Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But it would be hard to argue that Hillary is not the stronger candidate in the big democratic states where it really counts.<< But again, it's an apples and oranges comparisson. The war was much more "popular" in 2004 than it is now. The Bush people were better able to use the "you're either with us or against us" stuff and of course there was the whole Swiftboating thing. Kerry had the nomination wrapped up early on, he didn't have these months of running against people in his own party. You haven't addressed the fact that this "stronger" candidate also would provoke more GOP voters who aren't all that in love with McCain to turn out if for no other reason than to vote AGAINST Clinton. Those numbers would be huge. Combined with the many Obama voters who would be disgusted and opt out if she successfully hornswaggles the nomination with some fuzzy math, we're talking a Mondale vs. Reagan sized landslide. I know she has her supporters. I personally don't have huge problems with her (though I am losing respect for her the longer this drags on and the more schemeing with numbers her people do). But there simply is no overstating the amount of hatred for her and her husband especially.
Originally Posted By mele <<Her whole campaign is filled with guys that really did believe the whole "it depends on how you define 'is'" argument>> It's a Clinton Family requirement to believe in it.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It is cute how Hillary changes the rules everytime things don't appear to be in her favor. You have to give her credit. The only way the Democrats end up in the White House short of a tragedy that takes both of their candidates is if they are on the same ticket. Even then I think it would be a reach but I think regardless of the outcome here McCain would have to really trip over himself to lose. Does that make any sense? Not really. They should have this one in the bag after the last eight years but leave it to them to jeopardize things.
Originally Posted By DlandDug You may count me among those who have an entirely irrational dislike of Hillary Clinton. Don't like her, don't like her husband, don't like his former Veep. Don't even like the horse they rode in on. Conversely, I believe that of the current field of Democrats, Hillary is far better qualified to run the country. Back when it looked like it was shaping up to be a McCain/Clinton showdown in November, I was content. I believe either would make a good President. Obama on the other hand... I dislike Obama for much the same reasons I disliked Jimmy Carter, a "feel good" candidate with very little experience. I am convinced that an Obama Presidency would have about as much impact. Oddly, the Obama surge also reminds me of nothing so much as the way the GOP embraced George W back in 2000. He was also largely unknown outside of his region (Texas). He had that "twinkle" factor. His fund raising ability was unmatched. And he was maddeningly inexact when it came to specifics.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>They should have this one in the bag after the last eight years but leave it to them to jeopardize things.<< Yup. After Nixon's resignation in '72, the Democratic party should have been able to completely dominate the Executive branch (as they have dominated the legislative) for the rest of the century. Instead, they elected Jimmy Carter, and thus paved the way for Ronald Reagan, who created a whole new paradign for the GOP and the modern conservative movement...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Sorry, but I think when Republicans say they think Hillary is more qualified or what have you sound suspiciously similar to Brer Rabbit, begging not to be thrown into that old briar patch. I think truth be told, nothing, and I mean nothing, would make the GOP happier than running against the Clintons again. Obama is a dicier prospect for them. The Jerimiah Wright "scandal" came along too soon -- should have bottled that up for October instead. If Obama makes a smart pick with his running mate (meaning, not Hillary), the GOP is toast come November.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 RT, the asterisking of Kerry states works the inverse way you seem to think. It argues against the idea that Clinton is more electable because she took so many of the "big blue" states from 2000 and 2004... because Obama should take them anyway. If the rather weak John Kerry can take Pennsylvania, Obama can take Pennsylvania. And he'll certainly take CA, NY, MA, NJ... all those "big blue" states that Clinton claims a Democrat needs. Yes, a Democrat needs them. But unless Obama implodes, he will take them.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If the rather weak John Kerry can take Pennsylvania, Obama can take Pennsylvania. And he'll certainly take CA, NY, MA, NJ... all those "big blue" states that Clinton claims a Democrat needs. Yes, a Democrat needs them. But unless Obama implodes, he will take them. >> I think CA and NY are going to be a lot tougher this year than anyone wants to admit. There are some demographics there that are not in Obama's favor. The Rev. Wright issue, in particular, has caused the Jewish community to sound the alarm in some circles. What are the states with large Jewish populations? CA, FL, and NY. FL is probably already lost for the Democrats with Obama for a number of other reasons. Then factor in whether or not the Latinos will shift their loyalty to Obama in CA and you start to see what should be an easy victory turn into a close race. McCain is very Latino friendly, and can woo large military populations in states like CA to his side. It will be interesting to see how things shape up in the coming months.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, the asterisking of Kerry states works the inverse way you seem to think. It argues against the idea that Clinton is more electable because she took so many of the "big blue" states from 2000 and 2004... because Obama should take them anyway.>> Good point. But if you total the un-asterisked states.... those that the right democrat could MAYBE take this time instead of the republican; Hillary still leads 141-131. While this is closer than the other totals, Clinton is still ahead. Essentially Hillary does better in the large states and Obama better in the small states. I'm not saying that Hillary should be given the nomination. I just don't think it is as cut and dried as some folks believe.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The list of reasons of why Obama cannot defeat McCain is L O N G. It is about race, service to Country, and actually BEING PRESENT to vote when you are supposed to be. The American people are too wise to Obama's real self.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Really? What is Obama's "real self"? Does that mean that people, like me, who support him are somehow deluded?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It is about race, service to Country, and actually BEING PRESENT to vote when you are supposed to be. The American people are too wise to Obama's real self." I guess maybe I'm not that wise. What is Obama's real self?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad tell me , Why do you support him? And spare all the "lesser of 2 evils" and the "its all about change" bunk. Am I deluded because I don't support him?
Originally Posted By X-san After what the republicans have done to tarnish the United States over the last 8 years? Absolutely. Giving them (ANY of them) the white house for another 4 years tells everyone that what happened is okay, and can happen again. The world community at large will consider that unforgivable, I think.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Sorry, but I think when Republicans say they think Hillary is more qualified or what have you sound suspiciously similar to Brer Rabbit, begging not to be thrown into that old briar patch. I think truth be told, nothing, and I mean nothing, would make the GOP happier than running against the Clintons again.<< I was speaking about me and my preferences, not strategies for winning. Yes, Hillary is catnip to GOP strategists. They've been running against her for years, if the mailers I have received are any indication. But, believe it or not, despite all the negatives, I still believe she is far more qualified to run this country than Obama. >>The American people are too wise to Obama's real self.<< That would be "some" American people are wise to Obama's "real self." Me, I still feel like there's a lot we don't know. But I am unwilling to go into lurid specualtion, and I certainly won't let the extremists at either end tell me what is "true" about the man.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<<I dislike Obama for much the same reasons I disliked Jimmy Carter, a "feel good" candidate with very little experience. I am convinced that an Obama Presidency would have about as much impact.>>>> I couldn't agree more Doug. I have shocked a lot of my family and friends because I haven't jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Without even getting into the policies and issues of Obama or Clinton my gut is just not buying him as President. I just have a very uneasy feeling about him and his experience as a leader - not as a politician as a leader. I will not vote for McCain, but it will be with great reservation that I'll cast my demo vote if it's Obama.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "tell me , Why do you support him? And spare all the "lesser of 2 evils" and the "its all about change" bunk. Am I deluded because I don't support him?" Tell me, where I have stated I support the guy? I don't like any of the three choices. But there's the thing. Don't ask anyone a question and then tell them what not to say when they answer. Bad form. By the way, you never did answer the question. What's Obama's real self?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think CA and NY are going to be a lot tougher this year than anyone wants to admit. > CA maybe, but NY I don't think so. NY voted for Dukakis, for crying out loud (CA didn't). In the last NY poll I saw pitting McCain against Obama head to head (and McCain against Clinton head to head), in both cases the Democrat won handily. Obama's lack of experience is a bit troubling, but the record of presidents with little experience coming in vs. those with a lot of experience coming in is remarkably similar; in each case it's a very mixed bag. Some with little experience were great presidents, others were not. Same with those with lots of experience. So I look to policy, and there obviously I like Obama far better than McCain. Obama also seems to me to be very cool under fire, which I think is an important trait for a president. He's obviously highly intelligent, and I think unlike Carter he is the sort of guy who will admit his shortcomings to himself and will appoint highly qualified people to staff the positions he has the least experience with himself.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Let me simplify my statement. I do not know Obama therefore I don't know his "real self." I think, based on the things I do know about him, that he is an "American Idol" cadidate and is not qualified to be president. He's an overnight phenom, without much more substance than "everyone's getting on board won't you join in?" There you go, bad form and all.
