An Embarrassing Loss for Clinton: Where Have All the Blue-Collar Dems Gone?
| Tue Feb. 19, 2008 7:59 PM PST
Hillary Clinton's historic presidential campaign--once the political handicappers' favorite in the Democratic contest--now appears to depend on two things: Ohio and Texas.
On Tuesday, Barack Obama racked up his ninth win in a row, defeating Clinton by an embarrassing 17 points in Wisconsin. And once again, the nature of his win made the night worse for the Clinton crowd. As Obama had done in Virginia and Maryland a week earlier, he outdrew Clinton in voters in most demographic slices. In a state full of working-class voters, Obama demonstrated once more that he can appeal to lunch-bucket Democrats, outpacing Clinton among voters making $50,000 or less a year. Among voters below 30 years of age, Obama walloped Clinton 73 to 20 percent. He had a 2-to-1 edge with independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary. Clinton did have an edge among those 65 and older: 60 to 39 percent. But among voters who said the economy was the top issue, Obama pulled 55 percent--a big gain from the 44 percent he collected among these voters on Super Tuesday. In Wisconsin, he won 54 percent of the vote of Democrats who have not attended college--presumably blue-collar Dems. On Super Tuesday, he collected only 42 percent within this group.
At this point, Clinton's base seems to be composed of one group of loyalists: older, middle-income women. (Among all Democratic women, Obama beat Clinton 50 to 49 percent in the exit polls.) Though women voters propelled Clinton to victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, they have not carried her to success since those two states. At the same time, Obama has expanded his core.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
In Wisconsin, Obama's win occurred after another nasty stretch of campaigning. The Clinton campaign, after easing up on the attacks following the South Carolina contest, went into kitchen sink mode: throwing whatever they could at Obama. The Clinton crew accused him of plagiarism (for having used a few sentences of political rhetoric close to that of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, an Obama supporter), claimed his health care plan was a disaster, slammed him for considering whether to break his promise to stay within the public campaign financing system (which Clinton, too, has pondered rejecting), maintained that his mortgage crisis plan was inadequate and (in the words of one Clinton spokesperson) "to the right of George Bush," and pounded him for turning down her request for a debate a week. None of this worked.
According to the exit polls, Democratic voters who reached a decision on how to vote within the past month broke for Obama 62 to 37 percent. Those who decided over a month ago split 50 to 49 percent for Clinton. The obvious conclusion: Obama has, yes, momentum. Winning eight contests in a row prior to Wisconsin influenced Badger State voters. Two-thirds of Wisconsin Democrats told exit polltakers they believed Obama has the better shot at winning in November.
With her support cratering, what can Clinton do? None of the trendlines are positive for her, as she heads toward the March 4 showdowns in Ohio and Texas. In the Lone Star State, Clinton has a lead in the polls, but it has been narrowing in recent days. In Ohio, she seems to be maintaining a comfortable advantage. But are Democratic voters in these states--including those working-class Democrats Clinton is counting on in Ohio--a different breed than those in Wisconsin and Virginia and immune to Obama's appeal? The next two weeks, he will be working these states hard. And so far this year, every time Obama has had a chance to spend much time and resources in a state, he has won or placed a close second.
A week ago, Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, sent out a memo to reporters, noting that after Ohio and Texas, Clinton and Obama "will be virtually tied" in delegates. He wrote,
The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states. Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want--the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.
In recent primaries, Democratic voters have not validated Penn's claim. Still, he argued that Clinton could triumph in Ohio and Texas (and Pennsylvania on April 22, too) with the votes of white women and Latinos and end up with a lead in delegates. That may be possible--though the math has become rather difficult for Clinton. With the loss in Wisconsin (and the expected loss in Hawaii on the same night), Clinton more than before needs to score not only wins but blowouts in Ohio and Texas to close the increasing gap between her and Obama in pledged delegates. And there's no obvious course of action for her. She bashed Obama in Wisconsin to little effect. She also adopted a more populist, give-'em-hell tone when discussing economic issues, and there was no payoff.
In Youngstown, Ohio, on Election Night, Clinton--in a marathon-length speech drenched with policy details--repeated her chief criticism of Obama: I'm experienced; he's not. The Democratic race, she declared was about selecting a presidential candidate who "relies not just on words but on hard work." She added, "We can't just have speeches, we have to have solutions....While words matter, the best words in the world are not enough unless you match them with action."
That experience-over-inspiration argument has been Clinton's pitch since Iowa and New Hampshire, and it has not yet stopped Obama. Can Clinton play the same game of hold 'em in Texas and Ohio--her last best chances--and expect different results? There's no knowing at this point. But the betting is no longer in her favor.
Photo by Flickr user slwilson used under a Creative Commons license.
Comments
Mike, Obama has the resolve, intelligence and diplomatic ability to prevail against the powerful political forces that will fight to continue the American occupation of Iraq, promote the invasion of Iran, and, yes, promote the creation of a Hamasastan in the heart of Israel. Based on my extensive overseas and Washington experience, diplomatic talent is not learned but is a gift. I believe that Barack has this gift. In short ? I trust him. With all due respect, I do not trust John McCain. He is good at controlling himself in public but we do not need someone with a volcanic temper running the US military and diplomatic efforts right now. Not to mention that his main advisors in Israel are James Baker and Brent Scowcroft (the smartest men he knows). I do not think that the "Bomb, bomb, bomb ,..., Iran" policy is good for Israel. Now is the time to engage with Iran from a stance of no compromise on Israel's security, insistence on more transparency in the Iranian nuclear program, and some carrots.
You(and your campaign) are known by the company(AND ADVISORS) you keep...
David Axelrod...a "Democratic political consultant.".
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.. And colleague of DSA agent and former convict Robert Creamer...
Washington Post Harold Myerson ?.Endorser and VICE CHAIRMAN of the Democratic SOCIALISTS of America(DSA) 4th Estate luminary?
And Senior Foreign Policy Advisor LONG TIME INTELLECTUAL HEAVYWEIGHT AND COMMITTED ONE WORLDER(creator and first Exe Director of the Rockefeller OneWorld Empire TRILATERAL COMMISSION) and Council on Foreign Relations Leader Zbigniew Brzezinski....famous for the/HIS IDEAS betrayals of Samoza and the Shah...and look what the people of THOSE countries have had to undure since then?....
Change...to withdraw SOME of the troops! in Iraq and then be REDEPLOYED ALL OVER THE WORLD!!(Darfur!?!!) to promote Obama "peace"...just like the gun-enforced "peace" of W and McCain and the Harridan...
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL interventions foreign policy will continue..with "changed" and "eloquent" and "dynamic" CHANGE and CHANGE and CHANGE and HOPE and HOPE and HOPE..
and more and more BODYBAGS.... and TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT OR TO BE ALLOCATED for the GLOBALISM of OBAMA...
thanks
Hillary as Commander and Traitor?
It is also known that Bill Clinton and his administration have facilitated sensitive technology transfers to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations and other favors. Not only were there technology transfers that amounted to treason, but multiple counts of espionage were covered up as apparent "payback" for donations received. Thanks to Bill Clinton and other accomplices, the U.S. government's response to the nuclear theft at Los Alamos was marked by delays, inaction and skepticism?even though some senior intelligence officials believed the theft was among the most damaging cases of espionage in recent history.
"?Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force. But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico?." (New York Times, Jeff Gerth, March 6, 1999)
As a direct result of this technology acquisition, China now has the capacity to target American cities for annihilation: "Thirteen of China's 18 long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles are targeted on the United States." (CIA's National Intelligence Daily, 1998)
Mike, Obama has the resolve, intelligence and diplomatic ability to prevail against the powerful political forces that will fight to continue the American occupation of Iraq, promote the invasion of Iran, and, yes, promote the creation of a Hamasastan in the heart of Israel. Based on my extensive overseas and Washington experience, diplomatic talent is not learned but is a gift. I believe that Barack has this gift. In short ? I trust him. With all due respect, I do not trust John McCain. He is good at controlling himself in public but we do not need someone with a volcanic temper running the US military and diplomatic efforts right now. Not to mention that his main advisors in Israel are James Baker and Brent Scowcroft (the smartest men he knows). I do not think that the "Bomb, bomb, bomb ,..., Iran" policy is good for Israel. Now is the time to engage with Iran from a stance of no compromise on Israel's security, insistence on more transparency in the Iranian nuclear program, and some carrots.
You(and your campaign) are known by the company(AND ADVISORS) you keep...
David Axelrod...a "Democratic political consultant.".
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.. And colleague of DSA agent and former convict Robert Creamer...
Washington Post Harold Myerson ?.Endorser and VICE CHAIRMAN of the Democratic SOCIALISTS of America(DSA) 4th Estate luminary?
And Senior Foreign Policy Advisor LONG TIME INTELLECTUAL HEAVYWEIGHT AND COMMITTED ONE WORLDER(creator and first Exe Director of the Rockefeller OneWorld Empire TRILATERAL COMMISSION) and Council on Foreign Relations Leader Zbigniew Brzezinski....famous for the/HIS IDEAS betrayals of Samoza and the Shah...and look what the people of THOSE countries have had to undure since then?....
Change...to withdraw SOME of the troops! in Iraq and then be REDEPLOYED ALL OVER THE WORLD!!(Darfur!?!!) to promote Obama "peace"...just like the gun-enforced "peace" of W and McCain and the Harridan...
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL interventions foreign policy will continue..with "changed" and "eloquent" and "dynamic" CHANGE and CHANGE and CHANGE and HOPE and HOPE and HOPE..
and more and more BODYBAGS.... and TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT OR TO BE ALLOCATED for the GLOBALISM of OBAMA...
thanks
Hillary as Commander and Traitor?
It is also known that Bill Clinton and his administration have facilitated sensitive technology transfers to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations and other favors. Not only were there technology transfers that amounted to treason, but multiple counts of espionage were covered up as apparent "payback" for donations received. Thanks to Bill Clinton and other accomplices, the U.S. government's response to the nuclear theft at Los Alamos was marked by delays, inaction and skepticism?even though some senior intelligence officials believed the theft was among the most damaging cases of espionage in recent history.
"?Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force. But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico?." (New York Times, Jeff Gerth, March 6, 1999)
As a direct result of this technology acquisition, China now has the capacity to target American cities for annihilation: "Thirteen of China's 18 long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles are targeted on the United States." (CIA's National Intelligence Daily, 1998)
Submitted by lordmwesh (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 9:11 PM PST.
Go Obama Go
There is no way of slowing the 'MO' for this dude
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 9:46 PM PST.
I think HRC should do all she can, when that is not enough she has to make a decision.
I don't think she has the character to do what is best for the party nor the country. It might be the end of her political career.
Seems to me Americans are tired of the old school. That more than anything bodes well for the eventual nominee.
Well,I"ll try not to sound too bitter in regards to politics and this election,although,it"s hard after 7 years of Bush.If we have another rigged election here i.e. the supreme court deciding who our president will be,I vow to leave this country.We,as citizens,should never forget Paul Wellstone.Do not let his death be in vain.We need a new path.Peace.
For all those out there saying HRC is fading I would like them to look at the actual delegate and superdelegate counts--there are only 74 delegates separating the two. This is still a statistical dead heat, not matter how much the talking heads would like HRC to "gracefully step down". There are still several states to go and there is still the decision to be made regarding Michigan and Florida. Obama is not the chosen one YET. I think the Democrats made a big mistake by front loading the primaries. It would have given the party much more time to really assess the candidates and would have helped Edwards, Richardson, etc. I am sorry, but at this point, I really don't see much difference between the candidates based on issues. Obama is as much of an insider in Washington as is Clinton. By the way, he early on supported LIeberman in his campaign in Connecticut and also chose Lieberman as his senate mentor. Must really gall him to see Lieberman kissing up to McCain. The GOP is gonna really swift boat Obama and I am not so sure he has the guts to stand up to them. Clinton has really been fairly easy on him. How can you attack an opponent who is black? Every time anything is said it is parsed to see if it's racist. On the other hand, no one seems to care if others use sexist language to attack her. Come on, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.
I still support Hillary. She has the experience that I am afraid that Obama doesn't. In the early debates, he was the "uh, huh" guy--basically coming in on the tail end of a policy issue that either Edwards or one of the other candidates put out.Yeah, he's a great speaker. Obama-mania, I am afraid, is just another fad.
That is a vary good point. I remember all those heated debates on national TV when Mrs. Clinton really gave it it those Republicans. And remember the time she won a huge political battle by stepping above the fray and speaking directly to the American people in the manner that the President needs to in order to drive policy? That was great. I can't wait to see the American people rally around her. New things are scary and I like Hillary because I've seen her on TV for like 20 years. That means she can do the job.
Pray tell, what experience in managing government has Mrs. Clinton had? Being the wife of the President? She got the experience by osmosis? Nah.
The people have rejected Mrs. Clinton, they are saying NO! to her. They are saying YES to Mr. Obama. I dare any "superdelegate" say no to him.
BTW, for Mrs. Clinton to "win", she will have to blowout Mr. Obama in the remaining states by more than 40 points in each states. Proportionallity of allocation of delegates, kills her chances.
Submitted by Matt (not verified) on Wed Feb. 20, 2008 7:48 AM PST.
"there is still the decision to be made regarding Michigan and Florida"
The democratic parties in Florida and Michigan made their decision last year when they decided to break the National party rules with full knowledge of the consequences.
The only way to fairly give votes to these states would be another Primary or more realistically a caucus. You can not simply "count the votes" in one state where Hillary was the only one on the ballot and another one where they agreed not to campaign in and she carried on name recognition. Oh and she just happened to be in Florida on election day for a fund raiser to spark that name recognition advantage.
The answer to Michigan and Florida is quite simple. Make the delegations from those states superdelegates. They allready have 800 of them.. adding 150 more is going to do what harm? By making them free agents its now up to the campeigns to court them and since they will both have equal access it'll be fair.
rachele,
how has hillary been easy on obama? she attacked him with rezko, his kindergarten writings, his voting present 3% of the time in IL, and now plagiarism. if she's being easy on him, then he must be going easy on her too. he's hit her on her tax returns and her vote for the iraq war, but he's laid off her weak senate record, her husband's foundation's shady donors, her shady donors, whitewater, vince foster, and all other slime that the republicans have been dredging up for years. and if she becomes the nominee, there's no way the republicans could use all that in the general election to make john kerry's swiftboating look like a pleasure cruise, right?
oh, and how can you attack an opponent who's black? well, you can remind everyone he's black as often as possible, peg him as the 'black' candidate a la jesse jackson, and imply he sold drugs as a teen. i think these may have been tried. anyone know how well they worked?
Obamacan?
How about McCainocrat?
I am not voting for a foreign policy novice who sounds totally naive for president. Obama needs to "change" his tune and start explaining what it is he would actually do, or he's lost this Dem.
The polls might not bear this out right now, but I think Obama - McCain is likely to be a huge embarrassment for the Dems. The other side are nominating the best and the most qualified person in their party. Why would we nominate a ROOKIE to run against him?
What experience are you talking about with regard to HRC? Obama actually has more public office experience than she does. Hillary's much touted 35 years of experience is a bunch of talk. The fact is that she is polarizing and cannot inspire a flea. She represents the politics of the past and Obama of the future. The people have spoken time and again-they want change. Hillary is Done!
Submitted by onomar (not verified) on Wed Feb. 20, 2008 8:59 AM PST.
Clinton is finished on February 5.
John F. Kennedy was a rookie also and so was Lincoln. Youth does not equate to stupid. Some of the so-called experienced politicians that knew better have taken this country in the wrong direction. Obama voted against the war Hillary voted for it. Gee, I guess Hillary's experience did not serve so well. Experience doesn't mean that you will do better of make better decisions necessarily. It is a slogan that has been used to hold people back time and again. Get over it!
Robert,
What you need to realize, is that attacks on Hillary and the Clintons in general are not an effective way to attempt to get Hillary supporters to back Obama in a general election.
McCain is starting to look pretty good from a foreign policy perspective. And he is practically a moderate or Dem on other issues - from energy, to campaign finance, to abortion, etc.
And what does Obama really want to change that is so important? You know, in general, I think things would be fine if we had a *competent* leader - which I think John McCain is. Obama is a great big unknown who can deliver a good speech. Just like George W. Bush was.
>>"Hillary is done!"
>>Hilary's experience is a bunch of talk
To me, this type of comment is simple disrespect of one of the great figures and families of the Democratic party over the past 20 years, (not to mention an ongoing potential ally to Obama no matter which way this thing goes). Why would you say her experience is "just a bunch of talk"? To voters like me who value experience, you can look at the exit polls from WI - 95% voted for Clinton. And we represented 25% of the Democratic voters. So, we are an important segment, and your argument that Obama is more experienced is just plain silly to almost all of us. What, was he in the model UN in high school as well? (sorry, I'm allowed one snarky comment)
If Obama supporters want to be nasty like you have, and not realize that Hillary is also a very strong candidate (who probably has the greatest shot of stopping John McCain in November, if nominated), and not acknowledge her experience, then like I said before - "you've lost this Dem". Lifelong Dem, I might add.
Far from a "politics of change" and "post-partisan unity" that they claim, Obama supporters are so nasty and overzealous they can't even achieve "intra-party unity"!
-Mike
>>Obama voted against the war Hillary voted for it. Gee, I guess Hillary's experience did not serve so well.
Obama never voted against the war. He was not in the Senate at the time.
Hillary voted to allow the US to go to war in the event that the inspections did not work and war was the last course possible. She did not know any better than the 90% of Americans at the time who supported this vote with what gross negligence the Bush administration would pursue and wage this war. Hindsight is always 20-20 though, isn't it?
>>John F. Kennedy was a rookie also and so was Lincoln
Kennedy served in the House for 6 years and the Senate for 8 BEFORE his presidency. Obama has served at the national level for *3* years, count 'em - 1,2,3. Kennedy also lost the nomination in 1956 because he was NOT ready.
Lincoln had been elected to serve in Congress 14 years before 1860, when he was elected president. He also had a very distinguihsed career and served as Republican party "kingmaker" in Illinois before elected president.
Lincoln needed 12 years of seasoning in between his national service and when he returned as President.
Novices? I think not.
Hey, I'm not saying Obama is not a good candidate. But he is a novice, and nominating him is more risky - both for the potential upside, and potential downside, than nominating a well-known quantity like Clinton.
Which is why I would probably vote for McCain now - and Obama in 2016 or so.
As a member of the USW and someone that works in aerospace, my head and heart (and some of my hard earned cash money!) were in full support of John Edwards. This was primarily because he had changed his stripes and become someone that extolled a true populist message. With Edwards on the sidelines, Obama is the believably better candidate to carry that message forward.
We Dems are faced/left with 2 candidates now; 1 seems to be taking the pragmatic route in believing and saying things need to be changed to make them work again - Hilary. The other is taking the altruistic route in believing and saying things need to change to make them right again - Barack. Isn't it about time the party and its members got back to being and doing things altruistically?
McCain can beat Obama? I guess we can't put ALL our belief in polls, but Obama has always polled ahead of McCain for the general. This morning, after his 2/19 victories, he increased his lead. HRC, who is to TX & OH as Guliani is (was) to FL, has ALWAYS been behind McCain.
The Clinton campaign would love that! Won't happen. As others have said, the decision on these states has already been made. What harm could it do, you ask? If it overturned the will of the voters in states that followed the rules I think the answer to that is evident.
Next campaign for Obama:
"It's the Cintonistas, Stupid"
People are tired of gridlock in our government, caused by the extreme right or left of both parties. Few people want a repeat of the Clinton's in the white house.
Bush,Clinton, Bush, Clinton?
Change is anyone with a different name.
Lincoln had been elected to serve in Congress 14 years before 1860
?????
A one term congressman?
Lincoln was elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846. As a freshman House member, he was not a particularly powerful or influential figure. However, he spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory" and challenged the President's claims regarding the Texas boundary and offered Spot Resolutions, demanding to know on what "spot" on US soil that blood was first spilt.[10]
Lincoln later damaged his political reputation with a speech in which he declared, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just." Two weeks later, President Polk sent a peace treaty to Congress. While no one in Washington paid any attention to Lincoln, the Democrats orchestrated angry outbursts from across his district, where the war was popular and many had volunteered.
Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.
>>McCain can beat Obama? I guess we can't put ALL our belief in polls, but Obama has always polled ahead of McCain for the general
First of all, the national polls are all within the margins of error - so they are basically a dead heat. Which is same as Hillary fairs against McCain - to me this is meaningless.
Secondly, the DEM nominee will not need to win a popular national vote. They need to win all-or-nothing races in battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which I believe by November will be much easier John McCain or Hillary territory than Obama territory (and have been showing as such in the polls as well).
Regardless, November is a long way off. Democrats should be basing their decision on their *intuition* for who is the stronger candidate, not the polls. To me - the choice is clear - Hillary.
Obama is an empty suit.
mike,
hillary voted to allow the US to go to war if inspections failed. she then voted against the levin amendment to require more diplomacy before going to war and would require a 2nd vote before using force. and she spoke on the floor of the senate about iraq's giving aid and comfort to al qaeda. so yes, she voted for the war.
and john mccain has been antiabortion his entire political career, and believes that nuclear energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. he is not a dem on these and other issues.
>>People are tired of gridlock in our government, caused by the extreme right or left of both parties. Few people want a repeat of the Clinton's in the white house.
>>Bush,Clinton, Bush, Clinton?
>>Change is anyone with a different name.
What *LOW* expectations you have. Well, then Obama is your man! All talk and empty promises!
Versus a reputable Democrat who was in part responsible for the greatest decade in the past 50 years.
>>As for Lincoln: Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.
So, Lincoln made mistakes as a junior representative denouncing a war? And later was so unpopular that he could not win? Sounds like Obama to me, a junior Senator with *NO* foreign policy credentials who is leading us into a dangerous foreign policy of acquiescence.
Only when Lincoln understood how and what it meant to wage war did he come back as President. I would suggest Obama do the same. Americans do not want negotiations with Ahmadenijad. Period.
-Mike
>>mike,
>>hillary voted to allow the US to go to war if inspections failed. she then voted against the levin amendment to require more diplomacy before going to war and would require a 2nd vote before using force. and she spoke on the floor of the senate about iraq's giving aid and comfort to al qaeda. so yes, she voted for the war.
Homer, Obama has also supported the war ever since being in the Senate. He has not once voted against Iraq funding. Hillary gave the President the authority to wage war. Obama did not vote on the issue. To me, Hillary was misled just as badly as 90% of the people who initially supported the President. But if you look at her husband's foreign policy, you would see how she would wage her own foreign policy - tactical strikes in Iraq, successes in the Balkans without any (?) casualties, etc. No mad rush to war. The fact that she trusted the commander in chief to execute his responsibilities effectively and in the same way that she would have done is not a flaw to me.
>>and john mccain has been antiabortion his entire political career, and believes that nuclear energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. he is not a dem on these and other issues.
From what I have heard, Obama is also pro nuclear energy.
Listen - Obama can win folks! But he needs a stronger foreign policy to negate McCain's advantage! Yes, we can talk to Cuba, maybe. But we still have enemies - Iran, North Korea - let's not have a completely naive foreign policy.
So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama actually favors a rational, strong foreign policy.
-Mike
"For all those out there saying HRC is fading I would like them to look at the actual delegate and superdelegate counts--there are only 74 delegates separating the two."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delega...
This is the most accurate breakdown of delegates I have found, and Obama is currently leading by over 160 pledged delegates, with 56 pledged delegates still unnacounted for (and 52 of them are in states Obama won). When you factor in the superdelegates that have already chosen sides, his lead will still be over 100.
Mike,
I am not being nasty regarding Hillary. Sorry you got that perception. Actually she is the one that has been nasty and belittling of Obama's experience and knowledge. She is going to get even more toxic now that she is losing continuously. She failed to reform health care etc. and to my knowledge has not done much other than have the name Clinton attached to her. You value experience and so do most including me. Experience does not equate to good decision making all the time as you blindly seem to think. We need a fresh approach and sorry but HRC was in the white house for eight years getting indoctrinated in the illicit politics of Slick Willie. To be an effective president you have to be able to bring people together. Obama is that person. Hillary is not. I am an independent and believe that McCain is the better overall candidate. I am turned off by Hillary's disparaging of Obama on a daily basis. Honestly, I have not seen Obama do much of it compared to her. She bombs away because her message is tired. She is now saying the she is solution oriented. Hillary has changed her message. The impression is that she will do anything to be elected. Also, before you go crowning the Clintons as some great American family don't forget that Bill embarrassed America more than any other president ever. Remember Monica? The Clintons play dirty and are old school politicians. Open your eyes. Obama is the fresh approach we need. Ten states in a row agree with me.
Let us not forget folks that the president of the USA does not act alone on most world issues. Congress actually runs things and presidents benefit from experts and advisers. We get too carried away with experience. Yes, it matters! However, there has never been a president that had experience being president prior to being elected. They all learn on the job and are limited in what they can do independent of congress and public opinion.
Robert,
>>Also, before you go crowning the Clintons as some great American family don't forget that Bill embarrassed America more than any other president ever. Remember Monica?
That's all you have, isn't it? The Monica Lewinsky scandal is about as important to my impression of Bill Clinton as whatever JFK did with Marilyn Monroe - which is absolutely trivial. The only people who care about that are right-wing nutcases.
>>Experience does not equate to good decision making all the time as you blindly seem to think.
Right, "blindly". All evidence I have seen is that Hillary is smarter than Obama. She does have a distinct disadvantage and may have poorly managed her campaign up till now - I will grant you that.
>>The Clintons play dirty and are old school politicians.
Obama is playing dirty now too. What happened to public financing for his presidential campaign? "Just words", I guess.
Again, it is the type of nastiness espoused by the "no-nothings" that are backing Obama that will lead me to back:
1) Clinton
2) Bloomberg or Nader
3) McCain
4) Obama
-Mike
Mike,
I have to take exception to your last post, which largely makes no sense whatsoever.
First, although I will agree that right-wing conservatives tends to make far too much of the Bill Clinton sex scandels, lets not forget President Clinton looked his country in the eye and told repeated lies. That speaks to his character has a husband, as a father, and as a national leader. The fact that Hilliary Clinton chose to defend Bill's immoral behavior despite knowing full well that he has sleep with numerous women speaks to her character as well. I'm not judging whether Hillary should have left Bill or whatever, but to turn a blind eye to such disrepectful behavior is not impressive.
Second, what evidence do you have that Hillary is "smarter" than Obama? Obama was top of his class at Harvard Law, president of Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor. He is much more well spoken and he has run a nearly flawless campaign. Are you aware that Hillary failed the D.C. bar exam? Are you aware how easy it is to pass state bar exams with minimal effort? I don't know who is "smarter" but it certainly isn't clear cut.
Third, with regard to Obama's stanch on public financing, do you realize that Obama hasn't decided what he is going to do, and that he is instead focusing his efforts on this primary election? The fact that Hillary and her supporters are attacking Obama for a position he "might" take in the future speaks to the desperate nature of her campaign.
Next time you are going to make a post attacking someone try thinking first and writing second.
Hillary forgets that it is OUR hard work that is needed to make change happen not hers. Many of us who are working as volunteers for Obama have never been involved in politics before. After he is elected, we will continue to work through the nitty gritty and exhausting steps of making change happen (phone calls, letters, shlepping block to block and house to house to talk to neighbors in the cold and hot weather). Why? Because Barack is a leader. You cannot learn how to be a leader by sitting on Senate committees. Most of us have never seen democracy in action in our lifetimes because it is rare and hard to achieve. As my dear father always says, "American Participatory Democracy is the most radical political system ever put into practice and the jury is still out on whether we can live up to the challenge of making it a success." I encourage everyone to get on board now and stay on board after we have won the election to fight for substantial improvements in the lives of all those regular folks you know with no health care and no pension and no savings and no chance to go to college like you did. Obama is listening - send your ideas on how to make it work and get involved. You will never regret trying to make America better.
Joe,
>>First, although I will agree that right-wing conservatives tends to make far too much of the Bill Clinton sex scandels, lets not forget President Clinton looked his country in the eye and told repeated lies
Let's not forget that the matter was always pursued by right-wingers, and that Clinton's personal life should have never been the subject of national debate, especially over such trivial matters.
>>Second, what evidence do you have that Hillary is "smarter" than Obama?
The fact that she beat him in the one debate that they had one on one.
>>Third, with regard to Obama's stanch on public financing, do you realize that Obama hasn't decided what he is going to do, and that he is instead focusing his efforts on this primary election?
Obama is already getting hammered on this issue by McCain. If you, like most, think that Obama is truly about "change" and can escape the "dirty politics" that only the Clintons have to play, think again. Obama is going to get educated real quick. He is not above the fray.
The Clintons are not above the fray either. But they already realize that, and to me there is much less downside to nominating them.
I am convinced that Hillary would have a far more effective foreign policy and is the most qualified candidate for the job. It is just a job, after all. All of the attacks I have heard, like yours and Roberts, are based on completely irrelevant details like Bill Clinton's affairs, and that Obama is more "likeable". Well, George W. Bush was more likeable too, and look what a mess that got us into.
>>Next time you are going to make a post attacking someone try thinking first and writing second
Same to you, bud. And BTW, I am not attacking anyone here - I am just defending Hillary and pointing out that there is a lot of hot air behind Obama, and he may be weaker (and also far stronger) going up against McCain. I really don't think that's a controversial statement. I just personally would rather not take that risk, and go with a known quantity that I trust, and that I am convinced would do her country proud.
-Mike
The Clintons need to look at saving what is left of their legacy and make sure whether they win or lose this thing they fight it clean from here on out. They have already destroyed their relationship with the African American community and are in serious danger of doing the same with a large number of Democrats if they go dirtier! I understand wanting to fight it out to the end, but not the need to destroy the party if it gives them a chance to some how steal the nomination. Hillary still has a chance to come out of this with a good reputation and a chance to remain a leader in Democratic politics for decades to come, but if they continue to rely on negatives to win this race she is endangering her future as well as what is left of the Clinton legacy. In addition those politicians that support the Clintons better remeber that they will face the voters too, voters that do not want change and hope, not more of the political machine politics.
Mike,
I just went back and read more of your drivel.
For example, you state, "So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama actually favors a rational, strong foreign policy."
You can start here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
First, Barack Obama has one of the, if not THE, strongest group of foreign policy advisors in recent memory. A little reading goes a long way. Second, the recent unilateral strike in Pakistan that took out an Al Qaeda leader was EXACTLY the kind of approach Obama called for in an early debate. That approach was critized by Bush, Hillary, and many others as being "naive." Yet, now the Bush administration is touting that action as a major success in the war on terror.
Also, your assertion that Obama has not been against the war in Iraq since being in the Senate is intellecutally dishonest. Barack Obama has always been against the war in Iraq. That said, he would not vote against funding our troops once they are already there. He himself has stated that those funding votes were very difficult decisions because he does not support the war but he doesn't believe in having troops in battle without proper funding.
Please stop posting arguments that mamke no sense and are intellectually dishonest. You aren't fooling anybody.
Mike,
You wrote, "Hope you are happy when Obama starts negotiating with Iran and Syria and selling out Israel and other allies!"
Please stop with this nonsense. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post the more obvious it becomes.
You also wrote, "The fact that she beat him in the one debate that they had one on one." You must be kidding right? I would argue that Clinton performed better than Obama in every debate EXCEPT that debate, and I've watched them all. Obama clearly "won" the one on one debate with Clinton, whatever it means to "win" such a subjective contest.
I could go on cutting up your baseless arguments, but I have better things to do. I encourage you to do a little reading and form thoughtful opinions.
By the way, I am a strong supporter of Hillary as well so I do encourage you to vote for her, but please do it for intellectually honest reasons.
Bill Clinton did more than just lie to the American people--he lied under oath. Even Martha Stewart, who did hard time, didn't lie under oath.
And that's what makes it not the same as JFK and Marilyn Monroe. It wasn't about sex--it was about honesty. Clinton was disbarred as a result of his actions. I think a lot of people have made a lot of excuses for him since then.
Better they start "excusing" what he did for Marc Rich, or Hillary's brothers' friends, or the Puerto Rican terrorists behind bars when Hillary was running for the Senate. It's not like he was dishonest only once!
He's going ballistic now because he wants back in the White House. I'd be more likely to vote for Hillary if she got a divorce! I think she's extremely intelligent, but her common sense lacks a lot. She couldn't control Bill the first time around and she won't be able to if there were to be a next time. He's stage a coup d'etat if he could like some banana republic dictator!
A lot of people don't want another 4 or 8 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, regardless of who her opponent is. She has some of the highest negatives of any serious candidate.
Mike,
You wrote, "All of the attacks I have heard, like yours and Roberts, are based on completely irrelevant details like Bill Clinton's affairs, and that Obama is more "likeable". Well, George W. Bush was more likeable too, and look what a mess that got us into."
Again, I support Hillary Clinton. At no point was I purporting to write a basis for why Barack is a better candidate. If I wanted to, I could run circles around you clearly demonstrating why Obama is the better candidate. But I don't believe that so I don't see the point. I was simply pointing out the baselessness of your repeated assertions.
Mike:
Want more examples of why the Clinton years don't bring back fond memories for some of us? Try:
-The Marc Rich pardon - absolutely odious ad corrupt. Made me ashamed to be a Demo.
- Fund-raising scandals, exemplified by the sale of the Lincoln bedroom
- Botching health care: You've seen stories about her stand-downs with Bill Bradley and Jim Cooper, two highly respected figures? She threatened to demonize them if they opposed her structure for health care reform. It was so bad, Bradley would never speak to her again.
- A GOP Congress after 2 years of his presidency: while Rostenkowski et al. bear a lot of responsibility, by then he and she had already so impaired their credibility that they were useless in the 1994 election.
- The travel office farce - pulling it apart so she could award it to her friends when the people running it had done a good job historically.
- The abortive attempt to nail Bin Laden, after years of neglecting critical intell concerning his activities.
- The DMCA: a gift to his fat cat supporters in Hollywood and the entertainment field.
I've imputed his actions to HRC. She claims 35 years of experience - a topic for a whole separate thread - and we must assume that she has her fingerprints all Clinton I. If you want to disregard that, then throw away the experience argument, because then she's on the same track as Barack.
So, we're now faced with the prospect of a rerun, where HRC's response to a critique is to say 'I've learned from my mistakes'. With that vague assurance we're supposed to let these two back into the White House. Let your imagination roam for a moment and picture the mischief that the ADD ex-President will be up to once he gets near the seat of power, and consider the difficulty she's had in restraining him up to now.
These were not the golden years for true Demos. While I supported a migration away from reflexive New Deal government centric philosophy to new modalities, what the two of them gave us is 8 rudderless years of courting business interests while shifting with the prevailing political winds and soliciting financial support. That may be your ideal of a political legacy, but it's not mine.
Joe,
>>Please stop with this nonsense. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post the more obvious it becomes.
No - the reality is that nobody has any idea what *Obama* is talking about when he says he will negotiate with dictators.
>>Obama clearly "won" the one on one debate with Clinton, whatever it means to "win" such a subjective contest.
I watched the same debate. Clinton seems more knowledgeable on the policies. Her health care plan brings us closer to true universal coverage. Everything I have read from every source is that she is very intellectual and, if anything, more of a policy expert than Obama.
If you support Hillary so much, your arguments certainly don't indicate it. You see her defenders as spewing "mindless drivel". That is just the sort of idiocy that is driving people like me away from Obama. His supporters are venomous, cult-like worshippers!
If you win, show some respect. Or else I am pretty sure this is going to end up as a divided party, and a McCain victory.
Also, instead of defending Obama's foreign policy, hey, maybe it does need to be stronger to compete with McCain. This is not "drivel" - this is a real suggestion that I think will save any DEM from certain attack by the right.
Learn from the Clintons - co-opt the strength of your opponents. Do not let them use it to their advantage. Then, once a DEM is elected, maybe they can float some trial balloons with North Korea or Iran. But in the general election, that is going to hurt him, not help.
-Mike
