"...He has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters...If you are an Obama supporter, care to share your thoughts?As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain...
The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?"
Friday, April 25, 2008
Diminished Obama appeal
If I were a better person I would find some conservative b.s. journal/newspaper/etc. to read ideas counter to my own. But I'm not. And that's why I typically find myself reading Krugman's op-ed pieces in the NY Times at 1A.M. when the house is quiet and Monsieur Henry is asleep. In his latest piece, Krugman discusses Obama's fall. Click here to read the full text or continue on for a few snippets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The Freakanomics book (sensation of a few years ago) states that the amt. of $ doesn't relate at all to the electability of a candidate. So more $ does not equal greater chance of being elected....
By the way, when do you sleep?
Okay, here are my thoughts:
1. No slavery to special interests.
2. A foundation of movement and change, which is what this country needs right now more than anything. His movement is one of making YOU more responsible for YOUR government, not for establishing a nanny state (because it takes a village of people getting off their asses, moreso than anything).
3. Disestablishment of the old guard.
4. A brother in the white house. What more is there to say? And yes, a woman in the white house is overdue, but I truly doubt Hillary is the woman who will do it. The GOP HATES her. In contrast, they FEAR Obama.
5. More Liberal than centrist.
6. No track record of censorship or kowtowing to the polls regarding video games or other media.
7. If polls claim he's easier to beat than Clinton, why are the Republicans in strong support of Clinton? Isn't it clear already that Clinton is the one to trounce in the general election? McCain would love nothing more than the chance to muckrake Clinton, and neither would the rest of the Republican establishment. They have war machines already built for that, in fact.
8. If he has such an overwhelming monetary advantage, he is certainly showing a better methodology of using his resources. He is neither in debt, nor as able as Clinton to garner the big paper. And this begs the question: why is an upstart more efficient than someone who has supposedly been around the block a few hundred times (and to Bosnia, even)?
9. Large blocs of Democratic voters still seem to be stuck in the ice age of old politics. I am confident once Obama grasps the nomination that he will have more than enough Democrats at his back. Or do they intend on simply jumping ship, rather than supporting a black man in office?
10. Losing these so-called "big" states are not as disparaging as one might think. Yes, he has lost states like New York and California, but he hasn't lost by much, and thus he has more superdelegates in the bag.
11. I don't think anyone is taking into account the simple notion that many Democrats would rather give their support to McCain than Hillary. I don't believe the opposite sentiment is as strong, but it very well could be. Maybe you could answer that? If Obama won the nomination, would you switch your allegiance to McCain?
12. I turn your question back at you: if Hillary is barely able to garner enough support against a "fetus" like Obama, what hope does she have against the old guard of McCain and his GOP thugs? At least Obama has conducted himself with class, not resorting to exaggerations and outright lies (already). In fact, it might be his strategy to roll out the anger, finally, against the old regime. Whereas Clinton has run around frothing at the mouth for several months already, I anxiously await the moments when Obama finally loses it on the GOP and gives them a tongue-lashing the likes of Hillary isn't capable of even attempting.
Lastly, It's basic math, he's already won. Now the question is how spoiled Clinton supporters are going to be in giving him their votes. If Clinton gives up now, she'll have to eat the millions she owes. If she can make it a few more months, the public will take up a big chunk of the tab. We all know that's what's on her mind, more than anything.
The old saying is that you should go with the devil you know, but I get the sense I know Obama more than Hillary anyway. He's a liberal, as am I. He conducts himself with class and restraint and doesn't seem to be embroiled in lies or special interests. If I wanted all that other stuff, I would just vote McCain, once and for all.
This Obama supporter would argue that the whole premise of that article is a myth. "Obama's fall" isn't really backed up by any fact. Check out the tracking poll: http://tinyurl.com/3uybap
Obama is still consistently ahead. Clinton will probably get a little bump from Pennsylvania, but, just as the he did after the Reverend Wright scandal, Obama will head right back up to an 8 or 10 point lead.
Clinton has a lot of supporters who will argue all day long that she has momentum and that everyone is tired of Obama. She'll say ridiculous, transparently dishonest things like, "*I* would never say this, but you know the Republicans are going to say [nasty thing]." She'll run lame, Karl Rove-like ads trying to scare people into voting for her. She'll try to get Florida and Michigan's votes to count despite the fact that she was the only one campaigning (and in the case of Michigan, the only one on the ballot), and at the same time she'll say the caucuses shouldn't count toward the popular vote because they're not democratic. But the fact is, people still prefer Obama.
Obama is ahead of Clinton in every measurable aspect of this race except for superdelegates: delegates won, states won, money raised, cash on hand, popular votes, national polls. He closed her 30 point lead in PA a few months ago to a 20 point lead a few weeks ago to a 10 point lead on Tuesday. Since super Tuesday, Obama has received 83% of the superdelegate endorsements, including 3 to Clinton's 1 since Pennsylvania.
In the face of these numbers, Clinton has only one path to the White House: go negative, try to scare people, try to get bogus Florida and Michigan votes counted, and talk about every victory as though it was the freaking general election. And even then she has to get the superdelegates to overturn the voters, disenfranchise half the Democratic party, and hope that we Obama supporters are freaked out about McCain enough to overlook her very Bush-like win and lend her some support.
I also take issue with the Clinton supporters' "Obama can't take the heat" narrative. As though he has been crying about how negative the campaign has been. Obama just dismisses the negativity as the lame political mudslinging that it is, and his numbers haven't suffered as a result. So...in what sense is he not taking the heat?
So, to sum up: Obama--still going strong, despite Clinton noise to the contrary. Clinton--obviously free to stay in the race, but has no realistic shot at victory and not doing anyone (including herself) any favors by spewing negativity. Me--becoming more and more disappointed with Hillary Clinton daily.
Sorry for the rant. You only asked for thoughts.
1. Remains to be seen if Obama will be swayed by money and pressure from lobbyists if he wins the White House.
2. Movement and change? Yes. Both candidates offer movement away from the disaster we currently have in the White House, and change in the
form of solving the various problems we are faced with. (And their solutions are relatively similar, Clinton's being slightly more progressive from what I've read and heard.)
3. If by "old guard" you mean dismantling the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasties in the White House, he would accomplish this just by winning in November. And if he does this, I'm not sure it follows that this is automatically good. If by "old guard" you mean somehow breaking up the established ways and methods of government...Yeah, I'm not convinced he can do that just with shiny rhetoric about hope.
4. I can only counter with a sister in the White House.
5. I've heard arguments made that if Obama does win the nomination, this could benefit McCain, who will paint him as too liberal. In fact, I caught a glimpse of a negative ad being run in one of the Carolinas (I think) that painted Obama as "too liberal". Republicans dislike the liberals.
6. Clinton isn't as bad as Tipper Gore. But I probably shouldn't talk about this at all because I don't know her record on this. What is it? With the media, though, I can only recall the Clintons asking the press to leave their daughter alone when Bill was in office. (This was after they continued to talk about how ugly she was. As parents, can you blame them?)
7. Republicans in support of Clinton? Are they? Rush Limbaugh is in support of having folks jump parties in primaries to mess with things but I haven't quite figured out his reason behind that, other than he's a radio host and trying to get ratings and isn't it much more sensational to get folks to do that than not? McCain seems to be ready to put either candidate through the mud. If Obama isn't willing to get his hands dirty, and politics haven't changed enough yet for him to not get dirty, he's going to lose. Just look at Kerry. Sure, he didn't have Obama's good looks and charm, but they turned a decorated war hero into a sniveling liar who somehow cheated the military into giving him medals.
8. He's tapping more people with less money and she's tapping fewer people with more money. Younger candidates, at least in my life as a voter, typically draw the younger crowds. Remember Bill Clinton in 1992. I can just as easily ask why Obama isn't doing better given that he is consistently outspending her, sometimes reported as much as 4 to 1. I mean, if he's shelling out that much cash to get people's attention and he still is losing, what is so great about his methodology?
9. And I am confident that once Clinton gets the nomination she he will have more than enough Democrats at her back. I can't speak for other Democrats, but I will vote for whomever does get on the ballot. The thought of another four years with Republican "leadership" scares the bejesus out of me.
10. Losing big states in the Democratic primaries is less important because we split the delegates based on the outcome of each primary. For instance, Clinton won Pennsylvania but she only received one (I think) more delegate than Obama. In the general election, however, you need those big states because ALL of the electoral votes go to the winner. "Thus he has more superdelegates in the bag?" How does this follow from what you stated? The superdelegates get to vote however they wish. Right now, Clinton is ahead (260+), Obama is close behind her (230+), and there are around 220+ unpledged superdelegates. If I'm not mistaken, though, even pledged superdelegates have the right to change their vote at the last minute if they want to.
11. I would not switch my vote from Clinton to McCain if Obama won the nomination. In fact, I would wholeheartedly support Obama. Apparently there are some supporters of both Clinton and Obama who have stated they would throw their support to McCain or just not participate in the election if their candidate didn't get the nomination. I am hopeful these people would come to their senses and support whichever candidate wins because it is in the best interest of this country to do so.
12. "Barely able to garner support"? Come on. She isn't that far behind your golden boy. And every time a prediction is made that she is going to be blasted out of the competition, she comes out with a win. Seems to me, they are relatively close in the numbers game. What hope does she have against McCain and the GOP? All the hope of everyone standing behind her. There is some truth to her claims that she is primed and ready to take on the GOP. Starr tried for years and with somewhere near $40 million tax dollars to dig up dirt on the Clintons and he couldn't find squat that he could stick on them. We've heard all of the Republicans' b.s. arguments against the Clintons. What? Are they going to roll out that cookies remark to piss of the homemakers in the country? Will they bedazzle us with her failed healthcare initiative from '93? If anything, that just shows me how progressive Clinton is. She knew fifteen years ago what just caught up with the majority of us. Universal healthcare is a good thing. Insurance companies acting as middle men, declining coverage right and left as they rake in billions of dollars in profits is a bad thing. While I agree it would be nice if we could have civilized campaigns run on positive messages and clean debates, I don't see that coming from the other side. And I'm not sure Obama will be able to win if he doesn't play the game.
Lastly, he hasn't won. He doesn't have the votes to secure the nomination. That's why it's still going.
I haven't heard that saying before but I'll go with it. Clinton's the devil I know so I'll go with her.
Ms. A,
I never sleep. :)
OK -- I stayed out 'cuz others brought the detailed bits to the fore, but check out your words (at least you're not likely to deny saying them unlike some unlucky replumbed husbands who got WHYY in a pickle with the FCC for using "fleeting profanity"):
"Clinton's the devil I know so I'll go with her."
Sadly, you've captured my image of her perfectly. She's Hillary Milhous Clinton. Strong, determined, smart, paranoid, secretive and vindictive as all get out. I could do without another Nixon @ 1600 P-ave.
This crossover voter would vote for Democrat Obama but never for another Clinton. Clinton could never "close the deal" with me -- ever. That calculus seems to be consistent in the polls; she'd lose crossover support since McC seems to be moderate enough to drag back the gone-fishing-with-the-Dems stragglers.
I'd much rather choose an unknown than a known devil -- who knows, maybe he really can rule from the good side of the street. I'll roll the dice (Betty'll tell you I like to gamble) and vote for O given the chance.
So, as the American people do so often, with Obama losing Pennsyltucky, my desire to see him win has just increased. We'll see what that means in the upcoming contests.
Andrew,
It's an op-ed piece. Besides that, though, I'm fairly certain the fall isn't meant to imply something that isn't true, like Obama isn't winning, but rather that the golden boy has been knocked down. He isn't so golden anymore. And his once certain ascendancy to the White House is more questionable now because what was supposed to happen - an easy ride to the presidency - hasn't. People don't appear to be as enamored with Obama as they once were. Or maybe it is that he hasn't been able to continue to bring overwhelming numbers of people into the fold.
Both Clinton and Obama are flawed individuals. Both have "misspoke". If Clinton uses all tactics available to win because she believes herself to be the better candidate, good for her. To win, Obama will have to do the same. (Again, see Kerry. He tried to be nice. Look where it got him.) If he stays the course, he might not win because the Republicans will rip him to shreds. He's got to fight back.
I'll write more later but I've gotta go and retrieve the baby who has just woken up and is probably rolling around in the bed right now as I type. Here's hoping he doesn't roll OFF the bed.
I wasn't going to put my two cents into this wonderful back-and-forth but I just had to comment on this idea:
"And his once certain ascendancy to the White House is more questionable now because what was supposed to happen - an easy ride to the presidency - hasn't."
To me, it seems the polar opposite has occurred. Clinton was all but handed the title of our next President 1 year, 9 months, 6 months ago. She was a complete shoe-in in just about everyone's eyes. I feel like now she's holding on for dear life for something she's wanted forever... and I totally respect her for giving it her all and not bowing out. She's also lost my vote in the meantime though, because of the way she's going about the process.
Here's the thing...On one hand, we have an op-ed piece by someone who is generally supportive of Clinton saying that Obama has lost his appeal with voters. On the other hand, we have a national poll showing that his support remains strong. Listening to a Clinton supporter claim that Obama isn't appealing is not all that convincing in the face of real data to the contrary.
As for who once had the "certain ascendancy to the White House", I think most would argue that was Clinton. As for not being able to bring in new support, according to CNN, Pennsylvania saw a huge surge in Democratic registered voters, and 60% of them went for Obama.
I guess my point is that the rumors of Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Is the media as enamored with him as they once were? No. I haven't seen a positive story about Barrack Obama in weeks. But does that mean he has become a less appealing candidate? The facts just don't support it.
Yes, Clinton won Pennsylvania, despite being outspent. But note that Obama had the money to spend, which is a good thing. And Clinton had Pennsylvania's governor and several of its large-city mayors supporting her--people who could put real bodies to work in delivering votes. In the general election, those same local government folks will be supporting Obama, and he'll do fine in the state.
Let's get back to Clinton arguing that Obama is over...
Of course that is what she is going to say. Just like a few weeks ago there were cries from all over for her to quit. The both want to be president. They are both fighting. I keep hearing how negative Clinton is and because I'm biased I don't see the negativity. Wait, she did say, "As far as I know," when pressed about Obama's religious leanings. Right, planting that seed of doubt that evil, evil woman.
Give me a break.
It's not Clinton's job to sing the praises of Obama. As far as I know he's not a Muslim. Although it wouldn't matter to me if he was. I don't care what religion my leader practices as long as he/she is a good leader.
Obama really hasn't had to say much because his supporters have been able to do all the dirty work for him. I see the same stuff from his camp that I see coming out of Clinton's.
Mr. Busby,
My words were a direct response to Noir's response using his words about the devil. So...I guess they are both seen as devils by their various supporters. :)
Paranoid? How so? And what's she secretive about?
Bill Clinton was the first president I ever got to vote for. And I think he did a pretty good job - balanced budget, good economy, surplus, etc. With the exception of NAFTA and the Monika Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandals, I'd gladly take him back. Because I think his wife is even smarter than he is, I think she'll do a great job. And yeah, I give her some credit for experience given she was in the White House alongside her husband for eight years.
She is determined and ambitious. If she were a man, these would be incredible assets. Does it really boil down to her being a woman? Is that what voters can't handle.
I gotta say I can't blame her for being a tad bitter that something she worked her entire life for she very likely will lose to a sweet-talking newcomer.
I'll be damned if I put McCain in office over Clinton or Obama. Ugh. He sucks butt.
Amber,
Admittedly Clinton had more name recognition going for her in the beginning but it seems that Obama became a formidable competitor early on. I don't think she was ever the only real contender as Edwards was favored by many as well.
I respect her more for staying to fight than bowing out at the first signs her campaign is in distress.
How is she "going about the process"? Specifics, please.
Andrew,
"Listening to a Clinton supporter claim that Obama isn't appealing is not all that convincing..."
Right. It's his opinion. Did you read the whole piece? 'Cuz I believe he sums up his main point as follows:
"Maybe his [Obama's] transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they are looking for."
He goes on to say:
"Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because of her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama's eloquence does not.
...
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage...During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can't afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run - but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don't think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it."
He then goes on to opine how the Democrats can portray themselves to win the election, stating:
"The contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover."
Your comments make me aware that Obama will see a likely decline of support in the coming months as students take their summer break. Yes, it will appear as if Obama is losing steam, but once fall semester starts, we will see his numbers rise again.
I knew you were going to want specifics. :) I even asked Andrew if you were going to rip me apart because I was being too vague. You see, I don't keep up on the reading like you do (you must be superhuman to function on so little sleep!) so I don't have nearly the specifics that I'm sure you have.
That being said, it's a general sense that I get from Clinton lately that has really turned me off... and actually made me decide not to vote for her. The first strike against her in my book was probably the red phone ad. I am so sick of our leaders making us feel afraid of who-knows-what in order to get elected. I was shocked to see her put out that ad... it went against so much that I believed about her. I was also so dismayed by the last debate (and I went into that one fairly unbiased because I was willing to vote for either one of them at the time). Both candidates said things that really rubbed me the wrong way but her general attitude about "bittergate" and the Rev. Wright scandal pretty much sealed her fate in my eyes. Other factors including the Ayers issue and trying to get Michigan & Florida back in the running haven't helped either... oh, and Bill Clinton. He was the first president that I voted for as well, and I thought he did a great job, but I think he is doing a horrible job campaigning for her, personally. He comes off (to me) as having this totally "entitled" attitude, as if he did so much for us, so we owe it to him to vote for his wife.
I think both of them are great candidates and would do a far superior job to the man in charge at the moment. I would love so much to see a woman in the White House but that's not enough for me to overlook the negative campaigning that I've seen from Clinton.
So much more to say but I need to run Cayden to a birthday party. Sorry to ramble so much! :)
Christie -
I'll just say a couple more things and then maybe be done with it, because it's pretty clear that you're about as far in Clinton's camp as one can get and that the same is true for me and Obama. We're not about to change each other's positions, and I don't want to anger anyone who makes such a killer key lime pie.
I understand that it was an opinion piece. I just don't agree with the opinions. The piece starts with the premise that Obama is fading and builds from there. And if my philosophy 101 class taught me anything, it's that you can't count on any argument based on a false premise.
For example..."Maybe his [Obama's] transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they are looking for." Or...maybe his transformational campaign IS winning over working-class voters.
I'm not going to suggest that Obama's campaign hasn't been at all negative, although I do think the vast majority of the mud has come from the Clinton side. However, I don't really like the health care example.
Clinton and Obama have pretty similar health care plans. From the beginning, Clinton has said, "your plan doesn't cover everyone," and Obama has said, "that's because I don't want to force people to buy it who can't afford it." He has cited an example, I believe in Massachusetts, where people were fined for not buying insurance that they couldn't afford because of the way the law was written.
I don't have any idea why someone would propose universal health care that didn't cover everyone unless something like this were the case (at least in his mind), so I don't really have any reason to doubt him. And maybe he spun it as a negative against her plan. I didn't really hear the details of how it was presented. But this has been an issue that has come up in debates and in the news, and both camps have pointed to it as a legitimate difference between their policies. So I guess I would just like to know more about how it was presented before I took his word on it being negative campaigning.
1. You are correct. It does remain "to be seen if Obama will be swayed by money and pressure from lobbyists if he wins the White House." And that's the bet I'm willing to make. CORRUPTION is the main problem with our current administration. Corruption (from dictionary.com) is:
a. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
b. moral perversion; depravity.
c. perversion of integrity.
d. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
e. bribery.
f. debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.
g. a debased form of a word.
h. putrefactive decay; rottenness.
i. any corrupting influence or agency.
My big problem with this is that Hillary has already shown herself to be "down" with corruption, per se, by engaging in any number of Machiavellian schemes from day one (and prior). Yes, Obama MAY end up being a toy of the lobbyists and special interests, but Hillary is a SURE BET to be a toy on the first day of her win. Corruption is the problem, and Hillary is no solution, but a continuance of the past. That is the main reason I have to give my support to Obama.
2. Clintons have a history of being big talkers. Like Bush and his lipservice to the Religious right that he would demolish abortion, here we are at the end of his administration and that has not come to pass. In fact, his attempts were rather dismal. That may, in fact, be one positive byproduct of the war on Iraq. But my point here is that I can't trust the Clintons to do what they say they are going to do. When it came down the pipe last time, it was a lot of talk and a little bit of substance. I happen to believe in Obama's desire to change things, and I suspect this movement to be a radical one, one which I can forgive for its lack of clarity or concrete plans. After all, you can't, nor should, plan for everything. That only leads to disappointment and a destruction of your own principals on the end.
3. Dismantling the old administrations would not be accomplished merely by winning the election. He would have to remove the entanglements of the old government, such as lobbyists, cronies, stonewallers, partisan- mongers, and so on. That is a tall order, and I would rather put my money on somebody who is willing to try than someone who has already decided to continue down the path of civil war and blamestorming partisanship. If America doesn't come together soon, we are going to fail, once and for all. I have more faith in us than most, I suppose.
4. I'd be all for a sister in the white house, if she could actually WIN the white house in the end. Unfortunately, I don't think Hillary can win it in the end, and that's my point.
5. I think the Republicans are at a place where they realize something drastic needs to happen to change america NOW, before it's too late. While I can see a number of them defecting to vote for Obama (because let's face it, McCain isn't their favorite dude either), I can't see too many of them deciding to back Hillary. It's a basic principal to hate Hillary, just like it's ours to hate Rush Limbaugh. Obama is a dark horse on their hatred radar, so far.
6. Clinton shouldn't even have a record for censorship. But she does. If you aren't aware of it, then you are uninformed about your candidate. And that's the problem. I simply won't support a candidate who supports censorship. It's unconstitutional.
7. The reason Rush Limbaugh wants people to jump around is simple: If Republicans can game the pre-election, they can game the final outcome as well. A vote for Hillary NOW is a vote for McCain later. It's really THAT simple. As for John Kerry, he had no backbone. Being above a fight is different from wimping out at the first punch. I think Obama is handling this portion of the process with class and charm. If he gave Hillary too much of a beating, he might be perceived as something the liberal elite would like to ignore: a black who beats white women. It would be unwise for him to lynch himself in the media by dragging Hillary through the mud. Yes, I do think his system of attack will change once he has an opponent whose systematic thrashing can't come back to haunt him.
8. Sure, Obama's spending more than Clinton now. He's had to come from behind, remember? And he's made a stellar advance with the little he had in the beginning. I wonder who has spent more money on their campaign in the long run? And I wonder which candidate is closer to being in debt? It's a race; you don't sprint out of the gate and then whine when other candidates wisely decide to kick in the final dash.
9. Clinton might get our votes, but will she have our support? She might as well start off with a 23% approval rating.
10. My bad, Obama is not in the lead regarding superdelegates, he is in the lead regarding DELEGATES and the Total of super and regular delegates. I now see that Hillary has a plan to wait it out until Obama's base of college supporters have gone home for Summer break. How crafty and, once again, underhanded.
11. Sure, I'll give Clinton my vote. My support, on the other hand, is correlative to my respect, and Hillary has done too much to dash that already.
12. I'm sure Obama will be fine defending himself against someone he won't be perceived as abusing. Anybody can fight dirty. If the tables were turned, it would just plain look bad. Hillary being more diplomatic and Obama being more aggressive would simply be a disaster for both of them. Hillary needs to show America she is both sensitive and capable of manly pursuits and being mean. Obama needs to show America he is intelligent, well-spoken, benign, and racially neutered. I suspect neither of them are showing us their true identity, at this point.
You haven't heard the saying: "It's better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't know?"
13.
Amber,
Are you saying you will opt out of voting if Clinton does win the nomination?
Lo,
1. Corruption is the big problem of the current administration. And, really, the Democrats are no less prone to corruption. I hope I've made it clear that I'll vote for Obama should he get it. Either candidate, I feel, will be better than placing McCain in the White House. There was a quote I heard on NPR that went something like: "It took the Democrats 40 years to become overtly corrupt. It took the Republicans less than 10." Also, I've heard folks say that either Clinton or Obama could rise to the occasion - Clinton becoming the next Roosevelt or Obama becoming the next Kennedy.
And now the baby is upset and I must go. More later...
2. Since I believe Clinton achieved a lot during his administration, even with the various scandals and investigations, I don't agree with your statement that as a "big-talker" he didn't get anything done.
Obama is seen as a great orator by many. Hopefully, should he win, he can turn those words into action and sound policy.
3. I guess I see it like this...I would like Clinton in office because I feel she is ready to take on government and clean house. I would like Obama to follow her into another eight years of blissful, democratic reign to bring us together. It is, indeed, a tall order to do both. For me, given the disaster that is the W. Bush years, it is more important to get things done than make me feel good or inspire. (Not that these things aren't important.)
The flip side of not having concrete plans or having plans that are more flexible at the get-go, is that it makes it harder to negotiate and compromise because it isn't clearly laid out or what is laid out is already pretty bare bones.
5. I think she can win. If she wins the nomination and Obama either agrees to run as VP or throws his support with her (as I would expect her to do for him in the event he wins), she should be able to take the White House.
6. Uninformed, sure. There is a lot I don't know about Clinton and Obama. Censorship of video games is so far down on my list of issues right now it is just a blip on the radar. One tiny blip that is overshadowed by things like the war, the economy, taxes, education, the shrinking middle class, job security, health care, etc.
7. But aren't the liberal elite the people currently supporting Obama? I hadn't considered your point before. It's interesting. But if it is true that once he is the nominee, he'll change his game (which I read as he'll become negative) than he isn't as different from all the other politicians. So, in that respect, it's okay for men to be negative to win but not a woman? What happens to all of the Obama supporters who like him because he isn't negative. They'll fall in line because the alternative is McCain? Hmm...this doesn't seem fair.
8. I didn't realize she was whining. I mean, all candidates point out what they perceive to be the flaws of the other candidates. As she is saying "but he's outspending me", he's on the other side saying "we've got loads o' cash to win!" Seems to me they are tit for tat on this one.
9. Currently Clinton has the support of nearly half of the voters in primaries and caucuses. Should she land in the White House, I'm guessing we'll see a boost in approval ratings.
10. Underhanded? Is Obama "underhanded" because he is using strategies to get votes?
11. As a strong enough woman to take on this role and run pretty much where no woman has gone before she ABSOLUTELY has my respect. Do I agree with everything she does. No. But I certainly respect her tenacity and will.
12. I agree with you!
Nope. Never heard it before. :)
That's kind of a tricky question for me. Like I said before, I am a huge supporter of Clinton's policy plans. I think she would do a great job if she were to get elected but the only problem is that I don't think she can get elected fairly. In this primary, I don't see a scenario where the numbers add up in her favor... unless she works some magic to get Florida and Michigan's delegates to get counted. And I swear if that happens, I'm going to lose what little faith I had in this whole political process. Changing the rules after the fact just pisses me off.
But, since I would rather see just about anyone in office other than McCain, even if she wins this primary by implementing unfair tactics (in my opinion), I am confident I could get over my frustration and vote for her. Offering her my full support would be another thing altogether though... and I'm pretty tired of having a president that I don't support.
If she does manage to win the primary fair-and-square, I will vote for her with no hesitation. She wouldn't be my first choice but she's a pretty darned close second. :)
Post a Comment