youth Voter demographic in their time, too. Some saw the "originals" in the flesh, and a couple of 'remakes' and 'sequels' over their lifetimes. His flip-flop on social security has made them nervous too.

    And women, well, the assumption that they will just fall in line like Obama Girls is arrogant sexism in itself. Maybe many will. Maybe they will even fly high in opinion polls up until the day, and then the boys might scratch their heads with WTF on election night.

    But -enough- numbers from ALL of these base demographic groups will still be pissed enough, wary enough or nervous enough, of him to stay home, at least not be enthused enough to join the ground-troops in the critical Must-Win states that are needed to win the GE.

    And the independents and defectors, we've seen? Hmmm.. I wouldn't bet on it this early, thats a very soft fickle bunch to rely on. And there is also his lack of down-ticket coattails appeal too. Even if I did support his politics (or he stood for mine), I still wouldn't gamble on his electability - too many ifs, buts, maybes.


    I do think that it is more about control (none / 0) (#214)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    and style than substance.  It is generational as well.  The policy differences tend to matter more to us older partisans. We are more likely to remember all the past battles.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#73)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    Can someone help me out with the links here so they don't run over?

    Do this (none / 0) (#144)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    type in the word you want to be the link word.

    Go get your link (URL), select (CTRL A) and copy it (CTRL C). Come back here and highlight your link word.

    The click on the chain icon above the message box and paste (CTRL V) the URL in the box.

    Hit OK.

    There you go.


    Theory and practice (none / 0) (#80)
    by faux facsimile on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    On most of the specific issues, I agree that the differences are less than meets the eye (and I find this a bug, not a feature).

    But when it comes to getting stuff done, the key is the legislative picture. If the Democrats do not have a strong senate majority, and a stronger house majority than today, most of the good ideas of Clinton and Obama won't have a chance.

    Thus the issue of coattails, and who is in the best position to help destroy the remnants of the Republican party in the northeast, secure nascent Democratic majorities in the west, and keep the midwest and upper south competitive.

    Against McCain, in an environment of widespread dissatisfaction over the economy, the war, the Washington stalemate and whatnot, I agree that a campaign based on the rhetoric of change, not experience will have wider resonance.

    It will have to be a wait & See (none / 0) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    Had lunch with 2 Republicans. 1 said he would vote for McCain even if he is too old and hope he picks a good VP. The other said she will vote for Hillary but otherwise, McCain. I have a great fear that Obama can't carry it alone. Experience is a factor as people equate him to George Bush. I have heard that many times. Great personality. I also had the guy say he had heard OHB had a different persona, quick temper when not on camera. I mentioned McCain had his on camera. But I have not found ONE Republican friend in Florida, California, Texas, or Pennsylvania who will vote for Obama. But a few of them in Texas voted for Obama. And the GOP women will vote for Hillary. So maybe the GOP AA would vote for OHB and he would pick up votes there. I worry BTD that maybe he can't pull it off. And that would be terrible. I was for Edwards but I believe Hillary has more of a chance. I could be very wrong. BTW, I have heard a few Dems say they would just not bother to vote if it is OHB. I suspect the same is true for her.  

    Well (none / 0) (#127)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    I know several republicans who will vote for BO if he's the nominee, McCain if he isn't.  And the only time I see BO compared to Bush or Rove is on this site.  I've never personally heard anyone do so, and I'm talking both about staunch HRC and McCain supporters.  
    Thank god blogs and those who comment on them aren't representative of the general electorate. I include myself in that.

    Of your GOP women friends (none / 0) (#129)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    Did they say why they would vote for Hillary over McCain?

    Very simple and honest (none / 0) (#179)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    They would like to see a woman President.

    Impossible to say (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    who is more electable at this point.  I'm not convinced our opinions matter awyway since I think Obama's Math is unassailable and he will be the nominee.  But we can all get our opinions on record for the "I told you so's" if he loses to McCain.

    When it started out last fall I thought that Clinton and Obama would draw the same rightie hate-squad out to vote in the GE, albeit for different reasons, so it was pretty much a draw. But that assumed a nomination that was settled in February with a reasonably unified Dem party. It also assumed an opponent other than John McCain, who I had kicked to the curb and left for dead.

    Head-to-head polls against McCain are essentially a draw right now.

    I hope they use the next debates to show us their best arguments for themselves against McCain. Give the Super delegates a good view of what they are buying.

    Ha - guess I should go on record (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    After all that, I should have the same nerve you all do and actually state an opinion.

    Throughout this entire process I have felt in my gut, the source of all knowledge as Colbert says, that a McCain - Obama matchup would be a disaster for the Dems.  I have thought it was the only one we could not win. Seeing McCain in action tying himself to Bush recently I have started to change my mind, but I am still not convinced Obama can beat him.

    Why not?  200,000 troops in the field. You can argue that the experience gap is only perception all you want, but perception is what drives voters. I can see people giving responsibility for those lives to Clinton over McCain, but I just can't see them giving it to Obama over McCain. I'm not even convinced I can do it myslef.  I'll close my eyes and think of the Supreme Court.


    Totally agree with you (none / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    and am amazed that it's only being brought up now.  Points to a decided lack of imagination in Left Blogistan.

    She can run circles around him like that, if she gets the chance.

    So why. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    Would Obama not be able to take that same stance?

    Because he will be too busy fighting the (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    inexperience charge and the list of McCain's accomplishments from his working across the aisle. (He is the original Maverick, after all)

    Obama can't out bipartisan McCain.

    Did you notice that McCain actually spoke up about earmarks allocation in the senate yesterday. The news made it seem like he was still trying to do his job as Senator while running for President.


    heh (none / 0) (#153)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    because he probably would need a tour guide to find the justice dept, let alone fix the problems with it.  that's not based on experience, just their past.

    The real problem with this (none / 0) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    is that it is just so bloody hard to know what's going to happen in the GE. We do know Obama is exciting and seems to change the game. We know the Clinton's saved us from the Reagan/Bush+Bush/Quale years. OK, both are just perceptions and not necessarily that close to reality, but then that's all we're really dealing with anyway. We know Clinton has some baggage. We're just now learning of Obama's baggage with his pastor and possibly with the trial going on. And we're hearing troubling things from the Obama camp about MI and FL.

    I guess I'm saying it's a bit early to make a case about the GE. Hmm, you'd think I could have said that clearer. :-)

    Candidate support diaries (none / 0) (#161)
    by timber on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    How come other blogs like yoursor MYDD can have candidate support diaries or posts and dont sound inane.  But Daily Kos has been terrible.  It is like it has been invaded by Obamaniacs and Hillary hater trolls who write inane diaries and comments inanely without regard or need to share ideas.

    Daily Kos during Dean and Clark Days was never like this.  It was still a bastion of intelligent talk ad conversation  even between Clark and Dean supporters-- now it is like Free Republic or yahoo message boards with all the trolls.

    I mean are these real people or trolls who aim to destroy the Kos community.

    Can someone talk to the admin there and tell them to get hold of their site.  The seriousness and intellectual conversation on real issues is no more.  The activism diaries during 2006 is replaced by propaganda and trollish comments and diaries.

    Stop referring to it as GE: It's General Electric (none / 0) (#165)
    by jerry on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    I used to be confused and thought that when bloggers referred to the GE candidate, they were discussing the general election.  But now I realize they are in fact referring to General Electric and statements like "The GE Candidate" is a clever example of synecdoche, metonymy, and metaphor.

    But truly, if you would just use Corporate Candidate it might be less punchy, but it would be less confusing.

    Also ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    ... the dream ticket gets Hillary Clinton out of the Senate if Obama-Clinton win, so even people who don't like Clinton gain from it. :)

    I suspect that Obama-Clinton would be better for Hillary Clinton on a personal level, because I think Obama has a keener understanding of people. Thus Clinton can use the opportunity to observe and learn, if I am right. Her husband's knowledge is overrated, and he falls into scorn more easily than sadness, so he sets a bad example.