home

Who's Stronger in November Against McCain?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:37 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My own view is that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate in November because she is more likely to bring a win in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, she wins in the big states, and she wins with rural, blue collar and women voters. Her win in PA yesterday was a mirror of her win in Ohio.

Barack Obama simply is not connecting with these critical groups of voters.

Lanny Davis today gives his reasons. The New York Times will have this article on who can better win the swing states in tomorrow's paper -- and this one on electability.

Why do you think Hillary is stronger -- or not-- against McCain in November? The superdelegates need to know.

Here's the latest electoral map for Obama. Here's the map for Hillary. (Hat tip to My DD.)

< How Does John McCain Really Feel About Hillary's PA Win? | Change: Indiana May Say "No Thanks" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who's Stronger in November Against McCain? | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think Obama's bad attitude (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    will bite him if he goes against McCain.
    I'm talking about his glowering and head-shaking during debates, and his disrespectful comments.
    He does not treat Hillary with respect, but he gets away with this because the media generally hates Hillary. With McCain, the storyline will be completely different, IMO.

    That's a good point... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23:07 PM EST
    ...Now that you say that, he is kind of a *ick during debates.  Plus the "John McCain is old" will work for Hillary, but not for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    He wouldn't be disrespectful to McCain (none / 0) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    cause he's a man.  Hillary cannot be taken seriously cause she's a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    But he pulled out her chair at that... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    ...debate. Doesn't that count?

    [ Parent ]
    Sure! (none / 0) (#136)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:34:24 AM EST
    After he was roundly criticized for past snubs.    Obama can't seem to empathize with the people who talk to him about their problems in the same way that Hillary listens which shows in the way she addresses those concerns.  He acts like a spoiled brat when he whines "can't I just eat my waffles?!" I wonder if he even accused his white side of the family of racism to get away with spoiled brat behavior or get what he wants, much like the behavior of a child of divorced parents--playing mom against dad and getting more than what he deserved.  I am just wondering if that is one of the reasons he acts so elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:22 PM EST
    is way more formidible.  She's attracting a lot of the women who might have voted Republican in the past.

    I think she'd clean McCain's clock.

    To quote my Republican Mom today (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM EST
    "I'm sick of old white men ruling the world."  She followed up with, "but you don't correct for that problem by electing an unqualified, un-American man to rule the world."  She's all-in for HRC or back to sighing as she sends the old white man to the White House.  Now my Mom is not a soccer mom.  Too old for that.  But these ladies are out there in Republican land, and they are just dying for their suffragette moment.  And the commitment to leaving Iraq responsibly, the commitment to health care and the commitment to children doesn't hurt either.

    [ Parent ]
    Wehave enormous opportnity to (none / 0) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    win over soccer moms. Hillary has an impressive resume' regarding women and children. I was impressed with it even before I decided she was my second choice(The female and child demographic compris a large portion of those in poverty which along with her/John edwards health care plan pretty much clinched it for me). Furthermore, its about time the men were called on their bogus "partial birth abortion law"(that basically takes an already horrifying decision and makes it a decision that could affect a womens future reproduction or even risks their lives just to score political points.) and their refusal to pass a law that makes it clear that paying a person less based on their gender will not be tolerated in tis country and companies that engage in such behavior will have repercussions.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone think (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM EST
    that Clinton would've allowed that law to be struck down?  She would've already made it an executive order.  Done deal.

    As for the so-called "partial birth" (a phrase that brings bile to my throat) law, the only thing more disgusting than the politically motivated sell-out of gutless dems is the fact that women are now suffering grievous bodily harm because reproductive rights are no longer in fashion.  

    Does anyone with half a brain think Obama will use political capital to get back some of our-women's-rights?  That "table" he keeps talking about is so full now, I predict they'll fall on the floor alongside LGBT rights and equal pay for women.

    Thank God Clinton is still in this thing.  Rise, Hillary!  We need you!

    [ Parent ]

    Hill (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    Hill represents every woman who ever had to balance a career with a family. She is every woman that had to work twice as hard to get half as far all the while hearing some man whine about how unfair it was that she was there so they couldn't disuss conquests instead of working.

    [ Parent ]
    She's gaining (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
    with women.  Check this out if you have time.

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/hillary-rediscovered/

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#149)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:52 AM EST
    Loved it.

    (And welcome. I've seen you taking hits at HuffPo for supporting Hillary. I'm sure you'll appreciate the climate here much better. I know I do.)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is another Dukakis (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    He'll win the "true blue" states, but not the critical battleground states.

    He may lose some, like California, that have been blue recently but were red not long ago.  No Democrat wins in November without California.

    His delegate lead is due to winning the solid red states that HE WILL NOT WIN in November, like South Carolina and Mississippi.

    Don't forget Georgia, Idaho (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    and Alaska!!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama ties McCain in MA -SUSA 4/11-13/08 (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d328d259-7c45-49ff-a14e-c14c182cb9c7

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton has been thoroughly vetted (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    They've already thrown the kitchen sink at her and we already know all her skeletons in all their glory. She was under the GOP microscope while her husband served as President. Obama is an unknown quantiy. We've only just seen the tip of the opposition research iceberg with him. I'm betting they will dig even more junk up on him and throw everything from the fact that he was "made a Senator by someone who basically put his name on other people's work" to his associations with people like Wright(who I feel confdent is probably a fairly nice person who is being depicted in a horrible matter) and his association with Excelon(they will laugh his rhetoric about change right into next week).

     

    Ambient noise (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST
    Back in late February when SUSA did its 50 state poll, Obama had a small but clear advantage over Clinton.  

    But that is changing (gonna blogwhore again, but because its relevant.

    http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_sour_apples_to_apples_part_one

    Last week, SUSA "revisited" nine of those states, all of them ones that Dems could/should win.  In February Obama's average margin over McCain in those states was 7.1%.  Clinton's was only 3.6%

    But in the past six months, Obama's margin over McCain has shrunk to an average of 2.2%.  Clinton's held steady at 3.7%

    Like I said, these are all states that the dems SHOULD win in a good year for Democrats, and Obama is tanking in them while Hillary holds on.

    People are finally starting to ask "who is this guy?" and they don't like the answers they are getting.  

    IMHO, Clinton fatique will turn out to be a blessing -- if Clinton is the nominee, people aren't going to want to hear the same old crap about Hillary rehashed, or new variations on the old themes.  They are TIRED of that crap -- and they want a new president, who will bring a change in the direction of the country.  So they'll tune out the right wing noise machine, and listen to what she has to say.  Clinton fatigue has made the GOP smear merchants just ambient noise.

    But they will listen to crap about Obama because they haven't heard it before and they are trying to figure out who he is.  They'll just suck everything in and process it, while with Clinton the smear attempts will go in one ear and out the other.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was not a hit at first (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:28:29 AM EST
    with the AA community.  Only when he won Iowa did they get energized and they supported his candidacy wholeheartedly when the thought occurred to them that he could actually win! And where Bill Clinton used to be the darling of the AA community to the extent he was dubbed "the first black president" their enthusiasm practically all got transferred to Barack.

    The same phenomenon with women is happening to Hillary.  She has convince them that she could win therefore her support is growing among the voters of all parties.  It will now be a question of whose support is more steadfast.

    That is why I think that media bias will be made to disappear by "women through lobbying and pressure. Women from all groups and  liberated men will form the core group of her support becausse they believe in the solutions that she has laid out for the country's problems.

    [ Parent ]

    The black community in my (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    neck of the woods is slowly turning towards Hillary and away from Obama. Why?? They don't like Wright either, and they don't like the promises with no back up. They do like that Hillary can say what she is planning to do, say how she is planning to do it, and can say how she plans to pay for it. So far, all they have heard from Obama is "Hope, Change, ME, ME, ME!!" and they don't think that makes for a good President. I agree with them.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#128)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:56 AM EST
    I've been waiting on just this turn.  Nobody wants to even talk about the past.

    Good grief......we lived through it.  Enuf already.

    We want to look forward.

    We have serious problems.  Let's get into solution.

    [ Parent ]

    I really like your statistical work.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:58:50 AM EST
    If your the same p_lukasiak who took down that Edwards' staffer, Catfish so-and-so, on Time's Swampland, then you have two notable blog contributions to the Democratic nomination this year! Thanks for the interesting work.

    [ Parent ]
    *you are (none / 0) (#140)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:59:06 AM EST
    oy!

    [ Parent ]
    Mudcat (none / 0) (#152)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:33 AM EST
    that was Mudcat Saunders.

    And actually, we made nice, eventually.  

    [ Parent ]

    I call it the Water Cooler Effect (none / 0) (#159)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:43:57 AM EST
    If someone at the water cooler has new, interesting, juicy gossip, everyone's ears perk up and everything is digested for future sharing around the office from desk to desk and cubicle to cubicle.  Massive extra bonus points if it's about "the new guy".  Doesn't have to be true, of course, just something titillating to talk about.

    On the other hand, if someone has gossip everyone already knows about regarding someone they're already familiar with AND the gossip is really, really old, people shrug and turn their attention elsewhere.  Kind of like "oh, yeah, I already know that (how boring)"

    New gossip on the new guy is always more interesting and more likely to stick and be discussed endlessly, whether it's true or not.

    [ Parent ]

    My mother-in-law live in Colorado and (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by gish720 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    she does not think it's possible for Obama to carry that state...it's not as conservative as it used to be, but still Coors runs things out there and while it's better its still a very conservative state, don't see how it's possible for Obama to count Colorado as part of his plan to win in November. I do believe Hillary is a better betto win in the fall, her one drawback is how much the press hates her. They hold her in utter contempt.

    We need to start battling it out with media (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    It is about time they get called on the fact that they were so busy being "shocked and awed" that they dropped the ball on WMDs. We need to continue to deride them for covering Britney and Lilo more than they cover what Washington is doing on behalf of its citizens. They need to be called out and cowed until the change or people realize THEY are part of the problem and why instead of substantial debates on issues affecting Americans, we get stuck with who raised how much where which will have absolutely no bearing past 2008 going into 2009. It's time Americans get serious about their leadership insted of determinig it based on who they want to have a beer with.

    [ Parent ]
    Hostle Media (none / 0) (#162)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    I believe Hilary can and should use the hostility of the media to her advantage. We've had a seven year love fest going on where this administration has gotten a free ride even though they have corrupted and destroyed everything they've touched.With Hilary there would be no free ride. There would be accountability. I think she should flaunt this!

    [ Parent ]
    Most people have heard the press trash her (none / 0) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    Those who hate her, might not vote for her, but I know many who hate her, respect her abilities.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at Richard Mellon Scaife (none / 0) (#109)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:01 PM EST
    if she can charm him, she can win anyone over.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary's strengths against McCain & Obama (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    The country needs solutions, yesterday.  Hillary's mind is filled, it would seem, with all kinds of ideas she wants a chance to implement and she can, on request, come up right away with specifics, how to accomplish something, listing factors that need to be considered and balanced, on almost any issue of importance to us.  Her enthusiasm for detail and the tedious process of problem-solving is huge, and her focus is obvious.  She wants to tackle the problems and is ready because she's been thinking about them a long time.

      And has learned from previous experience to listen to others this time.

      Obama's only focus seems clear in a set stump-speech that hasn't changed in 15 months.  He's inspirational there but I can recite his speech along with him, including last night's.  When not following a script, he halts and stumbles because he's not thought about things enough.  She is fluent because she's mulled these problems and possible solutions for some time -- they're a part of her.

      He specializes in vagueness and has shown no interest in details; his chance in Nevada to explain his health plan on stage along with other candidates a few months ago was wasted because, as he explained, his staff would soon have a plan ready on the website.

       McCain has principles but they change from one political environment to the next -- and his positions today reflect the need to cater to the more conservative base of his party.  He has not thought much about the economy and is not well-versed there, as he admits.  His inability to get straight the complex entities operating at odds in the middle east is darn scary.

       The one person who understands these things in detail and can speak about them very well, in understandable ways, is Clinton.  I was against Clinton until New Hampshire, hoping Edwards and Obama would trounce her so I wouldn't have to hear about the Clintons ever again.  But once I heard her speak about her ideas, her concerns, in such terrific detail  that showed exactly how much thought she has put into this, I've been with her.

       She also KNOWS how things work from White House to Congress and back - as well as how the various government departments work or don't work.  She wouldn't have to be taught or have to depend on old dependables to get her up to speed.  

       She wouldn't be unduly influenced by staffers trying to explain issues to her in order to get her approval - she'd know them backwards and forwards but now that she's tasted defeat due to a certain rigidity of mindset and has said she learned her lesson, I'll bank on that rather than the confused mind I see operating with a very nice McCain.

       Moreover, she is one tough candidate and is probably the one person who could weather the kind of lies the 527s would throw at her or any other Democrat candidate.  Obama cannot take even the softest fluff if called to answer these, complaining for days about being questioned so.  If the question is stupid, say why it is.  

       Her supporters are Dem stalwarts and would vote the whole ticket.  As we saw in Texas, his new young people tended to fill in only the presidential boxes and skipped the rest of the ballot.  We need a candidate who will bring votes for the rest of the Democrats on the ticket.

       Obama talks only about a 'movement' (his) and not about the party.  He has spent months trashing the one Democrat Administration that did good things in the last 20 years.
    He did it again with the explanations for Pennsylvania about how the Clinton and Bush administrations had not done anything good by them while clear government statistics showed exactly the opposit for the Clinton administration.

       So, yes, Clinton for the Democratic Party and for this country.

    Here Here! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    Terrific post.  I'd add the obvious point on the demographics of the Reagan Dems in her electability column.  She's been re-branded as a populist.  That shouldn't be wasted in a time of economic crisis when populism sells.

    And on a personal note, I just can't stomach the thought of a long march to November with a thin-skinned Obama and his cultist, whining supporters taking to their fainting couches every 5 seconds to protest negative ads and the racism, my god the racism(!), everywhere and in everyone that challenges him.  Like the Republicans will care.  Sure the R's will try to rip HRC up too if she gets the nom, but she'll take the punches and turn around and punch right back without complaining about it.  The D's need to stop running wimps.  And if we can get a Dem that isn't a wimp, and who also happens to be a woman, then that's a frakking awesome two-fer!

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (none / 0) (#72)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    was humiliated in PA.  He'll knock off the whining, trust me.

    He got the message, even if his supporters did not.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama, not Axelrod, getting the message (none / 0) (#165)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    That's borne out in the section on what Obama concedes re this, though Axelrod shocks the reporter and anyone with sense, when he says

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years," Axelrod said. "This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    I'm not sure Obama would stop the whining, since he hasn't stopped about last week's debate for days now and that was just nothing compared to what he's facing if he's the nominee,  -- and he's getting a taste of that already in North Carolina with the two Repub ads I saw on Matthews' show yesterday.

    [ Parent ]

    Hear! Hear! (none / 0) (#129)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15:52 AM EST
    See this.

    (And I like what you said, too ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Great Rationale! Totally Agree! (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    And as to media bias?  Watch what women can do once Hillary becomes the nominee.  Millions of women complaining to advertisers of shows that show such bias; with threats of product boycotts.  Watch how quickly those sexist programs shape up.  Hillary can attract most of the Obama voters even without Obama on the ticket.  She has after all supporters like Mayor Nutter, Sheila Jackson Tate, Diane Watson, Andrew Young and Vernon Jordan.  The elder politicians in the black community who were intimidated by the younger leaders into switching votes to Obama, will surely be back and will be instrumental in coalescing behind Clinton.  Hillary would know what to do.  This is just a situation that I am sure she has already thought of and has the solution.

    Hillary is tough; courageous; she fights and she does not get rattled.  She will be a real unifying personality.  I have no doubts whatsoever that can implement her proposed policies:  get them through congress (because she knows how things get done in that branch of the govt.) she will protect and respect the intent of the and letter of the constitution.  She will restore US goodwill around the world.

    [ Parent ]

    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    She has not a stupid bone in her body for retaliation, except when it's highly personal.

    I wouldn't want to be Richardson.

    However, the AA guys who abandoned her?

    No problem.  Jeesh*, the woman gets along with Gingrich and just won an endorsement from her arch press enemy.

    She's a uniter.

    [ Parent ]

    If Hillary is the nominee.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    However, the AA guys who abandoned her?
    They were originally Clinton voters, Bill took the AA vote almost 100% when he ran, so they will just go back to Hillary when Obama is out of the race.

    [ Parent ]
    Further on media bias: (none / 0) (#138)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:28 AM EST
    consider Oprah.  Her ratings took a dive when she involved herself heavily in Obama's politics.  Ellen deGeneres has surpassed her shows ratings.  It is going to take her more time to recover from this.  Although her financial empire is not going to suffer that much because she is fairly media diversified, still the prestige . . .!

    And I have noticed that lately, she has pretty much focussed herself on her show and not being political.  I should also add that another AA star in Hillary's circle of supporters are Magic Johnson and Whoopi Goldberg whom I consider one of the most intelligent women TV hosts.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:23:24 AM EST
    Pretty my story as well. An ABC voter (Anybody But Clinton) and supported Edwards until he suspended his campaign but Clinton caught my ear in New Hampshire and the more I looked at Obama the less I cared for him.

    I like that she is a policy wonk and a political operative. She understands Washington, how it works, she knows that the road ahead is tough, no President save Lincoln and FDR perhaps will confront a worse situation upon taking office. She's a fighter. She's tireless. Won't quit. A real American in all the best sense of that word. She has those mid-Western values and small town working class roots. An Wellesley and Yale education and a lifetime of service with the energy and drive of a twenty-five year old.

    I'm with Joe Scarborough I'm in the tank for Hillary. She's my gal. I like Edwards a lot but you know what she won me over.

    [ Parent ]

    She's (none / 0) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    truly excited, isn't she?  I so agree with your assessment.  She's been thinking about this for absolutely years.

    The woman truly has been training for this job her entire life.

    Get her with McCain?

    He'll probably just concede the race to her and offer to be that Republican on her cabinet.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Is There Away To Change Obamabot's Mindset? (none / 0) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    So many of them spew such hate against Hillary; and I would venture to say many of them cannot even give a rational reason why.

    [ Parent ]
    A good start... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    Might be to stop calling them Obamabots.

    [ Parent ]
    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    is that, "No, Obama is to that group what Nader was to my son his first time out voting."  He was such a believer.  It was sweet, in a way.

    I have a theory they are mostly people raised by Republican parents who are rebelling.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    I think Hillary needs to confront the sexism... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    ...much the same way Obama did with his race speech. I think it would pry away alot of Obama's voters, but keep her base.

    [ Parent ]
    A speech on sexism would not work for HRC (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:42 PM EST
    Most people would discount what she says as sour grapes.  We'll leave that for Chelsea.  She's getting the taste of the political arena, and my impression is that she likes it.

    [ Parent ]
    Thats' true... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:04 PM EST
    ...but I do think she should do more of the women's civil rights stuff she did in her victory speech last night.

    [ Parent ]
    Civil rights (none / 0) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    as she did in her speech was pitch perfect.

    There is NO doubt that Obama's campaign has been equally impressive.

    Neither should diss the other.

    She's right.  This is historical.  Wisdom is knowing when you're in the middle of an historical moment.

    She absolutely charmed everyone with that speech.

    [ Parent ]

    Frank Luntz's reaction to Hillary's speech (none / 0) (#168)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    The Republican pollster, not known to be a fan, said, "Fantastic" ... "You cannot ask for a better speech than that"...
      Here's a videoclip of that.

    Chris Matthews said again yesterday "I loved her speech" and what was so funny was his being so impressed that she didn't have to yell and how, although he realizes (he said) that he himself yells, her calm and nicely modulated voice showed a confidence he'd not seen before.

    [ Parent ]

    I should have said: most people would dismiss it.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    All women should confront sexism (none / 0) (#142)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:03:09 AM EST
    individually and collectively.  This is the moment.

    [ Parent ]
    It's obvious (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    that Obama is unelectable. The demographics are undisputable on this.

    FL and MI have to be counted for either to have a fighting chance but I think even with them counting Obama would lose both states due to the fact that he has given McCain a club to beat him with.

    Ron Fournier with the AP did an article today that basically said: Obama is likely to win the election but also likely to lose against McCain. That seems to be the conventional wisdom.

    That (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    should be Obama win the nomination but lose the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    No, really, that should be (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    Dems who don't see this are frackin' deluded.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:52 PM EST
    The pundits and the dem elite seem absolutely clueless as to how unelectable Obama is. Wright is enough to wipe him out alone and that's even before all the other negative stuff gets aired.

    [ Parent ]
    There (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    is a substantial group among the Democratic electorate who are offended by Wright, and clinggate.  Picture the towns of Johnstown, and Washington, PA for an idea of these die-hard Dems who do not like Obama.  These people went 70-30 for Clinton last night.  Picture West Virginia , Arkansas, Pa and Ohio, which would go Democratic under Clinton, and Republican for McCain.  Obama cannot win these people over by any means at this point.  

    Florida is lost to Obama, and Hillary can win it.

    (Obama is barely beating McCain in Massachusetts according to SUSA - this is a sign of how bad things are for Obama.)>

    Some are more liberal, but most are moderate and/or conservative.  They swing between parties, often voting values and economics.  Hillary is stronger on the economy and with the values types.  

    Anbother question is what will women do? - the largest part of the Democratic electorate.  Hillary is winning women by about 2-1 (give or take 5 % or so).  Why would these women continue  to show allegiance to the Democratic party?  What has the party done for them in recent years?  ( a barely hold the line on Roe V Wade ain't much).  A shift toward Obama will lose some of these people, not to mention the moderate Republican women and single women she has brought into the party.

    Consider the liberals and the black voters - the Obama voters.  IMHO, these folks would be least likely to migrate from the party in November to McCain.

    Hillary holds the group which we are most likely to lose in November.

    Oh, Oh! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Rendell went after Obama today on FL and MI with Chris Matthews.

    He COWED Matthews.  Absolutely blew him out of the water.

    Matthews tried saying, "Well, FL and MI don't count."

    And Rendell came back like a bull and said, "Gee, what is Obama afraid of.  We've offered a revote.  It's still on the table.  Either he's afraid of a blow-out or count the delegates.  End of story.

    I'm excitedly paraphrasing here.

    But it was a thing of beauty to watch Matthews smile and shut up.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    Because she carries the key swing voters who move elections every four years.

    She carried Latinos huge and I do not believe that Obama would have the same success in the fall as McCain is popular among Latinos as well. I think you would see more of an even split between Obama and McCain, while I think Hillary would win big against McCain.

    She carries so-called working class Dems and I am not sure at all that Obama could carry this demographic in the general election. In fact, exit polls seem to suggest that he won't. People like my parents will not vote for him, no matter what, they don't trust him to have the best interests of the country at heart (silly as it is for them to think this), and they are under the incredibly mistaken impression that McCain is a centrist. And before someone says it, no, they are not racist, but they are hardworking and they are suspicious of someone who could rise so fast with so little record.

    She carries white women huge, and if I remember correctly, Bush and Kerry narrowly split this demographic in 2004. I have no doubt that she would win white women big, I am certain a significant number of Republican women would vote for her in the booth. One thing I have heard over and over again from Republicans this primary season is that they are really coming to admire her toughness.

    And finally, the electoral math simply looks better for her. If she wins all the Kerry states plus Arkansas, she is golden. She won't get NH against McCain, I don't think, but I do think she will get Ohio (and I know Kerry may have too, but he didn't fight for it, I have no doubt she will). She puts Florida into play in a major way, while it is pretty clear now that Obama does not. Now I know his path is supposed to look different, he thinks he can carry states like VA, CO, NM, and according to Richardson tonight, Kansas (???), but I don't see it. Virginia, no way, not after the right wing machine starts, maybe Colorado, but I do not see how he gets New Mexico. If he loses OH, PA, and FL he is in real trouble...and that to me seems the most likely scenario, with or without Rendell or Strickland's machines...

    As far as why McCain seems to want to run against her, based on a conversation I had with a friend who works with the McCain campaign, they think Obama is way easier to beat, but they are actually afraid of him being in control of the country. In case you missed the run in Obama and McCain had over bi-partisan legislation, it is no secret that McCain does not have a whole lot of faith in Obama. If he has to lose, he would much rather lose to President Hillary than President Obama.

    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    I heard some very centrist Republicans talking the other night, and they really don't think McCain will win.

    They are truly frightened of Obama.

    They admire Hillary and trust her a lot more.

    They know she's progressive, too.  But they are very willing because they trust her judgment in military matters.

    She did her homework.  She got on that committee and got close.  She understands the issues.

    That's leadership.  No doubt about it.

    When the opposite side gives you grudging respect, you got a winning deal.

    [ Parent ]

    Has anybody considered that Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    might put WV and even KY in play?  This goes along with a way, way better than even chance of winning AR.  I think Clinton in WV is as good a bet as Obama in VA and CO.  With the economy in the tank, WV and KY are exactly the kind of states that want the populist.  Way more so I'd bet than CO or VA want to fall in love with the high-minded Arugula eater.  Obama would be a luxury vote for idealistic people doing just fine in thriving states.  Clinton would be a survival vote for realistic people barely getting by in hard-times states.  I think that cuts in favor of Clinton.

    There are (none / 0) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    no thriving states right now.

    And yes.....She's strong in KY and WV.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    Electorally, she has the big states and swing states. Her coalition is bigger than Obama's.

    Women (51%), working class (33%), Latinos (15%), elderly (12%)

    Blacks (13%), youth (25%), Creative Class (13%)

    Some groups overlap and not all women vote for Clinton but if you add up the population percentages it's 111% to 51%.

    Gender and class (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST
    And not all youth vote for Obama. 60% voted for Obama. 50% of women voted for Clinton.

    Gender and class are more decisive in this election than race. Women put her over in NH, OH, TX and PA. The working class put her over in OH and PA. Clinton rec'd only 8% more white votes than Obama. Another decisive class issue is education. 12% more noncollege graduates voted for Clinton, 12% more college graduates voted for Obama.

    120% more Republicans and 50% more Independents voted for Obama, putting to rest any notion Republicans chose Clinton as the weaker general election candidate. If almost 3 times more Republicans and Independents voted for Obama, Republicans think Obama is easier to beat.

    Obama is untested, unvetted, prone to gaffes, considered elite, soft on national security and unpatriotic. He's a combination of Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. He should run in '12 or '16, not now. There's too much at stake and Clinton is a sure thing. She has succeeded at every stage of her life and will surely make a great President.

    All data from this link.

    Unpatriotic? (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:53:42 AM EST
    I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't think his being unpatriotic can be assumed at all from what I've seen - I didn't see any of them wearing a flag pin at that debate ...

    [ Parent ]
    Flag pin (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donna Darko on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    He's said he doesn't need to wear a flag pin because he's patriotic but perception is everything. "Pay attn to the jugheads not the eggheads."

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama is best, and then (1.00 / 7) (#14)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    throw in Strickland or Rendell, to unify the HRC people, and expand BO's demographic appeal, beyond the independents and new voters that he brings, but HRC doesn't.

    NYT weighs in, too.

    The thing HRC supporters don't understand is that she can be torn apart by wingnut attacks, just because BO doesn't use them (unlike HRC against him) doesn't mean they don't exist.  

    For example, we've now seen that HRC likes to run these fear mongering ads immediately before the elections (and if you deny they're fear mongering, please explain why they only get sprung at the last minute.)  But, it was WJC who refused to take custody of Bin Landen when he was offered it.  And, the 9-11 report says Bin Laden was inspired to do 9-11 because of WJC foreign policy mistakes.  Then throw in sniper-gate.  Now you know why Rs are supporting HRC.  They will rip her to shreds.  And this is only one issue of many where the Rs will have a field day.

    You're wrong (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:02 PM EST
    to think Hillary has been rough on Obama. He ain't seen nothin' yet as far as attack ads.

    And blaming 9/11 on Clinton is straight out of right wing play book. Is that all you've got?


    [ Parent ]

    I am (none / 0) (#167)
    by Claw on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:40 AM EST
    Getting so tired of the "he ain't seen nothin yet," argument.  Yes, either nominee will see more vicious and unfair attacks in the GE.  That's how it always works.  
    Not to mention...at the moment he's winning*.
    *Please don't bring up the phony math that puts Clinton ahead by giving Obama zero votes out of MI.  If you want to include FLA, fine.  If you want to include MI, fine.  But surely some voted uncommitted as a show of support for Obama.  Please factor that in, and explain how you divined which uncomitted's were for Obama, which for Edwards, etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    you guys are just boring (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    the ever loving crap outta me with these talking points.  PLEASE MOVE ONTO TOMORROW'S!  We are close enough to midnight that no one will notice.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah yes (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:32 PM EST
    and I'm sure we'll hear lots about Monica too. Because, you know, that was such an effective electoral strategy in the 90s.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    Isn't there some theory out there among the male pundits that Hillary got her Senate seat because people felt sorry for her? They'll tiptoe around Monica.

    [ Parent ]
    Good analytical (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:33 PM EST
    piece of Huffington.  Better check fast.  It'll disappear soon.  :)

    He ran non-stop negative ads attacking her character.

    She only ran ads that rebutted him on falsehoods on issues.  

    Even Zolgby, considered to be a staffer for Obama by many, said that whatever negativity Obama had was self-generated.

    [ Parent ]

    NO! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    They said that--that he ran negative?  Has Huff been hacked?

    I think there needs to be a phrase created to define what we are seeing here--something relating to "blind liberal hysteria," because there are certain parts of the dem party who are absolutely deluding themselves if they can't see that (1) Wright, by himself, is absolute death to Obama's campaign  (2)  Ayers is the tipping point for a deadly fall from grace and (3) the demographics are telling the story of a catastrophic loss.

    The funny thing to me is that the thing that will tank him is the right-wing netroots.  They have been working the channels with the Wright stuff for a solid month now and look what it's doing.  Wait until they really step it up.

    [ Parent ]

    Believe it or not (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    2 pieces today that analyzed this.  Zolgby was one.  He was firm about the fact that any negative came from Obama himself.  

    However, not many Hillary supporters left over there.  The replies were mostly the usual fuming that Zolgby was obviously racist.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the ad today by the PAC (none / 0) (#62)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    was pretty creepy, and they are just getting revved up.

    [ Parent ]
    Just so you know (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    There are millions of Clinton voters who don't know who Strickland or Rendell are and don't care.

    The stuff about Clinton and 9/11 just leaves me slackjawed.  Even Sean Hannity might not slime a Dem as brutally as you just did.

    [ Parent ]

    Obamabots Don't Want To Believe He Is Vulnerable (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:25 PM EST
    In fact, they refuse to believe he is anything but the messiah and perfect in every way.  Sen. Clinton's supporters know her baggage and they also know she is better versed on the issues and is a problem solver, AND a fighter for the rights of Americans.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't Decide If You Are A Republican Troll (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    or just a troll. There are so many right wing talking points in that  comment it is hard to tell.

    [ Parent ]
    The ads are not fear mongering (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    the ads go to the heart of her message in a different form:

    She is ready from day one
    She is capable to deal with the unexpected
    She has the experience to deal with the problems
    She has the solutions

    Initially her message was BO is all talk without substance.  Then she changed to a positive message saying she was ready. That's what I get from the 3AM phone and the last with the catastrophes.  I think they chose OBL image instead of the towers because it's less upsetting.  I personally would have used the date on that ad.

    [ Parent ]

    When (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM EST
    has she dealt with an unexpected foriegn policy disaster?  (You do know she wasn't "instrumental" to the Irish peace process, she didn't dodge sniper fire, she didn't even read the classified NIE before she voted to authorize war.)  When has she been able to push, and pass, legislation where she demonstrated that she is an experienced legislator and coalition builder who can overcome opposition?  (You do know that she didn't create SCHIP or FMLA.  Also, health care reform didn't work out because she didn't know how to work with other people--at the time Ds controlled everything, but that changed.)  During her career when has she demonstrated that she's been a successful manager?  (Don't forget that her campaign is the biggest organization that she's ever managed, and we all know how that's gone.)

    Why do you express your approval of HRC by reciting campaign slogans?

    [ Parent ]

    heh, more boring talking points. (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:04:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama is best? In a dream perhaps! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    and more and more voters are speaking out.  He has made himself unelectable even as a running mate.  He will have to spend some years to show that he has learned from his mistakes.  Just like Hillary has learned from her mistakes with Healthcare the first time around and that is why she was able to come up with a more doable proposal.  Plus at least she succeeded in getting the sChip program for children.  She has learned the wisdom of incremental changes.

    For indeed, making changes in govt. policy is very much like doing remodelling in a house that you live in.  It is not possible to tear down the whole govt. to make the changes.  It has to be incremental because we all have to still live in this country as we make it a better place for everyone. Just like remodelling a house, you have to know where all the electrical wires are before you tear down the walls; and make it so that parts of the house are still serviceable while remodelling is done.  

    Anyone who promises to make radical changes is just fooling everyone.  And that is the the impression that Obama has created in young people's minds who have not lived enough years to know what is what and want to tear down something they don't understand the workings of.

    I shudder at the things that Obama says sometimes.  It makes me think that perhaps, he himself does not really understand how things work.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    Speaking out is the key.  Finally, after slogging through months, it's OK to support Hillary!

    That was the turning point.

    I have made a personal promise to myself to send money to Rendell, even though I'm not from PA.

    Good golly, but she needed him to have the guts to support her.

    He did so with aplomb.  Ditto for Nutter.

    It's been almost intimidating for politicians to support her!  The Race Card was played hard and heavy.  Play it against Bill and get by with it?

    Oh man.....that scared people.  Bill Clinton is so not a racist.  If that card would work on him, politicians were shaking.

    We're starting to creep out from under that blanket.

    I will always credit Ferarro for being staunch on this.  Man, she was one mad "old white lady."

    LOL*

    She was willing to let everyone in the country call her a racist, but she wasn't about to let Obama get by with pulling that one on her.

    The tide is turning.

    [ Parent ]

    Rendell and Nutter are getting personal (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    'Thank You' notes from me. AKA, the snail mail kind. They were great, along with the other PA folks for her. Rendell really has a way with words, lol!~  I know he's not perfect, but damn he was good. And very likable in the process. So pleasant while he cleaned someone's clock.

    [ Parent ]
    That's funny, (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:11 AM EST
    Orin Hatch is much more responsible for SCHIP than HRC is.  WJC refused to agree with it because of budget reasons.  So Kennedy and other supporters (such as Hatch) did two things.  First, and most importantly, they changed the funding so the budget issue went away.  And, secondly they recruited HRC to help them as they pressured the White House to get on board.

    This wasn't HRC's baby, sorry to break the news to you.  In this case it was Kennedy and Hatch who were building a house, and HRC was a paint brush.  

    BO has more legislative experience than HRC.  He's the one who knows how to build the house.  Since he's been in DC he's been the key D on 1) government accountability legislation where all spending is posted online for citizens and the press, and 2) international arms control.  He was also one of the four (WaPo editorial) Senators who passed the most meaningful ethics reform in decades.

    [ Parent ]

    BO has more legislative experience than HRC (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM EST
    prove it.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a difference between... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:24 PM EST
    ...disaffected Obama voters and disaffected Clinton voters. Obama voters could theoritically be lured back to vote for Clinton. Clinton voters, however, are alot different. Sure, there are a few liberal women that will come around and vote for Obama, but the conservative working class whites that view Obama as "liberal elite," will probabaly feel more at home voting for "moderate" John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (none / 0) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    I fall into the "mad liberal woman" who could be calmed down if forced.  :)

    But a lot of her supporters?

    No, they wouldn't view the issues in the same way.  McCain will pretend his health care program is good, and they'll go for it.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'll vote down ticket (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    but I really can't see myself voting for him.

    Many may just sit out. He may be able to convince them on health care etc against Obama, but just maybe Obama will campaign different in the GE and he won't be able to? . . . I know Clinton would put his plans to shame and people would get it. Obama, eh . . . not so sure.

    [ Parent ]

    NYCStray (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:59 PM EST
    I am with you--I will vote downticket but I will not won't vote for him.  He's not qualified, he's arrogant and he hasn't earned my vote.  My support is not obligatory, and the potential of Pelosi, Reid, etc, united behind a weak and ineffective Obama scares me a heck of a lot more than a galvanized Clinton, Pelosi and Reid fighting tooth and nail against everything McCain tries to do.

    We are at war.  Americans are living in dire poverty.  We are torturing people in the name of America.  We are in serious trouble here.  We need someone to pull us out of this mess, not another egotistical, spoiled child who thinks he knows everything but understands nothing.

    Keep going, Hillary!  We need you!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm in fighting mode (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    If I have to sit here and listen to someone pontificate for four years, I'll go nuts. We need someone with a spine and grit to get us out of this mess.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll deny this (none / 0) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    the next time I am upset.

    But I'm a die-hard Dem.  I have a personal record here of having NEVER voted Republican in my entire life.  For anything.

    I have forgotten to vote a time or two.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Ill write her in (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    Keep my Dem voting record intact  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    considering the gaps in Obama's (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    health care plan why wouldn't they vote for McCain? I mean it isn't like Obama has made it clear that every American will get affordable health care(heck, he's intimated that he's not going to make you get it because that would be tantamount to taking rent money from your pocket.)

    [ Parent ]
    This is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    just pure hysteria.

    [ Parent ]
    What slime! (none / 0) (#69)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    and it's boring slime at that.  Please make up a new pack of lies.


    [ Parent ]
    Check this out if you think Obama can win.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    it is the ad that they are running in NC against the  candidates that have endorsed Obama. And it will get worse in the GE. Obama cannot win it. It is even doubtful if he can get re-elected to the Senate after this stuff is circulated nationally. Obama is unelectable due to his own past associations and his disdain for the working American people. And he will take down the rest of the Dem candidates with him. That is not the sort of party unity we are looking for.

    [ Parent ]
    The ol' "It's Clinton's Fault" for OBL (none / 0) (#119)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST
    again

    [ Parent ]
    1jpb (none / 0) (#133)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    Are you really an Obama supporter?

    Please explain why your using discredited right-wing talking points about Bill Clinton's Presidency when its Hillary who is running?

    But, it was WJC who refused to take custody of Bin Landen when he was offered it.  And, the 9-11 report says Bin Laden was inspired to do 9-11 because of WJC foreign policy mistakes.


    [ Parent ]
    Strickland? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Munibond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    First of all, he is a rabid Clinton supporter, and second, while so far he is doing great as governor even buckeyes don't think he is qualified for the presidency.  And he is worse at debating than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    <