Is Supporting Obama's Candidacy More Important to You Than Beating McCain in November - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-17-2008, 01:05 PM

It seems like the democratic party just doesn't get it, even after fielding two politicians from Massachusetts, in the last four presidential elections.... In the euphoria over Obama's progress in the primaries, is there a possibility that consideration about his overall electability in the general election has been assigned a smaller priority than it should have.

The more I see, the more I'm convinced that Obama has a smaller chance of beating McCain than Clinton does, because the assault on him will be ceaseless, and there is no shortage of mostly manufactured controversy. When that runs out, and along with the smearing, there is the liability of both his middle and last names.

Why would a political party, so intent on wresting the executive branch from an eight year period of republican control that has set the country back so far fiscally, militarily, and constitutionally compared to early 2001, want to put itself, and the state of the country on the line, by taking a chance now, with Obama as it's presidential candidate?

Is your determination more about proving something, or about winning? When the democrats have won the presidency, all the way back to the '64 election, who did they win with? The answer is they won with candidates from Texas, Georgia and Arkansas, and they lost with candidates from Minnesota, and twice from Massachusetts, and they managed what could be called a draw with a candidate from Tennessee.

How much of your strategy this time has to do with your perception that McCain and his party are too weak politically, to beat Obama?

This is what passes for "mainstream", in the US media, and probably for some of you here, too....why take a chance on this guy as your candidate? Out of principle, some other time, please!!! Beating McCain is the ONLY THING that should matter now. Consider that the opposition is telling you that Clinton has a better shot, and that it might be better to err on the side of caution?

Quote:

http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker051408.php3
Jewish World Review May 14, 2008 / 9 Iyar 5768

Getting Bubba

By Kathleen Parker

"A full-blooded American."

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

Whether Fry was referring to McCain's military service or Obama's Kenyan father isn't clear, but he may have hit upon something essential in this presidential race.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

Who "gets" America? And who doesn't?

The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

Meanwhile, immigration trends have shifted dramatically in the past 40 years, as growing percentages of Americans are foreign-born. In 1970, just 4.7 percent or 9.6 million people of the total population were foreign-born. By 2000, 11.1 percent or 31.1 million individuals were foreign-born, according to the Census.

Contributing to the growing unease among yesterday's Americans is the failure of the federal government to deal with the illegal-immigration fiasco. It isn't necessarily racist or nativist to worry about what these new demographics mean to the larger American story.

Yet, white Americans primarily — and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially — have been put on the defensive for their throwback concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.

The "guns, God and gays" trope has haunted Democrats, and Republicans have enjoyed dusting it off when needed to rile the locals. It's an easy play.

But so-called "ordinary Americans" aren't so easily manipulated and they don't need interpreters. They can spot a poser a mile off and they have a hound's nose for snootiness. They've got no truck with people who condescend nor tolerance for that down-the-nose glance from people who don't know the things they know.

What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.

Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has figured it out. And, the truth is, Clinton's own DNA is cobbled with many of the same values that rural and small-town Americans cling to. She understands viscerally what Obama has to study.

That G-d, for instance, isn't something that comes and goes out of fashion. That clinging to religion isn't a knee-jerk response to nativist paranoia, but is the hard work of constant faith.

Likewise, clinging to guns isn't some weird obsession so that Bubba can hang Bambi's head over the mantel. To many gun owners, it's a constitutional bulwark against government tyranny. As Condi Rice has noted, it wasn't long ago in this country that blacks needed guns to protect themselves when the police would not.

Some Americans do feel antipathy toward "people who aren't like them," but that antipathy isn't about racial or ethnic differences. It is not necessary to repair antipathy appropriately directed toward people who disregard the laws of the land and who dismiss the struggles that resulted in their creation.

Full-blooded Americans get this. Those who hope to lead the nation better get it soon.

The racist and other white supremacy sentiments in the above article should have discouraged the Washinton Post from featuring it's author, but it didn't happen:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

OPINIONS

Bush, Cheney & McCain
Tom Toles: What is the nominee's plan for the incumbents?
Watch Tom and his banana.
Ann Telnaes: Bush's 'Sacrifice'

* Kathleen Parker: Two Democratic Pretty Boys

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

The Democrats Hug It Out

By Kathleen Parker
Saturday, May 17, 2008; A17

Well, at least they didn't kiss.

I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

Don't look at me. David "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards's former rural adviser, came up with the idea, saying Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips "to kill this 41-point loss," referring to Hillary Clinton's landslide victory in the West Virginia primary.

Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama's front porch.

As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

Enraptured by his own message, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone. He finally relinquished the stage, after describing, yet again, the "wall" that he says divides Americans: "There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama."

The "wall" refers to the one Edwards erected in the hearts and minds of Americans who hadn't yet realized they were miserable, disenfranchised and seething with rage -- not the wall that used to run through Berlin.

Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to "do the Lord's work," lately pictured in front of a cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.

But their message of unity gets lost in a din of cognitive dissonance. To succeed, they must first create a divide of resentment the size of Montana among the have-not-enoughs toward those perceived as having too much. No one has tried this more brazenly than Edwards with his "two Americas" campaign, which failed twice, by the way.

The question -- should this duo have its way -- isn't "When will the poor be wealthy enough?" but "When will the wealthy be poor enough?"

While we're waiting to find out, Edwards's tortured Southern shtick is supposed to help Obama with the demographic of white, rural, working-class (non-college) Americans he's been having trouble with. Green room translation: poor, ignorant racists.

Presumably, Edwards knows how to relate to these folks, given his heritage and his years as a trial lawyer representing the little people against corporate America. Notwithstanding his 28,000-square-foot house and $400 haircuts. And ignoring the fact that one reason health insurance rates are so high -- and that so many poor rural folks lack high-quality medical care -- is the success Edwards and other trial lawyers have in convincing jurors that doctors owe the world always-perfect results.

His medical malpractice specialty often focused on OB-GYNs, and his multimillion-dollar awards resulted more from emotion than science. Edwards's underappreciated acting skills, including an uncanny ability to channel the voice of a dead child, helped raise malpractice premiums so high that many OB-GYNs have fled the profession.

Whether Edwards helps Obama seems questionable. A few of Edwards's 18 pledged delegates may slide over, though they don't have to. At best, he helped momentarily by stealing Clinton's thunder after her West Virginia win. The timing of the endorsement provided Obama live coverage followed by a full evening of commentary.

Clinton, who got a little face time as reporters took her temperature, was (as always) smooth and cool.

Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.

Kathleen Parker is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address iskparker@kparker.com.

I want the republicans OUT, next January, and I could care less about proving anything related to the high mindedness of the American electorate. I am not enthusiatic about either democratic candidate. I just don't think Obama is as strong a national candidate, against McCain, as Clinton would be.

Don't effing blow this election because you have some other agenda than ousting the republicans....I see you setting up to do that, and I don't understand why you would take that chance....not this time.

So, why are you willing to? Do you not see where you live, how too many of your fellow countrymen think and act? You put your faith in them, when you support Obama. I think of the ones influenced by the two columns above, as being like the majortiy of Tennessee voters in the 2000 election, voting against their own son, Al Gore, because George Bush represented their "values". George Bush ignored Tennessee, after he got what he wanted, and the voters cost Al Gore the presidency, and themselves the added tourism, a presidential library, and the prestige of sending their son to the white house.

I don't trust an electorate that voted twice in such great numbers, for Bush, where a majority thinks Reagan was a great president.

Why do you? What are you trying to prove?

ratbastid · 05-17-2008, 01:14 PM

Listen, don't buy the hype about West Virginia. Yes there are racist rednecks there willing to parade their bigotry on national TV. They're a tiny state, and they don't represent the center of the American electorate.

I don't see that the Republican attack machine would be any less engaged by Hillary. She starts out a whole lot more polarizing than Obama does. Obama stands a good shot at capturing independents and moderate Republicans, people who would never in a million million years vote for Hillary.

In my view, supporting Obama's candidacy is the same as beating McCain in November.

Seaver · 05-17-2008, 01:58 PM

I disagree with you ratbastid. I really, really don't like Hillary. I would, however, lean more toward her than Obama. The top ranked important factors for moderate conservatives are budget and international policy, Obama ranks in a deep third between the other two in both of these categories.

Really what I'd be looking at is who won the swing states. Florida/Ohio/etc which have decided the previous elections. Of course Oregon/Washington/California/etc will vote blue, it's the swing states which will determine the election.

dc_dux · 05-17-2008, 02:30 PM

host...two procedural reasons (as opposed to policy reasons) why I dont buy your scenario.

New Voter Registrations
New voter registrations are at an all time high, particularly in many of the battleground states in a manner that favors either Obama or Clinton over McCain. Here is a recent report, The Big Mobilization (pdf)

Beyond that, most other studies and polls (along with Obama's unprecedented online campaign fund raising drive involving millions of contributors) point to a strong majority of these new voters as being Obama supporters....young voters and black voters. And Obama is building on that with a grassroots, 50-state voter registration drive that was rolled out last week.

Voters Want Change
Nearly all polls of all demographic groups and across the political spectrum (with the exception of the far right) want change.....polls that the country is moving in the wrong direction are at an all time high, surpassing 80% (direction of country polls)....

....and right or wrong, far more voters (particularly those new voters and a majority of Independents) view Obama as the potential "agent of change" as opposed to either Clinton or McCain.

The Republican attack machine will be in full force with either candidate and Clinton has far more baggage and far higher negatives among most voters, particularly among Independents. Obama has also demonstrated an effective rapid response team (note the recent charge/response re: Bush's remarks about Democrats (particularly Obama) being terrorists "appeasers". Both Bush and McCain had to clarify that they were not referring to Obama.)

However, I still have concern about the hidden race factor. There is just no way to assess its impact.

cj2112 · 05-17-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Obama stands a good shot at capturing independents and moderate Republicans, people who would never in a million million years vote for Hillary.

In my view, supporting Obama's candidacy is the same as beating McCain in November.

I am slightly tilted to the right....I'm not a hardcore neo-con, nor would I even call my self a moderate republican, but I am certainly on the conservative side of center.

I will NOT EVEN CONSIDER voting for Hillary. If she gets the nomination, I will be voting for McCain. If Obama gets the nomination, then this race, at least in my mind, will come down to who McCain and Obama select as running mates. I would consider voting for Obama.

I really don't believe that if the election were today and Hillary was the Democratic Party candidate, that Hillary could beat McCain.

Tully Mars · 05-17-2008, 05:34 PM

I don't see it. I thik the GOP slime machine, much like Hillary, was all set at her inevitability. The hardcore Neo's hate her, the moderates hate her. Hell, the percentage of the Dems that hate her isn't really all that small. If she did, which I see as impossible at this point, get the nomination and managed to become POTUS she'd be yet another 51% POTUS. The US needs to be more divided much like it needs to be more dependent on foreign oil. I don't know if Obama can unite the country, I don't know if McCain can either. I'm certain Hillary can not.

host · 05-17-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't see it. I thik the GOP slime machine, much like Hillary, was all set at her inevitability. The hardcore Neo's hate her, the moderates hate her. Hell, the percentage of the Dems that hate her is really all that small. If she did, which I see as impossible at this point, get the nomination and managed to become POTUS she'd be yet another 51% POTUS. The US needs to be more divided much like it needs to be more dependent on foreign oil. I don't know if Obama can unite the country, I don't know if McCain can either. I'm certain Hillary can not.

You have to get elected first, to do anything. I'm CERTAIN that I don't live in a country where the electorate provides enough votes for Bush/Cheney to claim a victory in 2004, after their record of the prior four years, but then experiences the effect of enough new voters and change of hearts of prior republican ticket voters, to muster the voters to put the son of a Kenyan muslim and an American woman, a candidate named Barak Hussein Obama, no less...in the white house.

We make the mistake, the bulk of us in the USA, of thinking everyone is similar in what they want and how they go about getting it, to us.

The big problem, the reason we are convinced we are a "classless" society, is because folks like the Bush "pioneers", when they aren't writing checks for $400,000, donated to their favorite presidential candidate....the best investment they proabably make that year..... they are paying for the influences that maintian our perceptions of "classlessness".

In return, many of us who post here do not want to vote to levy progressive taxes on the people who leverage their wealth to purchase outsized political and media influence.

We think everybody else thinks and feels "a lot like us", so surely, enough of them won't be negatively influenced by Obama's easily exploited, superficial liabilities....of course, they won't be influenced....they'll vote for him, just like I will.... You better hope that you are right.

In Europe the majority know what class they belong to, they vote in their own best interests, and they have health care, pensions, livable minimum wage laws, and vacation "packages", because they have voted for these things.

We live in a duped and controlled society. The wealthiest control what the rest of us get, including who our political leaders are. You're trying to change that in one big bite. It's too dramatic a change. I don't want Hillary, I want republicans ousted. The memory of the two failed candidates from Massachusetts and Al Gore 2000 is a long one. Don't count the Clintons out, because West Virginia was a disaster, at the hands of the leading democratic candidate's own party members.

As dc_dux posted, he doesn't know for sure what the race effect will be. Obama can't change his name, his skin color, his daddy's religion, or his shortcomings in the manly swaggering image department. Hillary can reinvent herself as circumstances dictate.

I have an advantage in that I'm not feeling the vibe from Obama, or from anyone. I know who my political opponents are. I want to see the government tax the shit out of the top one percent of wealth holders, and I want to see a big piece taken out of the cash flow streaming into the military/intelligence complex. I don't give a shit who the political leader is who accomplishes it, I know that it won't be a republican who changes at all , the way we are going.

First things first. Obama would need a miracle to overcome his image obstacles. There is no need to start with a liability like that, not against a candidate who, against a different democratic opponent, could be as weak as McCain should be.

flstf · 05-17-2008, 10:18 PM

I think you may be underestimating the amount of distrust and general dislike many people have for Hillary. Who would have thought a few months ago that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama would derail the Clinton machine. There is something about the way she talks and conducts herself that causes many to reject her.

If nothing else, Obama has shown that he can run a better campaign against what many thought were long odds going into the primaries. I think the chances of beating McCain are better than if Hillary had won the primary. I think McCain has a tough battle overcoming the "4 more years of Bush" sentiment.

scout · 05-18-2008, 02:57 AM

It's beginning to look a lot like 2004. The Democrats are putting someone completely unelectable on the November ballot. When Obama loses in November all we will hear for another 4 years is how the Republicans hacked and cheated themselves another 4 years in the white house. I will really truly be surprised if this election don't turn out much like the last. Obama will probably carry exactly the same states and areas that Kerry did.

I will truly be surprised if it turns out any other way. You would think the Democratic Party would have learned by now.... here we go again!!

ratbastid · 05-18-2008, 06:50 AM

scout, there's so much wrong with what you just wrote, it's hard to even get started responding to it.

dc_dux · 05-18-2008, 07:10 AM

One of the interesting issues that has not been widely reported is that, in the most recent Republican primaries, 15-25% voted against McCain.

Wash Post column today.... McCain's Chances May Have Hit a New Nader

Great quote at the end: Bob Barr won't be president, but he could still gore McCain.

While many Huckabee supporters will probably come around to McCain....I think its highly unlikely that many Paul supporters will....particularly with the entrance of Bob Barr as a viable Libertarian alternative.

Nationally, Paul voters represent 5 percent of Republican primary voters...If McCain cant hold these, even more "red" battleground states will be in play than 2004. Its hard to imagine any scenario where these anti-war, anti-Patriot Act die hards buy into the McCain message that Iraq can be won if we stay until 2013 or that wiretapping American citizens is an essential national security tool...either they vote for Barr or they stay home and sit it out.

william · 05-18-2008, 07:53 AM

Same question, different wording - do you support a third term of G.W. Bush? I am a registered Independent in the great state of Florida; considered changing to a party affiliation, until I found out the vote would not count. Personally, I was hoping for Dennis Kuchinich or John Edwards, but the media made sure not to give either any air time.
To the point of your question - It is easier for me to to support Obama. He seems like someone who can keep his cool under pressure, as opposed to someone who has a record of being a hothead. An appeaser? Like Nixon was to China; or Reagan to Russia?
Obama does not support the possibility of 100 years of war in Iraq. Maybe because he does not have the interests of oil and Haliburtin to consider. G. W. Bush promised to "reign in" the oil companies. How did that work out? Eight years ago, oil was $20/gal; today it's over $126?gal. To paraphase G.W. from New Orleans - "Good job, Georgie!" Oh wait - George is an oil man; Cheney is on the board of Haliburton. So I guess George did do a good job.
Obama does not want PAC contributions, so maybe he does care about the "little guy". He stays away from "nasty" ads, which I'm tired of. He can win it clean. We have just seen in last Tuesday's elections that maybe those types of ads no longer work.
What really seems ignorant to me is that someone would not vote for Obama based on his race (or half-race). Isn't it time to get over it? I served 12 years in the military - you only see light green or dark green. Either way, you support them and they support you - I got you, you got me. It all comes down to trust.
So the bottom line to me is this - there is no way I trust McCain.

ottopilot · 05-20-2008, 01:20 PM

If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Barry Obama over John McCain.

loquitur · 05-21-2008, 12:48 PM

Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under Truman): "No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."

Derwood · 05-21-2008, 03:45 PM

this is a thread with a strange set of sentiments.

everyone seems so sure that person A or B or C is unelectable when we haven't even started a general election process yet. let's see what happens when Obama (yes, he'll be the nominee) squares off against McCain head to head. let's ignore all the current polls asking who will/won't vote for who until we actually get our nominees straightened out.

JumpinJesus · 05-21-2008, 07:24 PM

I don't believe that Obama is unelectable so the premise of this argument is lost on me. I do, however, believe that Hillary is approaching this venture from a sense of entitlement - as if she deserves to be president. Her behavior recently reeks of desperation. That's not a quality I look for when electing a president. In fact, considering this sense of desperation, I'd say that Hillary Clinton is less electable than Barack Obama. Also, this is pure conjecture on my part, but I get a certain vibe from Ms. Clinton that there is a palpable level of contempt for Obama for having the audacity to enter the race when this was supposed to be her election.

guyy · 05-21-2008, 08:52 PM

It's over, and it's been over for a while. Any victory that Clinton could possibly pull out at this point would be hollow. If she were to somehow convince the party movers-n-shakers that she should be The Candidate, i think she would alienate so many African-American Obama voters that she would lose the general election anyway. She's done.

Having said that, i disagree with the fundamental premise of the original post. I don't think Clinton is more "electable" than Obama. Like Bill and the people who ran her campaign, she tends to concede to Republicans. (Iraq, Iran...) She's more of a triangulator than a fighter. Unfortunately for her, i think that strategy is less viable now than it was in the mid-'90s. It shouldn't take that much courage or brains to disagree with Bush on Debacle II: Iran. In my opinion, Obama's willingness to confront Republicans makes him more electable.

In any case, we shall see.

host · 05-22-2008, 01:12 AM

I'll say it again....we live in a country inhabited with a LOT of effed up people, and they vote. I do not expect a leap from Bush garnering enough votes to convince people to support the integrity of the electoral process by permitting him to get into the white house....to do it in 2000, and then, in 2004, to stay there, for a 2nd term.....to Obama getting enough votes in the following election, to do the same.

Here is an anecdotal example of public opinion/reaction:

The commanding general's response, where it happened:

Quote:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ng-in-iraq/?hp

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/btsc.ware/

updated 6:19 a.m. EDT, Sun May 18, 2008

Behind the Scenes: Apology for a desecration

.....Word of what the Americans had done rippled throughout the district and the fury spread. Honor was at stake, and the urge for a violent response against the insult was strong. However, tribal leaders made an approach to American commanders in the region. "Honestly, we have to defend our religion," said Sheikh Saad al-Falahi, "and relations [with the U.S.] would deteriorate if they did not apologize."

Having fought and then negotiated so hard and for so long to quiet the insurgency in Radhwaniya, American commanders were wary of the potential crisis.

The U.S. 4th Infantry Division is posted in Baghdad and surrounds; many of its commanders and soldiers are veterans of the Iraq campaign. Col. Ted Martin, commander of the Division's 1st Brigade, immediately launched an investigation, promising the tribal leaders a swift outcome.

Investigators soon identified the Army section that had been at the police station's small arms range, and a staff sergeant, a sniper section leader from the 64th Armor Regiment, was the primary suspect. After denying involvement, the sergeant eventually confessed, though he claimed he had no idea the book used for target practice was a Quran. Martin dismissed the excuse.

On Saturday, about a week after the incident (locals say the shooting practice was on May 9, U.S. forces say the Quran was discovered May 11), CNN was present for the showdown in Radwaniyeh as the Americans faced the tribes.

U.S. commanders arrived at a police outpost in heavily armored vehicles to be met by a human tempest; hundreds of chanting tribesmen lined up behind razor wire, offering their blood and souls in sacrifice for the Quran.

A former college quarterback, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, stood facing the angry crowd. His face was grim and fixed as tribal sheikhs swirled around him.

"I am a man of honor, I am a man of character. You have my word, this will never happen again," the general told the angry crowd through loudspeakers, pounding the makeshift podium three times with his fist.

"In the most humble manner, I look in to your eyes today and I say, please forgive me and my soldiers." The act of his sniper was criminal, he said. "I've come to this land to protect you, to support you...this soldier has lost the honor to serve the United States Army and the people of Iraq here in Baghdad."

Martin stood before the crowd next, opening his address with an Islamic blessing. He announced the sergeant had been relieved of duty with prejudice; reprimanded by the commanding general with a memorandum of record attached to his military record; dismissed from the regiment and redeployed from the brigade.

Holding a new Quran in his hands, he turned to the crowd. "I hope that you'll accept this humble gift." Martin kissed the Quran and touched it to his forehead as he handed it to the tribal elders. The crowd's voice rose, "Yes, yes, to the Quran. No, no, to the devil."

But would it be enough to appease the mood in Radhwaniya? A local sheikh came to the microphone. "In the name of all the sheikhs," he said, "we declare we accept the apology that was submitted."

With hands shaken and sheepish thank-yous made, the general and the colonel returned to their armored convoy. The crisis, it seems, was averted.
advertisement

The stakes, though, had been high. If accord had not been found, says Sheikh Ayad Abd al-Jabbar, head of the local Support Council, it could have been dire.

"Then surely the situation would have changed in another direction and more tension will have risen up, after all the cooperation with the Americans to restore security."

vs

The reaction of a majority of folks with the ability to access the internet, find the discussion forum on the subject, compile a text message and post it:

http://community.comcast.net/comcast...ssage.id=64303

...it goes on for 42 pages.....

My point is that I live in a right wing country with two right wing dominant political parties. The most I could hope for is that the voters would make the leap, in the span of one election cycle, to the choice representing the least change, albeit a female candidate, but the perceived known...a former recent first lady. I'm convinced even that is a big leap. A leap all the way to Barak Hussein Obama, son of an African muslim, is way too far a leap, except in some of your fantastic politcal POV's.....

Read the 42 pages of responses....I know where I live.....do you? Really?

guyy · 05-22-2008, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Read the 42 pages of responses....I know where I live.....do you? Really?

Yeah, i do. Obama is a Senator here.

If the country is right wing and it can't or won't change, we're doomed to an ifinite series of Bushes and the most we can hope for is a republican-lite, maybe.

loquitur · 05-22-2008, 06:05 AM

Why do people here think Obama is unelectable? Because he's black? I don't get it. To my mind that is the LAST reason not to vote for Obama, and in fact I think it might be a good reason to vote FOR him. I always thought he was a pretty attractive candidate. In fact, to this day I remember the first time I saw him on TV and thought "WOW, is he impressive!" That charisma just jumped out of the TV at me.

Whether you think he'll be a good president or not is a separate question. But electable? Sure he's electable. Why the hell not.

Halx · 05-22-2008, 06:22 AM

Yeah, I'm not sure why people don't think he's electable. That's like a phantom argument to me. He's a leader and he inspires people. He has good, different ideas. To say he's not electable --- are you a populist?

loquitur · 05-22-2008, 07:37 AM

What does populism have to do with anything?

dc_dux · 05-22-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

What does populism have to do with anything?

I think it is reasonable to suggest that the Obama candidacy is reminiscent to some extent of earlier populist movements in the US....the themes for change, the attraction of millions of citizens into the political process for the first time, etc.

I find it remarkable that Obama has attracted more than 1 million contributors to his campaign, with 95% of those being small donors ($200 or less). That is a change by any name!

At the very least, most Obama supporters (at the the ones I know) are thoughtful and engaged in the process and not just "fanatic followers" as some have suggested.

We are not all parrots just mimicking the message:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WuKqWEYzhEA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WuKqWEYzhEA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Although the little guy above is a great campaigner!

loquitur · 05-22-2008, 01:09 PM

a fair number of American populists historically were racists........ I'm not sure how that fits here.

dc_dux · 05-22-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

a fair number of American populists historically were racists........ I'm not sure how that fits here.

Loquitor...This is how it fits:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsKQOFAbcW0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsKQOFAbcW0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Obama speech last weekend in Oregon.

Have you seen anything comparable for any other candidate in any recent campaign?

I bet a few folks may even have fainted from standing in such a massive crowd on a hot day...not from any messianic complex ...and I can say with certainty that there were no racist rants by the candidate.

loquitur · 05-22-2008, 05:39 PM

so what does that have to do with populists? or racists for that matter?

I'm not following you - your posts are reading to me as disjointed. Maybe I'm just thick...........

host · 05-23-2008, 11:51 PM

People.... do you want to see me beg you? The fact that you won't even consider that there is some merit to what I am trying to tell you, is a disturbing sign, IMO, that you are not strategizing, and that there is some possibilty that beating McCain in november is not your highest priority.

IT HAS TO BE !

Latest from <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138456">Newsweek</a> .

Clinton (48%) vs. McCain (44%)
Obama (46%) vs. McCain (46%)

Observe how Clinton refuses to concede, even with so many in her own party steadfastly opposed to her continued candidacy.

I am steeling myself for (in a campaign climate where the party in contol of the executive branch is known to be "hard at" data mining and analysis of intimate personal communications, transactions, and other personal details of all US residents....and thus privvy to the political leverage that kind of information guarantees...) the remorse and head shaking that I fear is coming in November, with the acceptance of the results as, we've come so far, as a country, but couldn't make it quite far enough, in the span of one election cycle, for sentiment to change enough to put Obama in the white house, but he came so close, and "next time"......

In my mind's eye, the script for this is already written, and it's because Obama has two strikes against him, both enabled by your denial..... racial attitude still pervasive in the US, and the advantage of superior and illegal intelligence gathering and analysis available to the party in power, heavily exploited for partisan political purposes, probably at least since mid 2001.....

The former would not interfere in a Clinton campaign against McCain, and the latter stands a better chance of being exposed by the Clinton campaign, if it was effective enough on it's own to bring victory for McCain, because it could not be masked with,

"the remorse and head shaking that I fear is coming in November, with the acceptance of the results as, we've come so far, as a country, but couldn't make it quite far enough, in the span of one election cycle, for sentiment to change enough to put Obama in the white house, but he came so close, and "next time"......"

I have to ask you, again....
"Is Supporting Obama's Candidacy More Important to You Than Beating McCain in November ?"

dc_dux · 05-24-2008, 12:00 AM

Host...you know better than to look at only one poll

Here is an aggregate of polls:
Obama (46.7) v McCain (43.7)
Clinton (45.4) v McCain (43.8)

Two recent polls (Zogby, IBD) have Obama up 8-12 over McCain....no polls show Clinton with those numbers.

More importantly, look at state polls....particularly those red states that were close in 04

Obama can conceivably win Iowa, Indiana, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, even Virginia...or at least has a greater chance than Clinton.

McCain is even closer to Clinton in several blue states (MN, OR)

host · 05-24-2008, 12:14 AM

Of course, I know better than to rely on one poll. I know better than to give in to paranoid urgings, too. Read my revised post.....call me paranoid it you want to, I just cannot picture Obama overcoming these two huge "problems".

There is little or no focus on the purpose, scope, and potential effect of the TIA morphed "OP" on the outcome of the election. They know everything that they want or need to know about the Clinton and Obama campaigns and about personal weaknesses and flaws of all of the campaign organizations and supporters..... and nobody seems to focus on what that portends, or gives a shit!

I really can see that the rationalization for a "few questions asked", acceptance of Obama's defeat in a close contest being "baked in" to a scenario that can mask the stealing of the election with a, "so close, after coming so far, but not quite far enough", group think, group acceptance. It seems ordained. Time will tell.....

SecretMethod70 · 05-24-2008, 12:26 AM

Seems like he's doing fine to me.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...379/487/521236

Quote:

The emerging battleground
by kos
Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

Obama's obvious inability to garner "white working class voters", which has already decimated his chances in black-majority states like Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Maine, is also making it impossible for him to win traditional battleground states like...

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rasmussen. 5/21. Likely voters. MoE 4% (4/30 results)

Obama (D) 48 (41)
McCain (R) 43 (51)

That's a 15-point swing as the party begins to come together again. Some Clinton supporters may still be in the denial, anger, and bargaining stages of grief, but in states with early contests, people appear to be moving into general election mode.

In this poll, Obama gets 72 percent of the Democratic vote. Still low, of course, but better than the 68 percent he got a month ago. And while a month ago Obama lost the female vote 49-41, he won it 46-44 this month.

Also interestingly, while last month he lost the independent vote 51-43, he won it 51-40, which suggests that McCain is losing some of his appeal with his supposedly strongest constituency (after the press, that is).

Finally, Obama leads with those who make less than $20K a year (52-27), $20-40K (50-44), $60-75K (50-40), and $75-100K (55-40). McCain leads among those who make $40-60K (48-45) and over $100K (46-44). His problems with working class whites is a real, ongoing concern.

OHIO

SurveyUSA. 5/16-18. Likely voters. MoE 4.1% (4/11-13 results)

McCain (R) 39 (47)
Obama (D) 48 (45)

Another big swing in Obama's direction, to the tune of 11 points in five weeks. This poll also puts Obama in the lead in Ohio in the Pollster.com composite. Like in New Hampshire, Obama turned a narrow 46-44 lead among women into a 50-37 one. Similarly, a 65-24 deficit among Democrats is now 73-14. And what about those Ohio whites that have already doomed Obama? They broke for McCain at a 52-39 clip last month. This month, Obama wins them 45-41.

Can you see how stupid this discussion has been about "states Clinton wins" and the "working class whites" and "uniting the party with Clinton as veep" and all that other crap? If Republicans can unite behind McCain (and they have) given the real ideological divisions in their party, we can heal unite behind Obama, and we are.

The numbers are clear, as Obama systemically consolidates the Democratic vote, his numbers rise everywhere.

Let's look at some recent polling showing this trend:

Colorado:
SUSA:
3/17: 46 McCain, 46 Obama
5/19: 42 McCain, 48 Obama

Oregon:
Rasmussen:
3/26: 42 McCain, 48 Obama
5/7: 38 McCain, 52 Obama

Pennsylvania:
SUSA:
2/26-28: 47 McCain, 42 Obama
5/16-18: 40 McCain, 48 Obama

Virginia:
SUSA:
4/11-13: 52 McCain, 44 Obama
5/16-18: 42 McCain, 49 Obama

Missouri:
SUSA:
3/14-16: 53 McCain, 39 Obama
5/16-18: 48 McCain, 45 Obama

There goes another Clinton talking point. Going off the Pollster.com averages, Obama currently wins 283-255, losing the Kerry states of Michigan and New Hampshire, and winning the Bush states of Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Ohio. If you give him a tiny 3-point "primary boost", he picks up Virginia and Michigan, for a 313-225 lead.

Now Indiana would be tough to hold, so I wouldn't count on it. If Obama wins Indiana, he's won a crapload of other states. But other states not listed above look competitive (some surprisingly so) at this point in time: Florida is a single-digit race. New Hampshire is obviously a strong possibility, not just because of the poll quoted at the top of this post, but because the state itself is trending hard Blue. Missouri is also competitive and currently trending in Obama's direction. And aside from Obama's strength in the West, there may be some unconventional surprises in store for us. As DavidNYC noted this last weekend, Mississippi could be competitive if African American turnout outperforms and Obama can garner just 20 percent of the white vote. Our 2008 battleground map is far from being settled. And while it'll include all of the oldies we've come to know and love, there will be new battleground states on that map. This will be the most expansive battle in presidential politics in over a decade. If Bob Barr can run a serious Nader 2000-style race, able to consistently garner 5 percent across the board, we'll have over half the map in play.

Finally, some may wonder why Clinton's numbers (for what they're worth) are better in some of these battleground states. The answer is easy -- everyone has been ganging up on Obama, while Clinton has had a pass since her Bosnia fiasco. Now I don't mean a "pass" as in they've been nice to her. The press has written off her chances and been pretty brutal about it lately. I mean "pass" as in she hasn't been attacked personally or for her policies. The right-wing media has been bolstering her campaign in order to keep the Democratic Primary running as long as possible. That's why you have Terry McAuliffe praising Fox News to high heavens. And have you seen any "Hillary killed Vince Foster" emails being forwarded lately?

All that would change if Clinton were to magically win the nomination, and her numbers would suffer accordingly. What's amazing about Obama is that despite the full-court press from the right-wing media, from John McCain, from Hillary Clinton, from Bill Clinton, from the Clinton machine (and it's myriad Lanny Davids), and from a big chunk of the Democratic Party base itself, Obama is still uniting the party and gaining ground on those polls.

Once we can focus on McCain and knock him down a peg or three, things will look even better for us. The long primary season, as a whole, has been good for the party. But I can't wait for us to focus exclusively on McCain and his Bush Republican Party.

ratbastid · 05-24-2008, 05:02 AM

Yeah, host, your numbers are out of date. Obama's pulled well ahead in the comparison polls against McCain.

filtherton · 05-24-2008, 05:49 AM

The way McCain seems to be doing his thing, I feel like John Kerry could beat him.

Derwood · 05-24-2008, 01:41 PM

McCain is going to get KO'd in ever head-to-head debate he has with Obama. Obama will probably make a smarter choice of VP. Obama will skillfully point out every instance that McCain has changed his "views" in order to appeal to the neo-cons, and Obama won't resort to mud-slinging or smear campaigns

roachboy · 05-24-2008, 01:49 PM

it's still early in the sporting event.
despite how boring the 24/7 "news" channels have made the process by this point, it's still so early that it makes little sense to speculate about how the general election is going to go. but then, perhaps i am still scarred by the fact of a second bush term. who knows?

SecretMethod70 · 05-24-2008, 02:01 PM

No, I agree with you roachboy, but it's important to point out that there is not much to indicate that Obama will have a much tougher time than Clinton would, and in fact, based on what we can tell the opposite is true. But, as you correctly point out, anything can happen.

Jinn · 05-24-2008, 03:25 PM

They're not mutually exclusive; rather, they're complimentary.

loquitur · 05-24-2008, 05:28 PM

sakes alive, people, it's still May. There's six months to the election. That's an eternity. Lots of stuff can still happen.

boatin · 05-25-2008, 02:21 PM

To your original question, Host, I say "yes".

As I see your choice, it would be to give up now assuming that Obama can't win. As others have said, that seems to be a stretch. So I'm not ready to concede that it's not practical to root for Obama. The way I see it shaking out, the Dems belatedly come together and thrash McCain soundly. So I reject some of your underlying assumptions.

But even if that's not the case, the more critical issue to me is what's best loooooong term. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but if racism is what beats Obama then it's worth 4 more years of idiocy to demonstrate how bad our racial problems are in this country. I was horrified after West Virginia that no one in the media (beyond Jon Stewart) labeled a clearly racial element in the voting as such. Obama gave a great speech on racism, and the dialog lasted 3 or even 4 minutes.

I'm just naive enough to believe that an election where racism plays a role too big to ignore would be GOOD for America. I don't know what else is going to make the citizens of our fair country talk and move forward on this issue. As I think you've implied, it's a far greater problem than many think it is.

To recognize the size of the issue and give up without the fight is not acceptable to me. I'd rather fight and lose, hoping to inch forward.

dc_dux · 05-25-2008, 02:45 PM

Its now official:

Libertarian Party selects Bob Barr as 2008 presidential nominee

Will Barr be McCain's Nader? Can he pull just a few percentage points away from McCain in one or more battleground states? If he can attract the Ron Paul supporters, it is a definite possibility.

05-17-2008, 01:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I disagree with you ratbastid. I really, really don't like Hillary. I would, however, lean more toward her than Obama. The top ranked important factors for moderate conservatives are budget and international policy, Obama ranks in a deep third between the other two in both of these categories. Really what I'd be looking at is who won the swing states. Florida/Ohio/etc which have decided the previous elections. Of course Oregon/Washington/California/etc will vote blue, it's the swing states which will determine the election. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

05-17-2008, 02:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...two procedural reasons (as opposed to policy reasons) why I dont buy your scenario. New Voter Registrations New voter registrations are at an all time high, particularly in many of the battleground states in a manner that favors either Obama or Clinton over McCain. Here is a recent report, The Big Mobilization (pdf) Beyond that, most other studies and polls (along with Obama's unprecedented online campaign fund raising drive involving millions of contributors) point to a strong majority of these new voters as being Obama supporters....young voters and black voters. And Obama is building on that with a grassroots, 50-state voter registration drive that was rolled out last week. Voters Want Change Nearly all polls of all demographic groups and across the political spectrum (with the exception of the far right) want change.....polls that the country is moving in the wrong direction are at an all time high, surpassing 80% (direction of country polls).... ....and right or wrong, far more voters (particularly those new voters and a majority of Independents) view Obama as the potential "agent of change" as opposed to either Clinton or McCain. The Republican attack machine will be in full force with either candidate and Clinton has far more baggage and far higher negatives among most voters, particularly among Independents. Obama has also demonstrated an effective rapid response team (note the recent charge/response re: Bush's remarks about Democrats (particularly Obama) being terrorists "appeasers". Both Bush and McCain had to clarify that they were not referring to Obama.) However, I still have concern about the hidden race factor. There is just no way to assess its impact. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-17-2008 at 03:33 PM..

05-17-2008, 05:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I don't see it. I thik the GOP slime machine, much like Hillary, was all set at her inevitability. The hardcore Neo's hate her, the moderates hate her. Hell, the percentage of the Dems that hate her isn't really all that small. If she did, which I see as impossible at this point, get the nomination and managed to become POTUS she'd be yet another 51% POTUS. The US needs to be more divided much like it needs to be more dependent on foreign oil. I don't know if Obama can unite the country, I don't know if McCain can either. I'm certain Hillary can not. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 05-18-2008 at 07:40 AM..

05-18-2008, 02:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
scout Psycho	It's beginning to look a lot like 2004. The Democrats are putting someone completely unelectable on the November ballot. When Obama loses in November all we will hear for another 4 years is how the Republicans hacked and cheated themselves another 4 years in the white house. I will really truly be surprised if this election don't turn out much like the last. Obama will probably carry exactly the same states and areas that Kerry did. I will truly be surprised if it turns out any other way. You would think the Democratic Party would have learned by now.... here we go again!! Last edited by scout; 05-18-2008 at 03:15 AM..

05-18-2008, 07:10 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	One of the interesting issues that has not been widely reported is that, in the most recent Republican primaries, 15-25% voted against McCain. Wash Post column today.... McCain's Chances May Have Hit a New Nader Great quote at the end: *Bob Barr won't be president, but he could still gore McCain.* While many Huckabee supporters will probably come around to McCain....I think its highly unlikely that many Paul supporters will....particularly with the entrance of Bob Barr as a viable Libertarian alternative. Nationally, Paul voters represent 5 percent of Republican primary voters...If McCain cant hold these, even more "red" battleground states will be in play than 2004. Its hard to imagine any scenario where these anti-war, anti-Patriot Act die hards buy into the McCain message that Iraq can be won if we stay until 2013 or that wiretapping American citizens is an essential national security tool...either they vote for Barr or they stay home and sit it out. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-18-2008 at 07:33 AM..

05-17-2008, 01:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Listen, don't buy the hype about West Virginia. Yes there are racist rednecks there willing to parade their bigotry on national TV. They're a tiny state, and they don't represent the center of the American electorate. I don't see that the Republican attack machine would be any less engaged by Hillary. She starts out a whole lot more polarizing than Obama does. Obama stands a good shot at capturing independents and moderate Republicans, people who would never in a million million years vote for Hillary. In my view, supporting Obama's candidacy is the same as beating McCain in November.

05-17-2008, 10:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I think you may be underestimating the amount of distrust and general dislike many people have for Hillary. Who would have thought a few months ago that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama would derail the Clinton machine. There is something about the way she talks and conducts herself that causes many to reject her. If nothing else, Obama has shown that he can run a better campaign against what many thought were long odds going into the primaries. I think the chances of beating McCain are better than if Hillary had won the primary. I think McCain has a tough battle overcoming the "4 more years of Bush" sentiment.

05-18-2008, 06:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	scout, there's so much wrong with what you just wrote, it's hard to even get started responding to it.

05-18-2008, 07:53 AM	#12 (permalink)
william Psycho	Same question, different wording - do you support a third term of G.W. Bush? I am a registered Independent in the great state of Florida; considered changing to a party affiliation, until I found out the vote would not count. Personally, I was hoping for Dennis Kuchinich or John Edwards, but the media made sure not to give either any air time. To the point of your question - It is easier for me to to support Obama. He seems like someone who can keep his cool under pressure, as opposed to someone who has a record of being a hothead. An appeaser? Like Nixon was to China; or Reagan to Russia? Obama does not support the possibility of 100 years of war in Iraq. Maybe because he does not have the interests of oil and Haliburtin to consider. G. W. Bush promised to "reign in" the oil companies. How did that work out? Eight years ago, oil was $20/gal; today it's over $126?gal. To paraphase G.W. from New Orleans - "Good job, Georgie!" Oh wait - George is an oil man; Cheney is on the board of Haliburton. So I guess George did do a good job. Obama does not want PAC contributions, so maybe he does care about the "little guy". He stays away from "nasty" ads, which I'm tired of. He can win it clean. We have just seen in last Tuesday's elections that maybe those types of ads no longer work. What really seems ignorant to me is that someone would not vote for Obama based on his race (or half-race). Isn't it time to get over it? I served 12 years in the military - you only see light green or dark green. Either way, you support them and they support you - I got you, you got me. It all comes down to trust. So the bottom line to me is this - there is no way I trust McCain.

05-20-2008, 01:20 PM	#13 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Barry Obama over John McCain. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

05-21-2008, 12:48 PM	#14 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under Truman): "No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."

05-21-2008, 03:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	this is a thread with a strange set of sentiments. everyone seems so sure that person A or B or C is unelectable when we haven't even started a general election process yet. let's see what happens when Obama (yes, he'll be the nominee) squares off against McCain head to head. let's ignore all the current polls asking who will/won't vote for who until we actually get our nominees straightened out.

05-21-2008, 07:24 PM	#16 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I don't believe that Obama is unelectable so the premise of this argument is lost on me. I do, however, believe that Hillary is approaching this venture from a sense of entitlement - as if she deserves to be president. Her behavior recently reeks of desperation. That's not a quality I look for when electing a president. In fact, considering this sense of desperation, I'd say that Hillary Clinton is less electable than Barack Obama. Also, this is pure conjecture on my part, but I get a certain vibe from Ms. Clinton that there is a palpable level of contempt for Obama for having the audacity to enter the race when this was supposed to be her election. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

05-21-2008, 08:52 PM	#17 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	It's over, and it's been over for a while. Any victory that Clinton could possibly pull out at this point would be hollow. If she were to somehow convince the party movers-n-shakers that she should be The Candidate, i think she would alienate so many African-American Obama voters that she would lose the general election anyway. She's done. Having said that, i disagree with the fundamental premise of the original post. I don't think Clinton is more "electable" than Obama. Like Bill and the people who ran her campaign, she tends to concede to Republicans. (Iraq, Iran...) She's more of a triangulator than a fighter. Unfortunately for her, i think that strategy is less viable now than it was in the mid-'90s. It shouldn't take that much courage or brains to disagree with Bush on Debacle II: Iran. In my opinion, Obama's willingness to confront Republicans makes him more electable. In any case, we shall see.

05-22-2008, 06:05 AM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Why do people here think Obama is unelectable? Because he's black? I don't get it. To my mind that is the LAST reason not to vote for Obama, and in fact I think it might be a good reason to vote FOR him. I always thought he was a pretty attractive candidate. In fact, to this day I remember the first time I saw him on TV and thought "WOW, is he impressive!" That charisma just jumped out of the TV at me. Whether you think he'll be a good president or not is a separate question. But electable? Sure he's electable. Why the hell not.

05-22-2008, 06:22 AM	#21 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Yeah, I'm not sure why people don't think he's electable. That's like a phantom argument to me. He's a leader and he inspires people. He has good, different ideas. To say he's not electable --- are you a populist? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

05-22-2008, 07:37 AM	#22 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	What does populism have to do with anything?

05-22-2008, 01:09 PM	#24 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	a fair number of American populists historically were racists........ I'm not sure how that fits here.

05-22-2008, 05:39 PM	#26 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	so what does that have to do with populists? or racists for that matter? I'm not following you - your posts are reading to me as disjointed. Maybe I'm just thick...........

05-23-2008, 11:51 PM	#27 (permalink)
host Banned	People.... do you want to see me beg you? The fact that you won't even consider that there is some merit to what I am trying to tell you, is a disturbing sign, IMO, that you are not strategizing, and that there is some possibilty that beating McCain in november is not your highest priority. IT HAS TO BE ! Latest from <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138456">Newsweek</a> . Clinton (48%) vs. McCain (44%) Obama (46%) vs. McCain (46%) Observe how Clinton refuses to concede, even with so many in her own party steadfastly opposed to her continued candidacy. I am steeling myself for (in a campaign climate where the party in contol of the executive branch is known to be "hard at" data mining and analysis of intimate personal communications, transactions, and other personal details of all US residents....and thus privvy to the political leverage that kind of information guarantees...) the remorse and head shaking that I fear is coming in November, with the acceptance of the results as, we've come so far, as a country, but couldn't make it quite far enough, in the span of one election cycle, for sentiment to change enough to put Obama in the white house, but he came so close, and "next time"...... In my mind's eye, the script for this is already written, and it's because Obama has two strikes against him, both enabled by your denial..... racial attitude still pervasive in the US, and the advantage of superior and illegal intelligence gathering and analysis available to the party in power, heavily exploited for partisan political purposes, probably at least since mid 2001..... The former would not interfere in a Clinton campaign against McCain, and the latter stands a better chance of being exposed by the Clinton campaign, if it was effective enough on it's own to bring victory for McCain, because it could not be masked with, "the remorse and head shaking that I fear is coming in November, with the acceptance of the results as, we've come so far, as a country, but couldn't make it quite far enough, in the span of one election cycle, for sentiment to change enough to put Obama in the white house, but he came so close, and "next time"......" I have to ask you, again.... "Is Supporting Obama's Candidacy More Important to You Than Beating McCain in November ?" Last edited by host; 05-24-2008 at 12:09 AM..

05-24-2008, 12:00 AM	#28 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host...you know better than to look at only one poll Here is an aggregate of polls: Obama (46.7) v McCain (43.7) Clinton (45.4) v McCain (43.8) Two recent polls (Zogby, IBD) have Obama up 8-12 over McCain....no polls show Clinton with those numbers. More importantly, look at state polls....particularly those red states that were close in 04 Obama can conceivably win Iowa, Indiana, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, even Virginia...or at least has a greater chance than Clinton. McCain is even closer to Clinton in several blue states (MN, OR) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-24-2008 at 12:14 AM..

05-24-2008, 12:14 AM	#29 (permalink)
host Banned	Of course, I know better than to rely on one poll. I know better than to give in to paranoid urgings, too. Read my revised post.....call me paranoid it you want to, I just cannot picture Obama overcoming these two huge "problems". There is little or no focus on the purpose, scope, and potential effect of the TIA morphed "OP" on the outcome of the election. They know everything that they want or need to know about the Clinton and Obama campaigns and about personal weaknesses and flaws of all of the campaign organizations and supporters..... and nobody seems to focus on what that portends, or gives a shit! I really can see that the rationalization for a "few questions asked", acceptance of Obama's defeat in a close contest being "baked in" to a scenario that can mask the stealing of the election with a, "so close, after coming so far, but not quite far enough", group think, group acceptance. It seems ordained. Time will tell..... Last edited by host; 05-24-2008 at 12:37 AM..

05-24-2008, 05:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yeah, host, your numbers are out of date. Obama's pulled well ahead in the comparison polls against McCain.

05-24-2008, 05:49 AM	#32 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The way McCain seems to be doing his thing, I feel like John Kerry could beat him.

05-24-2008, 01:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	McCain is going to get KO'd in ever head-to-head debate he has with Obama. Obama will probably make a smarter choice of VP. Obama will skillfully point out every instance that McCain has changed his "views" in order to appeal to the neo-cons, and Obama won't resort to mud-slinging or smear campaigns

05-24-2008, 01:49 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's still early in the sporting event. despite how boring the 24/7 "news" channels have made the process by this point, it's still so early that it makes little sense to speculate about how the general election is going to go. but then, perhaps i am still scarred by the fact of a second bush term. who knows? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-24-2008, 02:01 PM	#35 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	No, I agree with you roachboy, but it's important to point out that there is not much to indicate that Obama will have a much tougher time than Clinton would, and in fact, based on what we can tell the opposite is true. But, as you correctly point out, anything can happen. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-24-2008, 03:25 PM	#36 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	They're not mutually exclusive; rather, they're complimentary. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

05-24-2008, 05:28 PM	#37 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	sakes alive, people, it's still May. There's six months to the election. That's an eternity. Lots of stuff can still happen.

05-25-2008, 02:21 PM	#38 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	To your original question, Host, I say "yes". As I see your choice, it would be to give up now assuming that Obama can't win. As others have said, that seems to be a stretch. So I'm not ready to concede that it's not practical to root for Obama. The way I see it shaking out, the Dems belatedly come together and thrash McCain soundly. So I reject some of your underlying assumptions. But even if that's not the case, the more critical issue to me is what's best loooooong term. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but if racism is what beats Obama then it's worth 4 more years of idiocy to demonstrate how bad our racial problems are in this country. I was horrified after West Virginia that no one in the media (beyond Jon Stewart) labeled a clearly racial element in the voting as such. Obama gave a great speech on racism, and the dialog lasted 3 or even 4 minutes. I'm just naive enough to believe that an election where racism plays a role too big to ignore would be GOOD for America. I don't know what else is going to make the citizens of our fair country talk and move forward on this issue. As I think you've implied, it's a far greater problem than many think it is. To recognize the size of the issue and give up without the fight is not acceptable to me. I'd rather fight and lose, hoping to inch forward.

05-25-2008, 02:45 PM	#39 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its now official: Libertarian Party selects Bob Barr as 2008 presidential nominee Will Barr be McCain's Nader? Can he pull just a few percentage points away from McCain in one or more battleground states? If he can attract the Ron Paul supporters, it is a definite possibility. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire