Hillusions of grandeur
From John Helton’s PA-primary postmortem on CNN.com: “Look for Clinton to head into upcoming contests with the message that Obama can’t win in the big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that Democrats will need to regain the White House.”
I cannot be the only one who finds the idea that Clinton is better positioned to beat McCain ridiculous. If Clinton gets the nomination, which I really doubt, I would most likely vote for her — but I would give McCain some serious thought provided he softened his stance on Iraq and some other issues in the interim between the conventions and the general election. I just find Clinton’s candidacy deeply troubling; the story surrounding Richardson’s endorsement of Obama is a pretty good example of why. McCain is equally troubling in terms of certain expedient choices he’s made in the last five or so years, and it really would boil down to a lesser-of-two-evils situation, as it so often does.
But my personal preferences aside, there is just no goddamn way Clinton is going to do better against McCain than Obama. None. Can she bring over some Reagan Democrats? Sure. But Republicans hate her. Hate her. Hate her, hate Bill, hate every single thing she’s ever done or said. Would switch party affiliations for the primary to vote against her. Did so, in thousands of cases, in Pennsylvania. Republicans would consider voting for Obama, I think, particularly if they don’t think McCain’s approach to the war is workable, but not for all the gold in Fort Knox would they vote for Clinton.
I know she and her strategists — what remains of them, at this point — have to say that kind of thing to keep her supporters psyched, but that cheerily delusional spin typifies the problem with her, in a way. I get that she doesn’t want to give up; it’s not like she’s Edwards and she’s miles off the pace. But it’s really better for the Democrats to send a presumptive nominee into the convention, no? Start fund-raising to beat Old Man John? And everyone’s more or less agreed on the fact that she really can’t get the nom, right? So, if what she really wants is the country’s best interests, shouldn’t she just…stay down? But no, we have to continue with the fiction that she has a chance, and waste a bunch of time and money arming for a fight that isn’t the big show.
I mean, maybe Obama can’t win Pennsylvania. But it’s not like she trounced him — and it’s not like she can win it either, if all either of them can count on is Philly. I empathize with her, but I don’t want her to get the nomination, it doesn’t look like she’s going to get it anyway, and that being the case, I wish she’d just pack it in and get out of the damn way.
Tags: politix
“Is this even remotely likely? He’s made a lot of very extreme statements that would be very tough to live down/back away from.”
He’s done it before, to lick White House ass. Not that his willingness to flip-flop in order to suck up to Rove et al. is a positive by any means, but my sense is that, at core, he’s more moderate than some of his stated positions/alignments in the last 3-5 years might indicate. Dole pulled a lot of the same shit in order to get the far-right wing behind him in ’96; it was a pitiful display, and really unconvincing, but that’s the game.
Like I said, if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I’m probably voting for Clinton, although I live in a state where it makes zero difference what I do because it always goes blue. It isn’t “pouting” because Obama didn’t get the nom. It’s voting according to my priorities, which is what everyone else does come Election Day when the curtains close behind them, high-minded talk aside — and while I’m a social liberal, I’m also a “small C” conservative as far as keeping government lean, forcing it to be responsible in its programming, and not punching small business in the tits come tax time to get things done. Yes, choice is very important to me, but so is not having my pockets picked every March 15.
My list of important issues may not line up exactly with the Democratic Party’s list of approved concerns, but I’m registered as an independent, so that’s fine. Regardless, it’s a little bit more complicated for me than “I don’t like Hillary.” I don’t; I didn’t like Kerry either, really, and I thought he’d make kind of a crappy president, but when “kind of crappy” is a fucking HUGE IMPROVEMENT? You do what you have to do.
Honestly, part of me doesn’t even care *that* much who wins, because: automatic fucking huge improvement. McCain could drop dead at the inaugural — “Weekend At Bernie’s III” it for four years, he’s still better than that stupid shitsack.
“…And that was how I wound up on a DHS watch list.” Sigh.
@AG “If you’re a dem and you can’t vote for Hillary/Barack, then vote against McCain.”
I completely agree! Please do not “stay home” and not vote.
@ Becki and Ginger
So…I’m 21, and a Republican. A member in good standing of my county’s Young Republicans. Raised in a small farming town outside of a large liberal town. Perhaps due to my confusing political upbringing, my vote is a bit flexible.
Really, I’ve seriously considered voting for Obama if he gets the nom.
However.
If La Clinton Part Deux gets the nom. Fuck that, Johnny Mac is getting my vote. I cannot bring myself to vote for her. “Oh, remember that time I was sniped at?”….actually no. Basing her campaign on trash talking and lies, and her so called good name. And the fact that she hopes she’s going to get the nod and presidency based on the fact that she’s a woman. I do not say this lightly. I would absolutely love for a female to be our nation’s leader and defender. But I do not want a woman voted in on the sheer fact that she is a woman as opposed to a wrinkly old white dude.
Eesh, I’m sorry…I’m pretty personally involved with some issues that are hot topics. Like the war. I mean, I’m engaged to a Marine. I’ve practically heard it all. From all different sides. No matter your stance on it, and the policies surrounding it…it’s still a goddamn war. Still sucks, no matter what side you’re on. And any candidate who supposedly has the magic solution to the problem that it is, be wary. That’s all I’m going to say on the matter. I’ll get off my soapbox now, and once again, I apologize for the rant.
I am a Republican and I hate the Clintons but I would still prefer her as President to Obama. That being said, at this point would prefer to face Obama in November. I could be wrong but I feel that the more people learn about Obama the less enchanted with him they will be. He is rated the most liberal Senator which I think will hurt him among the swing voters once they become more familiar with him.
I also don’t know if he is going to continue to get by saying he represents a “new style” of politics. I’m from IL and I can tell you that Chicago politics is about the most corrupt in the country. Our last govenor is now a convicted felon and our current governor may soon be indicted or impeached or both. This is the environment that Obama cut his political teeth on and I am skeptical that he happened to stay above board on everything when one of his main fundraisers and a member of his finance committee for his Senate campaign has been indicted for fraud. I’m not saying Obama was involved in this guys fraud but this isn’t the first time questions have come up with people he has chosen to associate with on more than just a casual level.
Sorry this got so long. My intention was just to say that while I don’t like Hillary, I don’t think Obama is necessarily the strongest Democrat to go against McCain. Also, it was my understanding that many of the Republicans that switched over in PA did it to vote for Hillary not against her. Also, I think a lot of the Dems saying they would not vote for the other candidate in the general if their “guy” doesn’t get the nomination is just the heat of the moment. I knew many Republicans that said there was no way they would support McCain and within a month of him having the nomination they pretty much all changed their tune and accepted him as the GOP nominee.
“He’s done it before, to lick White House ass. Not that his willingness to flip-flop in order to suck up to Rove et al. is a positive by any means, but my sense is that, at core, he’s more moderate than some of his stated positions/alignments in the last 3-5 years might indicate.”
Not on foreign policy and not on abortion. He comes by his hawkishness naturally, and was even to the right of Bush for a while there, saying we should send more troops into Iraq well before the surge.
But more relevantly, who’s he gonna owe? And what’ll he owe them? The Supreme court, maybe? More tax cuts? This dumbass gas tax thing? I don’t think McCain’ll get in without the base, and I tend to think he’ll have to do a lot more work keeping them happy, and won’t be able to accomplish jack with the blue Congress he’s going to be working with. Plus he don’t give a crap about health care or the economy, has no dog in either fight, and thus will naturally tend to favor pandering and/or hardline Republican positions on those issues (more tax cuts, less coverage, corporate bailouts, main street mortgage defaulters can suck it). I’m not happy with any of that stuff.
I mean, for me personally, once he flipped on torture that was the last straw; it made is clear to me that he cares more about being president than his most deeply held principals.
For Dems, it all boils down to one question: In the general election, which Red state can Hillary turn Blue?
I’d say the answer is zero.
Ann, I think you’ll find that the majority of Republicans in PA who switched parties to vote for Hillary did so because they know Hillary is going to get creamed by McCain if she manages to pull a hat trick and steal the nomination. They *want* a Republican to win in November, obviously, so they’re doing their damndest to ensure the weaker of the two Dems is on the ticket. Obama has a ton of appeal to people of nearly all political persuasions, and that is something that would strike fear into the deepest chambers of Rove’s heart, if he had one. Which he doesn’t, but anyway.
As a recovering Republican, I can tell you with near-certainty that they didn’t vote for Hillary because they *like* her, for god’s sake. Look no further than the fucked-up abomination to the democratic process that is Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” if you don’t believe me.
A side note: I consider myself a pretty tolerant person, and an avid defender of the first amendment. I saw an “Operation Chaos” bumper sticker the other day, though, and it took a significant amount of willpower not to ram the bastard with my car.
@ Milt- I disagree with your analysis of why Republicans voted for Hillary. While it is true that they didn’t do it because they like her I also don’t believe they did it because they want her to get the nomination. Yes they want a Republican to win in November but I think the main idea is to just keep her in the race. Hence the name “Operation Chaos” not “Operation Nominate Hillary.” If she actually starts getting too close to the nomination I think they would start to get worried.
@ Ann: Obama is the most liberal Senator? Just like Kerry supposedly was in 2004? Or like Ted Kennedy has been since… well, let’s not even go there. In any case, this site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr09.html) would seem to contradict that statement. Sorry, not sure how to do the embedding thing…
Anyway, my two cents is that I’ve been saying from before she even announced she would run that Hilary is not electable because too many people in this country simply revile her. I’m a Democrat, liked Bill, liked her back in the day (although my like for her is waning quickly), but there are way too many people who Just. Fucking. Hate. Her. As such, I was concerned that her candidacy would be more divisive than anything else, and well… here we are.
If by some mathematical miracle she does become the nominee, then I will vote for her, because there’s no way I can have McCain on my conscience for 4 years. But I’m really hoping it won’t come to that.
I think that it comes down to a simple split:
Many people dislike Obama, for experience or religious or racial reasons.
Many more people (including a large portion of the Democratic party) HATE Clinton and will either stay home or vote for McCain.
She’s completely unelectible, so Obama is our only chance for a Democrat in the White House.
AMEN!!!!
I’ve been saying the same things for weeks, to anyone who will listen.
Princess Leia: “While he’s not my first choice, I certainly prefer him to Obama (whose lack of experience scares the snot out of me) or Hillary (who just scares me).”
You know, he didn’t have a whole lot of experience running for President, either, and he seems to be doing a better job at THAT than most of us expected, so….
Seriously, this “not enough experience” argument is tired. Who cares? What was Bush’s experience? Governor of Texas? I’m guessing people aren’t real familiar with how UTTERLY IMPOTENT the office of governor is in my home state. Want a prisoner pardoned? Call the Governor. Want a check cut or a budget approved to run the state government for a year? That would be the Lieutenant Governor or the Comptroller’s job. So, really, his experience amounts to running the Rangers into debt and running an oil company into the ground… So glad we got THAT experience into the White House.
First off: I’m liberal socially, conservative fiscally, so neither party represents me. And at the moment, the Republican party doesn’t even represent 1/2 of me.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I will seriously consider McCain. Like someone said before, it’s going to be the lesser of two evils, like it usually is. If it’s Obama, I’m probably 70-30 going to vote for him. If it’s Hill, well, I’m maybe 55-45 for McCain. A lot of it will come down to the VP. Will McCain try to appease the far right? That will make a huge difference for me.
As far as Iraq goes – McCain didn’t say “We’re going to stay for 100 years”. He said if necessary, we will. I don’t like the idea of staying for 100 years (hyperbole, people!), but I really don’t like the idea of pulling out all at once come January 21st. If we pull out like that, I can’t imagine the result would be anything less than Civil War in that region. Or Iran invading a weakened Iraq. Or something. I’m not saying we ever should have gone in, but we’re there now, so the other point is moot. Anyone who thinks a Democrat is going to be able to pull us completely out, and quickly, without some major kind of backlash is dreaming, sad to say.
Ugh, all that being said, I have to echo everyone else’s refrain: don’t stay home if your candidate doesn’t win the primary. Not only are there other races (hello, Representatives?), but you don’t have the right to bitch about the results later if you don’t vote. Seriously. If you don’t vote, I don’t want to hear your shit about how you hate the prez. Write it Ron Paul or John Edwards or yourself, whatever. Don’t be an ass and just vote. People fucking died for your right do that, so don’t take it for granted. Other countries have 85-90% of eligible people standing in line for literally days to vote & we can barely get half. That’s fucking embarrassing. /end rant.
@ Janine – The rating of “Most Liberal Senator” comes from the rankings by The National Journal magazine. They evaluate based on votes across the spectrum. They do say that Obama’s rating was effected by him missing a number of votes due to his campaigning (I’m not sure why it didn’t have as big an impact on Clinton.) In the past he had ratings of 10th and 16th most liberal senator. I think the story you linked to is misleading because it cherry picked 7 groups results and is only representative of the results of those 7 advocacy groups.
I do think the map they show is interesting. If I’m reading it right it appears that Clinton does better against McCain than Obama does in 2 of the most important swing states (as of April 9th): Ohio and Florida. Both of these have proven very important to winning the Presidency.
@ liz:”If you don’t vote, I don’t want to hear your shit about how you hate the prez. Write it Ron Paul or John Edwards or yourself, whatever. Don’t be an ass and just vote. People fucking died for your right do that, so don’t take it for granted. Other countries have 85-90% of eligible people standing in line for literally days to vote & we can barely get half. That’s fucking embarrassing.”
I’m sorry, but I think this is off-base and just a tad harsh. I can and will complain about the president, if needed, if the reason I chose not to vote for one was that I didn’t find the choices anywhere near acceptable. How would writing in a different choice and then, you know, obviously not winning, grant me that right to complain? “Well, I TRIED to elect Donald Duck?” And sorry, but I disagree completely that voting is an obligation to the extent that you just do it even if you profoundly object to the candidates and their methods. I don’t see it as taking the right for granted, but rather valuing it too much to treat it like just another unpleasant errand.
If “lesser of two evils” is McCain, in any situation, then, wow, that is amazing.
If, as a woman, you value your rights at all, you can kiss them goodbye. Starting with your right to choose, and continuing down to how you can dress to, possibly, voting rights. As a middle class person, say hello to losing this position and creeping towards the poverty line. As a human being, say goodbye to social programs that help those that need it.
The fact that McCain has flipped to kiss ass is the most telling here. Who is to say he won’t soften is view on Iraq in the elections, then, once elected, do as he pleases. We already have an administration that doesn’t give a care about what the majority people they represent want. Bushie’s approval rating low? Go have him dance like an imbecile in New Orleans to make it look like he is on their side.
The fact that otherwise educated people are making decisions because someone is “shrewish” or pontificates too much is really a sad commentary on American priorities. The fact that someone wants more of the same for the next four years really frightens me. I love America, I love that I was born here and lived through a time of great prosperity and progression; to see it regress the way it has, and to see that this is acceptable (and, a repeat of a history we swore we would never see again), is truly, truly disheartening.
Oh yeah, one more thing about Hillary. All this ‘experience’ Hillary keeps talking about? How much experience did that other guy, oh, what’s his name, you know, the one who was governor of Arkansas, yeah him, how much did he have?? It strikes me as kind of hypocritical for her to attack Obama on that point, given how she touts how great the Clinton years were. I think that part of it just proves how much you need to surround yourself with competent people.
@Annie F: “If, as a woman, you value your rights at all, you can kiss them goodbye. Starting with your right to choose, and continuing down to how you can dress to, possibly, voting rights.”
I’m not about to put a McCain sticker on my window over here, but implying that he’s going to make us all take the veil prior to stripping us of the franchise is perhaps a bit over the top. He is not a friend to choice; nor is he a villain in an Atwood novel.
“Who is to say he won’t soften is view on Iraq in the elections, then, once elected, do as he pleases.”
Nobody; in fact, I can almost guarantee that, once elected, his policy would differ substantively from his stump claims — as would Clinton’s and Obama’s. You can run on “pull the troops out now,” but it isn’t as simple as calling Fallujah direct and telling them to pack it up.
Again, I don’t care to defend McCain, but I don’t think a McCain presidency would shape up as quite the hellish dystopia you envision — I mean, look around. We have hellish dystopia already. We called it other names, like “Katrina” and “Gitmo” and “Alito,” but it showed up years ago.
This is not to say that you shouldn’t take a passionate position against McCain, or anyone else, obviously; it’s merely my opinion, which admittedly I may be clinging to for the sake of my sanity at this point, that it just cannot get any worse than this. The pendulum has to swing back; it just has to, if for no more honorable reason than that maybe McCain is still bitter about the shit what got pulled on him in South Carolina 8 years ago and has been patiently waiting to undo every single thing done by Bush.
“She’s completely unelectible, (sic) so Obama is our only chance for a Democrat in the White House.”
Yet, she’s won major states. She’s raised millions of dollars. She’s mounted a respectable campaign. Unelectable candidates don’t do those things. So can we stop with unelectable?
As someone already said, on the issues Clinton and Obama are very close. Vote on the issues, not on personality. I don’t care if she fibbed about Bosnia. Can we grow up and admit that they all lie? Can we get over the idea that we’d rather go to the movies with Obama and that Clinton reminds us of that mean lunch lady and vote on what matters? There is a lot riding on this election..
“He is not a friend to choice; nor is he a villain in an Atwood novel.”
He supports the further erosion of choice and overturning Roe v. Wade. That is a key domino in beginning the dystopia that Atwood envisioned. He doesn’t have to preach fire and brimstone. He uses coded language to convey his positions to the Republican right. It is politically expedient to be neutral on the issues of intelligent design and teaching creationism (if that is what he is this week, who can tell) but is that what we’re going to tell the 6th grader in Alabama who gets taught Adam and Eve instead of Darwin? “Don’t worry, sweetie, it won’t be that bad.”
“”the argument goes that democratic older white women are voting for HRC in the primary”
Oh no I’m not! (speaking for my people…I’m 52)”
The Daily Show had a great skit the other night in which the “black correspondent” and the “woman correspondent” interviewed white women who were voting for Obama and black men who were for Clinton and accused them of being traitors. It was hilarious.
Count me with those who don’t think Clinton has a chance against McCain. It’s illogical to argue that her big wins in the primary will translate to being electable nationwide because those were Democratic primaries. They’re not a good measure of how she’ll do against a Republican. Republicans hate her, and the middle-of-the-road voters seem to prefer Obama (I can’t quite figure that one out), and considering the number of Obama supporters who really dislike her, I just don’t see how she’ll beat McCain. I mean, I I’ll vote for her if she gets the nomination (I’m an Obama supporter), but I won’t be happy about it.
@Whoever said she has the popular vote if you count FL and MI — wrong. She’s counting people who voted “uncommitted,” for crying out loud. Creative math usually doesn’t so much indicate a good candidate for president as it does a good candidate for CFO of a company like Enron.
Obama WILL BE the nominee and the next president. We need his managerial style of bringing people with opposing ideas to the same table and ending up with workable solutions. We need to move past the horrific red/blue divide. Of the three candidates left, he’s the only one who can do that.
@Abigail: “Yet, she’s won major states. She’s raised millions of dollars. She’s mounted a respectable campaign. Unelectable candidates don’t do those things. So can we stop with unelectable?”
No; you’re talking about two entirely different things. There’s not a generic term “unelectable.” Electable over another Democrat doesn’t have anything to do with electable over a Republican. Obviously, anybody is electable if you cut it fine enough. I’m electable if you only ask my family. Somebody else might be electable if you only ask one city, or one state, or if you only ask Democrats, or if you change who the opponent is. We’re talking about electability in a national general election against John McCain. Beating Obama in Pennsylvania has very little bearing on that question.
“As someone already said, on the issues Clinton and Obama are very close. Vote on the issues, not on personality. I don’t care if she fibbed about Bosnia. Can we grow up and admit that they all lie? Can we get over the idea that we’d rather go to the movies with Obama and that Clinton reminds us of that mean lunch lady and vote on what matters? There is a lot riding on this election..”
I am talking about issues, not personality, when I say I think Hillary Clinton is, fundamentally, a phony. If I don’t believe her convictions are genuine, then I don’t have any way of trusting what she will and will not do. I reserve the right to care that she’s a big fat liar, and that has nothing to do with needing to “grow up.” The minute I tell people that it is inappropriate to care whether candidates are liars or not, I grant everyone license to lie and make myself utterly unable to vote on any real basis, because now anyone can say anything they want to get elected and nobody can even complain about it without being told to “grow up.”
I really promise you that not being a Hillary Clinton fan doesn’t mean that I’m voting based on who I’d rather go to the movies with. And to be honest, that’s a pervasive attitude within her campaign that wins her no fans. Every time somebody affiliated with Hillary Clinton informs me that not liking Hillary Clinton means I am making my choice based on fairy dust and voodoo and who smiles prettier, it makes me feel more certain that I do not want to substitute that brand of arrogance for Bush arrogance. I promise, I dislike and distrust Hillary Clinton for many quite substantive reasons.
I also voted for Clinton, and I have serious problems with the misogynist statements that come out of Obama’s mouth, but I will have no problems voting for him in November should he win the nomination. Because McCain is an unacceptable candidate.
He has serious rage issues which will prove just as embarrassing as Bush’s gaffes and likely a lot more dangerous. He essentially promised us 100 more years of war. And just to reiterate, called his own wife a cunt. That’s not acceptable behavior for a president.
I also think it’s good for democracy and America to have multiple strong candidates, and it’s probably nice for people in state’s with late primaries to have a say in the electoral process for once.
I don’t like Hillary. I liked her OK at the beginning of the primary but I’ve lost pretty much all respect for her due to her Republican-style campaign tactics. That said, I will never vote for John McCain, or as I call him, “George Bush’s Third Term.”
Regarding Bill Clinton’s kooky behavior lately, I read a fascinating blog post linked from DailyKos the other day, speculating that he could be suffering from cognitive dysfunction following his bypass surgery in 2004 (this is apparently a common phenomenon following bypass surgery although not much talked or known about):
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008other/080412clinton.htm
If it’s true, it’s really sad. :( It would mean this is definitely not quite the same Bill Clinton who served as president. Which, now that I think of it, puts an interesting spin on the “By electing Hillary we’d be getting Bill, too!” argument I’ve heard.
McCain couldn’t say if condoms helped stop the spread of AIDS. Just, no. NEVER. And he called his wife a cunt in public.
I’m a pretty left wing liberal, so at this point, I’d probably vote for a ham sandwich if that’s who the dem’s nominate. Living in NC, I’m pretty excited about being a meaningful part of the process.
And while I’m leaning Obama, I’m not decided. And I want Hilary in as long as possible, because really…the news is ALL about the dems. Everything is getting shaken out now, lots of money is pouring in and will continue too. Mccain is kinda shut out of media stuff, and he’s having money troubles and I think that having a nice long primary is helping the dems, not hurting them.
@Linda “I am talking about issues, not personality, when I say I think Hillary Clinton is, fundamentally, a phony. If I don’t believe her convictions are genuine, then I don’t have any way of trusting what she will and will not do. …
I really promise you that not being a Hillary Clinton fan doesn’t mean that I’m voting based on who I’d rather go to the movies with. ”
I don’t mean to be glib or dismissive but it still makes no sense to, as some Obama supporters here have, claim that they are supporting him on the issues but conclude that if Obama doesn’t gain the nomination they will support McCain. One may trust McCain more, but, if we agree that Obama and Clinton are quite similar in their policy plans, and that McCain is quite different, isn’t that then trusting McCain to implement policies that Obama supporters don’t agree with?
Abigail, I totally agree. The primary is really just asking us whether we want cookies or cake. I find whatever cake (heh, fruitcake?) represents Hillary Clinton to be kind of revolting, but the general election will be asking us if we want cookies/cake or cabbage. And for me it will be a big “NO EFFING THANK YOU on the cabbage, I’ll even have some of this nasty cake if it means I don’t have to choke that shit down, and thanks very much for asking.”
@JenV: Your cookie/cake or cabbage thing says it much better than my over comma-ed mush. And can I just say that I love the idea of Hillary Clinton as fruitcake?
“I don’t mean to be glib or dismissive but it still makes no sense to, as some Obama supporters here have, claim that they are supporting him on the issues but conclude that if Obama doesn’t gain the nomination they will support McCain.”
I never said that. I don’t believe hardly anyone has said that. (Maybe one or two.) What I have heard is Republican NON-Obama supporters say that they still might consider him over McCain but would never consider Hillary over McCain, and Obama supporters who say they would CONSIDER McCain.
Furthermore, it does make sense if you believe the following:
Issues A, B, C, and D are important to me.
On issue A, Obama will be stronger than Clinton and Clinton will be stronger than McCain. On issue B and issue C, Obama will be better than Clinton and McCain, who will be approximately the same. On issue D, Obama will be better than McCain, and McCain will be better than Clinton.
If you do the math that way, you would vote for Obama over Clinton very easily, but you might find yourself torn between Clinton and McCain. Suppose Issue A is the war, Issues B and C are the economy and the environment, and issue D is ethics in government. I think a rational person could conclude that she felt that way. She would be voting for Obama on the issues over Clinton, but would be torn between Clinton and McCain. (I am NOT saying this math is correct; I am giving an example of how something that seems counterintuitive might well be rational and therefore worthy of respect, if not agreement.)
Here’s the thing about personality with Obama and Clinton — or maybe it’s character — Clinton moves from a place of defensiveness. She expects to be attacked, and so she starts out with a predispostion to fight, to fight dirt even. Obama moves from a position of strength — he expects that he will be respected, to listen and be listened to, so he’s able to speak his mind and to hear other perspectives. I think his race speech in response to the Wright controversy was a prime example of that. And that aspect of their personalities is what will make him more effective than her as President.
The other spin on the same truth is that she knows how to play the game and he’s naive. I see it as him rising above the game and concentrating on getting things done. We haven’t seen that in American politics in a very long time – THAT is the change I believe in.
In my opinion his “rising above the game” is clearly a political strategy in itself. One of the reasons he is so popular is that he appeals to people’s idealism. That’s why I think he appeals to young voters; they want a Kennedy for their very own. And when it comes to actually getting stuff done, I don’t think this attitude will necessarily be more effective than Clinton’s in the real world.
And in response to how an Obama supporter could vote for McCain over Clinton even if they consider the issues, it’s pretty clear that Obama and Clinton are *so* similar on actual policies that that doesn’t make any sense at all. Seriously, I can’t even tell a difference between the policies of Obama and Clinton. I feel that their differences lie entirely in their personalities, and I just don’t like this magical hope-land that Obama presents in his speeches.
@Natalie,
I’m wondering which statements Obama’s made you’d characterize as misogynist.
The “She’s likable enough” statement? The Annie Oakley comparison? If those are some of the statements you mean, I confess I don’t see the misogyny in them. The first statement might constitute damning with faint praise (although it made me laugh), but I don’t see it as anti-woman, and I don’t see how comparing someone to Annie Oakley is prima facie misogynism (if the tables were turned, I wouldn’t be bothered by Clinton comparing Obama to, say, Jesse James). And neither statement, for me, remotely approaches Clinton’s “He’s not a Muslim, as far as I know” in terms of conscious or unconscious attempts to do twisted damage.
I do acknowledge that Clinton has faced a lot of despicable misogyny in her campaign; even as an fervent Obama supporter I can see that, and I’ve been appalled by it, but I don’t see that it’s been coming from his mouth or his campaign. But maybe there are other statements he’s made that I’m not aware of…
Oh—an apology: I’m the one who posted the link to Slate’s delegate calculator while describing it as including superdelegates and the popular vote. But it doesn’t; it only counts pledged delegates. Lo, there’s even this sentence right on the first page: “The calculator does not incorporate superdelegates into its calculations.” I guess I must have been conflating that delegate calculator in my memory with other areas on Slate’s site (eg, their “Trailhead” blog) that sometimes address the electoral math. Sorry! D’oh!
D’oh again: I’m not “an fervent Obama supporter,” I’m “a fervent Obama supporter.” Just to clarify. :-)
This is a fascinating comment thread to compare to the one following the entry Sars made about Clinton crying.
I think McCain has the better economic platform than either Clinton or Obama, but I probably will not be voting on economic platforms this year, as the next president will probably be more protectionist no matter what. (I am one of those deluded people who secretly hope that, after Obama wins the election, he holds an economic summit that’s half community activists and half Chicago economists, concluding with a Paul Krugman-Gregory Mankiw cage match, and out of that comes an economic policy that coordinates affordable housing and tries to balance honoring trade commitments with helping out businesses in the worst-hit states.)
I don’t like Senator Clinton, and if she enters the convention without the nomination and exits with it, I’ll be on the first plane to Denver with Buffalo Springfield on the headphones and an ACLU “If You’re Arrested” card in my pocket. (Or at least threatening to do so, the way some of my friends kept threatening to move to Canada and are now threatening to move to Australia.) But it’s not as much that I don’t like her as that I don’t trust that voting for her isn’t giving her husband another de facto four-year term. I’d vote for Hillary as the fair and square Democratic nominee, Grand Theft Auto scapegoating aside, if I thought once in office she’d take a page out of Nicolas Sarkozy’s book, and dump Bill for Blair Underwood post haste.
Back @ The Hoobie
I completely agree about “He’s not a Muslim as far as I know.” I was completely appalled and disappointed to hear that come out of Hillary’s mouth. (As well as really grossed out that we’re so Islamophobic as a country that this is an effective slur.)
The specific comments I’m thinking of are:
“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa.”
the response to the tea party comment: “Those folks must really be on edge.”
And “”I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks.”
A lot of Barack Obama’s appeal is supposed to be what a deft speaker he is, and I agree, with his better speeches I don’t think Clinton could touch him, but that means that it has to be acknowledged that he knows how to use words and therefore knows that these are very slightly coded sexist attacks, the first a jab at women’s work, the second an accusation of hysteria, and the third a reminder that we don’t really want women in the white house because they’ll go crazy with their periods.
I think that kind of thing is unattractive and cynical in the “change candidate,” and it bothers me that while Clinton’s remark was (completely correctly) roundly chastised, these comments don’t get nearly the same attention.
This Rev. Wright thing is not going away, either. I thought when it first broke weeks ago that Rev. Wright would spell Obama’s downfall, and Barack hasn’t done much to help himself since. So today he’s distancing himself from the Reverend, shocked to hear the ex-pastor’s latest vitriol – surprise, surprise. As someone at Hot Air said, “After 20 years of friendship, if Obama didn’t know Wright held these beliefs he’s a moron and if he did know he’s a fraud.”
As of today, Clinton has 266 superdelegates to Obama’s 244. Considering that the Democratic Party instituted superdelegates to keep the party from nominating another major vote-loser like McGovern, it seems the trend is towards Clinton. The next few weeks will be very interesting.
How are the superdelegates trending toward Clinton when her once massive lead in supers has dwindled to that small of a gap? And they’ve been picking them up pretty evenly over the past few days. Given how far behind she is in pledged delegates, the fact that she’s still picking up any is worth looking at, but I think the history of the past few months bears out the opposite. Unless I’m misunderstanding
….Okay, NOW I am prepared to say that Hillary should back out. :)
Oh, and Nicky, I wasn’t aware about the superdelegates jumping the Hillary ship – if that’s true then you’re right, it makes Obama’s case even stronger, of course.