Joe Biden, then!
I couldn't imagine a more perfect partner!
Being not among those who think BO is really weak in foreign policy, just not well known, and also among those who don't believe in ages of experience, I think Biden is really good.
This is because for those who think differently he will make the whole team more electable because he compensates everything Obama seems to lack. But what is more important for me: Biden is someone who has been in politics for ages and has had the strength to keep his idealistic, sometimes quite unconventional agenda and behaviour. Not only that but he is quite well known and has acquired some standing with his way of handling things. Here is a really optimal candidate.
I am a Hillary fan (I blogged about her several times on my own blog, and some of the pictures I've taken of her are now spread all over the world).
I know many of her supporters in New York City, and I stay in touch with them, and with others, all over the U.S. However, I see that some of them are still not happy with the outcome of the primary.
I explained yesterday why I thought the logic behind Clinton's remarks about the 1968 primary were both inaccurate and counterintuitive. Today she makes a new argument:
"I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated, but electoral math is not... "I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party...I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case, and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard, in the end everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee."
1. Actually, electoral math is pretty complicated...otherwise we wouldn't have ended up with the confusion in 2000.
2. She has a point that the election will not come down to who wins the popular vote, but who wins the swing states, and, consequently, the electoral vote.
3. She claims that she has won the swing states in the primary. Well, that depends on which states you designate as swing states. And counting her wins in Michigan and Florida doesn't seem sensible. Either way, winning the swing states versus a fellow Democrat has little relevance to winning a swing state in the fall.
Current projections show Obama actually carrying as many swing states as Hillary. (The fact that Hillary carries Florida while Obama does not should not be overlooked. Obama must reconcile with the Sunshine State.):
4. By a double digit margin, Democrats prefer Obama for the nomination. Nationwide, Obama leads in head-to-head polling versus McCain. And according to SurveyUSA state-by-state polling, Obama fares as well as or better than Hillary with Independents and Republicans. In light of these data, it's hard to argue that she is somehow the stronger candidate.
5. As for her argument that staying in the race will unite the party, I think we can look at the tale of two parties to evaluate the veracity of that point. On the one hand, we have the Republicans, for whom Romney stepped down ostensibly for the sake of party and country. He said at the time that he hoped that in doing so his party would unite behind McCain. And indeed, to a large extent that has been the case.
In the case of the Democrats, Hillary has continued to fight on in spite of Obama's twelve primary victories in a row. The party - once united in its desire to head America in a new direction - is now bitterly divided, with anywhere from 30 to 50%, depending on the state, of Democrats threatening not to support their own nominee.
6. I will grant her this point, though: if Hillary appears to be forced out of the race against her will, the resentment within the party will only grow and the internal division will widen. But that very point is why it is up to her to do as Romney or Huckabee have already done: for the sake of the party either (1) to officially suspend her bid for the nomination altogether, as Romney did, or (2) to announce her support of the nominee and suspend campaigning while still leaving her name on the ballot for the sake of voter choice, as Huckabee has done.
-
This is not about asking a woman to submit to a man. This has nothing to do with gender, as she suggests it does later in her letter. This is simply about whether she recognizes the spectre of a McCain presidency, and whether she's willing to risk subjecting our nation to that reality simply for the sake of finishing out her campaign. Because the truth is that every week she continues to campaign against her own nominee brings us closer to the reality of a McCain administration.
~Barbara
republicansforobama.org
I wondered what the facts were about Clinton's claims of being more electable, so I looked at the results of the last 4 pres. elections and the 2008 primaries. The stats dispute a lot of what the Clinton campaign says. I was very surprised by much of what I learned, and amazed that nobody seems to talk about these facts. For instance, did you know that in November, if the Democrats win all of the states that have gone Democrat in the last four presidential elections, we'll already have 248 of the electoral votes of the 270 needed to win? We'd only need 22 electoral votes from swing states. In contrast, the Republicans would need 135 electoral votes from swing states.Did you know that...
randyism3 (10:40:37 PM): who do you want to be president
anonymous (10:42:12 PM): i would prefer clinton, if obama gets the nomination i will vote for McCain
randyism3 (10:42:25 PM): why
anonymous (10:43:26 PM): i dont trust obama
randyism3 (10:43:50 PM): what about the laws he has worked to pass do you disagree with
anonymous (10:45:25 PM): its not the laws
randyism3 (10:45:33 PM): what laws has he passed?
anonymous (10:45:38 PM): it is the show that the candidates are putting on
anonymous (10:45:56 PM): i just feel that the campaign has lost respectability
anonymous (10:46:11 PM): it is not just his campaign though, it is all of them
randyism3 (10:46:42 PM): so in a room full of ill repute why not choose the candidate that refuses to lie to you
anonymous (10:48:07 PM): because it is the state of human nature to go with what is familar
randyism3 (10:48:14 PM): for all his grandiose speeches, Obama speaks straight to you, not at you, not down to you, straight to you, and doesn't lie to you
randyism3 (10:48:24 PM): you're just used to being lied to by politicians
randyism3 (10:48:51 PM): and Mccain is either lying or he's going senile
randyism3 (10:49:08 PM): and Hillary can't stop herself from lying, its compulsive, a disease with her
randyism3 (10:49:12 PM): we deserve the truth
randyism3 (10:49:15 PM): especially after bush
anonymous (10:49:17 PM): senile prollybut hey regan was okay
anonymous (10:49:44 PM): well look at her husband... can you blame her, how else could they have stayed married
randyism3 (10:49:45 PM): Reagan didn't go senile until later
randyism3 (10:50:05 PM): no, but you do not elect a liar to be president of the united states
randyism3 (10:50:16 PM): you elect someone that inspires you
randyism3 (10:50:35 PM): and if you are inspired by lies, that means you are corrupt to the core, and i don't think you are
anonymous (10:51:38 PM): everyone liesit is human naturethat doesnt bother me, because lies are all around us.what bothers me is the cat and mouse game
randyism3 (10:52:00 PM): ok, what do you mean
anonymous (10:53:20 PM): in the race all they do is brow beat eachother, both of them, that speaks to their character and how they will lead.. to me they really look the same exect hillary has more experience and a health care plan
randyism3 (10:54:03 PM): you realize that having a plan doesn't mean you will get anything accomplished
randyism3 (10:54:16 PM): also that at every turn Obama has tried his damndest to take the high road
anonymous (10:54:29 PM): a plan gets you a step closer to a guy that has nothing at all
randyism3 (10:54:35 PM): changing the topic in debates from frivolity to matters of substance and import
randyism3 (10:54:43 PM): he doesn't hide behind the flag
randyism3 (10:55:11 PM): the last refuge of the scoundrel is the flag
randyism3 (10:55:22 PM): he doesn't wear it on his sleeve, or on his lapel as it were
anonymous (10:55:36 PM): no the last refuge of a scoundrel is his or her checkbook
randyism3 (10:55:47 PM): um ok you proved your point
anonymous (10:56:14 PM): frankly our flag is what an election should be all aboutwe the people make up the flag, not just one guy
randyism3 (10:56:19 PM): she just threw 30 million into her own campaign and refuses to pay back all the vendors that provided materials and labor to her campaign since December
randyism3 (10:56:29 PM): why
randyism3 (10:56:41 PM): why, a flag embodies the collective history of a people
randyism3 (10:56:47 PM): a nation
randyism3 (10:57:10 PM): one person saying that because they choose to display that flag on their person, that they are worthy of such an honor
randyism3 (10:57:13 PM): that's absurd
randyism3 (10:57:17 PM): you have to earn it
randyism3 (10:57:48 PM): a flag is more than a symbol to be used for sly shallow political ends
randyism3 (10:58:25 PM): we know your an American, now show us by your actions of what sort a person you are
anonymous (10:58:39 PM): a flag is not earned by being in the army, it is earned by being civically minded
randyism3 (10:59:51 PM): and she has proven herself to be a vicious liar, who has tried to divide the democratic party, saying that she should be nominated because the blue collar whites that support her won't vote for Barack, has only damaged the party, while Obama has tried only to unite it,
anonymous (11:00:20 PM): okay lets talk the basic rule of primaries
anonymous (11:00:28 PM): candidate aside
anonymous (11:01:12 PM): the party gets divided and then piecemealed back together after the candidate is nominated... it happens after every election every 4 years
randyism3 (11:01:23 PM): she wants us to eat each other so she can run in 2012 because she knows she has no chance now, she has no chance then either, but shes willing to risk getting Mccain elected and invading Iran, who supported the us after 9-11, whose people love the us, to invade Iran to force their oil bourgeoise to revert to trading their oil in dollars
randyism3 (11:02:32 PM): yes but candidates, even in republican primaries, don't openly exploit party divisions, walk on the civil rights of people, go against all the progress we have made, in order to achieve some petty political end
randyism3 (11:02:39 PM): the ends do not justify the means
randyism3 (11:02:43 PM): Machiavelli was not correct
randyism3 (11:02:50 PM): in an advanced society
randyism3 (11:02:54 PM): a progressive society
anonymous (11:03:04 PM): Iran, i ran hates us because we resemble babylon which was their empire over 1000 years ago and they still hold onto those rulers as if they were their own
randyism3 (11:03:38 PM): an egalitarian society, those that would demean others for their own personal gain should not be lauded or adored
randyism3 (11:03:43 PM): they should be cast aside and ignored
randyism3 (11:03:59 PM): ?????
randyism3 (11:04:16 PM): the Mullahs in Iran are religious leaders
randyism3 (11:04:22 PM): the people of Iran are far different
randyism3 (11:04:26 PM): i am not Pat Roberts
randyism3 (11:04:36 PM): i am not Rev Wright
anonymous (11:04:51 PM): that is nice for a perfect world but in the real world the strong rule, but brute force or kindess it doesnt matter but there is always some steal behind authority
randyism3 (11:05:03 PM): i am myself, Iran is a diverse country with highly educated citizenry
randyism3 (11:05:17 PM): if the pope says abortion is immoral
randyism3 (11:05:45 PM): are no abortions performed in Italy
randyism3 (11:06:06 PM): and Obama does not deny that
randyism3 (11:08:07 PM): we should not seek to rule at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun, we should have the best weapons in the world in the wings, to be used only if every alternate measure or instrument has been utilized, and only if the global balance of power is in danger, or if people are being murdered without legal recourse, justice... as in genocide
randyism3 (11:08:44 PM): there is no moral authority for what we are doing in the world today
randyism3 (11:09:35 PM): moral authority, the universal acceptance and respect that people had for America prior to Vietnam, that is what we should strive for
randyism3 (11:09:51 PM): not superiority
anonymous (11:09:55 PM): in all fairness moral authority went down the tubes with Kennedy
randyism3 (11:10:13 PM): well he was murdered by those in power today
randyism3 (11:10:22 PM): and they've had it except for maybe Jimmy Carter
randyism3 (11:10:29 PM): ever since
randyism3 (11:10:40 PM): but we should not bend over and let them stick it in our ass
randyism3 (11:10:56 PM): we should support Obama even if they are going to kill him
randyism3 (11:11:01 PM): because its the right thing to do
randyism3 (11:11:09 PM): its not utopian
randyism3 (11:11:13 PM): or idealistic
randyism3 (11:11:17 PM): its realistic and rational
randyism3 (11:15:38 PM): is there a flaw in my logic
randyism3 (11:15:42 PM): ???
anonymous (11:16:10 PM): many, but i am too tired to point them out to you
randyism3 (11:16:34 PM): well help me plz... if you would I'd like to work on them
anonymous (11:16:45 PM): you basic problem is that you are placing Lock into an Democratic system... the two dont equate
randyism3 (11:16:57 PM): for no reason in particular
randyism3 (11:17:01 PM): Lock?
anonymous (11:17:25 PM): yes... reread everything you wrote then think of Lock's writings
randyism3 (11:17:35 PM): Locke
randyism3 (11:17:42 PM): hmmm
anonymous (11:17:56 PM): is is IM and i have been up for 20 hoursi can spell it any way that i want
randyism3 (11:18:35 PM): well rationality is the antithesis of democracy ruled by passion
randyism3 (11:18:54 PM): but what people are saying
randyism3 (11:18:58 PM): the change they want
randyism3 (11:19:09 PM): is to insert rationality into our government
anonymous (11:19:12 PM): and they will continue to say so but it will never happen
randyism3 (11:19:15 PM): through democratic methods
randyism3 (11:19:23 PM): by getting people to vote for their own self interests for once
randyism3 (11:19:48 PM): well if you vote for someone who tells it like it is
randyism3 (11:20:06 PM): and doesn't sway on his policies depending on the crowd
randyism3 (11:20:48 PM): and was a con. law professor, i think thats your best bet for restoring logic and rationality and legality to the system
randyism3 (11:21:07 PM): our government is behaving illegally
randyism3 (11:21:14 PM): has been for decades
randyism3 (11:21:27 PM): and we let it happen
randyism3 (11:22:06 PM): we need someone we suspect might do the job, but will not come out and say it until the job is done
randyism3 (11:24:09 PM): if they knew the potential for a candidate as skilled as he is, in forming coalitions and getting things done, and I'm sure that's just what they're afraid of, the vested interests will assassinate that candidate at the expense of the hopes and dreams of the people, just like they did with Bobby Kennedy
anonymous (11:25:18 PM): here is your fundamental problem
anonymous (11:25:46 PM): the general populace doesnt to think about the aforementioned issues
anonymous (11:26:12 PM): they may want a change, but they arent willing to change society as a whole to do it
randyism3 (11:26:21 PM): they do know in their gut, though that something is very wrong with our country
randyism3 (11:26:36 PM): they don't know what needs to change
randyism3 (11:27:07 PM): they just know that our society is sick, our government is inept, and that it should be different, better
randyism3 (11:27:16 PM): you talk to anyone
randyism3 (11:27:22 PM): their complaints
randyism3 (11:27:26 PM): its simple
randyism3 (11:27:34 PM): no you can't please everybody
randyism3 (11:27:38 PM): but you can do the best you can
randyism3 (11:27:41 PM): and we aren't
randyism3 (11:27:56 PM): we're throwing our people under the bus
randyism3 (11:28:18 PM): we're throwing their hopes and dreams out the window
randyism3 (11:28:23 PM): ok I'm getting overly dramatic
randyism3 (11:28:29 PM): but their complaints aren't huge
randyism3 (11:28:44 PM): most of them only focus on a small area
randyism3 (11:28:56 PM): are discontented with a few things that directly affect their lives
randyism3 (11:29:01 PM): they don't want to think about the rest
randyism3 (11:29:10 PM): thats why their led so easily astray by mass media
randyism3 (11:29:44 PM): because as long as they hear someone branded as un-American by some opinionated hack
randyism3 (11:29:56 PM): they say, he/she's not one of us
randyism3 (11:30:02 PM): and refuse to vote for them
randyism3 (11:30:09 PM): the problem with democracy is ignorance
randyism3 (11:30:14 PM): which leads back to education
randyism3 (11:30:24 PM): which leads back to what we spend our resources on
randyism3 (11:31:14 PM): which leads back to war vs social vs infrastructure
randyism3 (11:31:23 PM): and we've been way overinvested in war
randyism3 (11:31:31 PM): we had to be until the USSR dissolved
randyism3 (11:31:34 PM): now we've got mad
randyism3 (11:32:08 PM): we don't need conventional arms but keep them to 'enforce our policy'
randyism3 (11:33:11 PM): we learned to function as a military state, feeding our war machines to produce jobs and weapons
randyism3 (11:33:27 PM): we became the very fascist state that we sought to obliterate in WWII
randyism3 (11:33:37 PM): we've been controlled through fear
randyism3 (11:33:56 PM): and we don't know how we'd survive in a world without war
randyism3 (11:34:10 PM): which is why we get into some shit every few years
randyism3 (11:34:20 PM): to waste our old weapons so we can make new ones
randyism3 (11:34:28 PM): to continue the cycle
randyism3 (11:34:33 PM): and its disgusting
randyism3 (11:34:40 PM): if we invested that in education
randyism3 (11:34:48 PM): people wouldn't be so stupid
randyism3 (11:35:58 PM): they'd vote for their own self interests rather than those of corporate America, the conventional wisdom of politics of war and destruction, we do not need to attack Iran
randyism3 (11:36:21 PM): if Iran developed 10000 nukes how would it help them if we could blow them away with 5 or 10
randyism3 (11:36:25 PM): it wouldn't
randyism3 (11:36:29 PM): its irrational
randyism3 (11:36:53 PM): there is no dr. Strangelove
randyism3 (11:36:58 PM): India and Pakistan have nukes
randyism3 (11:37:06 PM): they're arch enemies
randyism3 (11:37:10 PM): they haven't fired them
randyism3 (11:37:27 PM): Pakistan is a highly Muslim state, they're hiding bin laden, they haven't used them
randyism3 (11:37:47 PM): Iran offered to help us catch al-qaeda, we're worried about them getting nukes
randyism3 (11:37:50 PM): are you shitting me?
randyism3 (11:38:08 PM): ps I'm writing this not just to you but just to get ideas out of my head
anonymous (11:38:36 PM): i guessed at much
randyism3 (11:38:41 PM): lol sry
randyism3 (11:38:48 PM): I've been saving it as i go along
randyism3 (11:38:56 PM): I haven't written anything in a long time
randyism3 (11:39:04 PM): I don't like to delve into it
randyism3 (11:39:29 PM): I get too intense
randyism3 (11:39:40 PM): Iran is not our problem
randyism3 (11:42:54 PM): our preconceived notions about the intent of independent states future policies towards us, our wanting to ensure our standard of living and global military dominance through projection of force, in order to prop up our fiat currency, to force the worlds most valuable resources to be traded in said currency to increase its demand and thus its value, at the point of a gun or the push of a button, is despicable, reprehensible and we should just admit who we are and why they want to do what they want to do, and forget about it because in the end no good can come from it and millions will die unnecessarily
I wondered what the facts were about Clinton's claims of being more electable, so I looked at the results of the last 4 pres. elections and the 2008 primaries. The stats dispute a lot of what the Clinton campaign says. I was very surprised by much of what I learned, and amazed that nobody seems to talk about these facts. For instance, did you know that in November, if the Democrats win all of the states that have gone Democrat in the last four presidential elections, we'll already have 248 of the electoral votes of the 270 needed to win? We'd only need 22 electoral votes from swing states. In contrast, the Republicans would need 135 electoral votes from swing states.Did you know...
Watching the primary results coming in on CNN I was disappointed that not a single one of the pundits understood what the Obama campaign is about and what we, his supporters, love so much about it. For myself and many other Obama supporters the most important thing about this campaign is its focus on changing the way politics are done in this country. Yet the pundits, including high-ranking members of the Democratic party, insisted that for Barack Obama to win he has to start talking politics as usual and be more like Hillary Clinton and make Hillary Clinton's base his own. Although they will not see this post I wish they would because I would like to make it loud and clear to them that this is NOT the Hillary Clinton campaign.
As clear as it was that these people did not understand that this campaign is about change they also clearly revealed why they don't understand it. It was clear to me that all of the representatives of the Democratic party who spoke on CNN last night believe that winning is the ultimate goal of politics. They kept talking about the Party and the strength of the Party and whether or not the Party will win. I really wanted to tell them that this election is not about the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party needs to grow up and get over its narcissistic fascination with itself and focus on the ISSUES and on making this country better. What is the point of winning and having a Democratic president if that president isn't free to pursue Democratic goals and values?
Or at least, not pursue those goals without having to go back to all the promises they made on the campaign trail to all those people and look them in the eye and say "I was just lying to you so I could gain power for myself to pursue a completely different agenda from what I talked about on the campaign trail." Why win on a lie? Is that really what the Democratic Party is about? Is it all about lying to the blue collar workers and telling them you'll do whatever they want, no matter how short-sighted and stupid it is, just to gain power and pursue a different agenda or, and I'm not sure which is worse, to gain power and actually pursue an agenda set by a group that may be more populous but not necessarily more likely to understand a good plan when they see it.
This also brings me to the other big issue that upset me last night. Most of the talk was about the "uneducated white blue collar worker." So what, African Americans and white collar workers don't matter to the Democratic Party anymore because we might not have enough of us to put someone in the White House? I saw Barack Obama reaching out to White Blue-Collar workers. Maybe he didn't promise them everything under the rainbow. Maybe he didn't make outlandish promises guaranteeing they'll get everything they want. But he did tell them, openly and honestly, that he would work for their interests as much as everyone else's.
On the flip side, I did not hear Hillary Clinton appealing to African Americans or white collar workers. I heard Hillary Clinton say that white blue collar workers are the only voters who matter to her. She tells these people she will do whatever they want her to, no matter the long-term consequences or the consequences to any other group of people who aren't in that group. Anyone who listens to her arguments and says this is not the case is not being fair and objective in evaluating her. I tried to give her a fair chance last night, I listened to her speech in which she claimed victory in Indiana before even truly knowing whether she had won or not, and I tried to listen for something, ANYTHING to indicate she would look out for my interests more than John McCain would. And you know what, I didn't hear it.
So where does that leave things? It leaves me still fighting hard to make sure that Barack Obama gets the nomination and that no Washington insider can possibly come in and take it away from him without paying a horrible price that will show America that the Democratic Party cannot stand on principle and break away from politics as usual. It leaves me still wanting the change that Barack Obama has promised and consistently campaigned on. And most importantly it leaves me hoping that Mr. Obama does NOT change his stance on this, does NOT give in to this idiotic idea of "electability" and remains true to his message and that by remaining true to his message he WILL be the next President of the United States of America.
It was inevitable. The Republican party has their nominee and the Democrats are still in a fight to find out who it will be.
Naturally as an Obama supporter I believe that having won the most pledged delegates should automatically make Sen. Obama the presumptive nominee but, as a Democrat, I also believe in rules so we march on to the convention.
So in the middle of this fight between Sens. Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the main stream media has begun their favorite game of prediciting whom would be more electable. I love this time of year because it forces the pundits to finally pick a horse! Perhaps the DNC should have a third set of delegates called pundits? Just kidding!
So the premise here is that either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is more electable, nay, can beat Sen. McCain in the fall. So apparently the point of the campaign has been all wrong for the more than 15 months we have been going! Instead of trying to improve people's lives, ending the war in Iraq, lowering taxes for the middle class - we should have campaigned on beating John McCain! Now we would have looked really silly had Ron Paul been the nominee.
Of course the notion of electability has one major flaw - YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GET ELECTED to be electable! If you think about it, George W Bush had zero electability in 2000 and became President, John Kerry had oodles of electability in 2004 and lost! So lets focus on the issues and the people and maybe, just maybe 100 years from now - the MSM will stop talking about it :)
Hillary Clinton’s one remaining argument for why superdelegates should hand her the nomination over the insuperable lead that Barack Obama has in pledged delegates (earned after months of hard campaigning in actual contests) is that she can win and he cannot.
She bases this argument on the “fact” that she has won the primaries in the “big” states—New York, California etc.--and the “battleground” states—Ohio, Pennsylvania—that will be necessary for a Democrat to win the White House. She has also argued that Obama’s inability to attract the support of white, blue-collar workers (Reagan Democrats) means he will be a weak candidate when facing McCain. Both of these arguments are completely disingenuous, for much the same reason—Obama lost those states and so far has not won over a majority of those working-class voters (nor of women or the elderly) not because of his inability to attract them so much as her continuing to have the strong support and loyalty of enough of those voters (to win in Ohio and Pennsylvania). But in a general election Obama will not be facing Hillary Clinton but rather John McCain.
Assuming Hillary Clinton has the deep loyalty to the Democratic Party that she professes, the first thing she will do when conceding to Obama will be, or at least should be, graciously to urge her supporters and all those people who voted for her to rally behind Obama now. At that point Obama’s own “electability” strengths as concerns the key African-American constituency, those with college education, the young and independents (i.e. the reason why Clinton has lost), will be complemented by Clinton’s own--not quite as strong-- “electability” strengths among women, the elderly and blue-collar workers. That is a winning combination for November (with the deciding margin provided by Obama’s cross-party appeal).
As far as winning “big” states goes, it is already crystal clear that many of the “big” states that Clinton won, such as California, New York and Massachusetts are going to vote Democratic whoever the nominee is, so there the “electability” argument is a complete non-starter. Even in the “battleground” states, it depends which states you are talking about. Obama won Wisconsin, handily, and Missouri and Colorado, and he also has the advantage that he has put in play certain states, such as Virginia, that simply would not be on the table if Clinton were running.
There is an apparently stronger argument for Clinton in other, more traditional “battleground” states that she has won, but even there the context in which polling is being conducted at present makes any such argument a stretch, and a bit fatuous. Some current polls, for instance, showing Clinton stronger against McCain in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are simply a reflection of relative strengths in those states of the two candidates, including elements, I am sure, of gaming the system (so that, for instance, an Obama supporter might hypothetically claim to be for McCain when asked for a preference between Clinton and McCain, just to depress the numbers for Clinton—not that an Obama supporter would ever actually do such a thing, of course). Once the candidate is decided, one can expect the vast bulk of support for the losing candidate to shift over to the actual nominee. At that point Obama, who is in any case running fairly even with McCain also in the states that Clinton won recently (Ohio and Pennsylvania) should be able to take up much of Clinton’s advantage and pull ahead.
It could be, as they are currently claiming, that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, but I think that is just resentment at having lost. Once the nominating campaign is over, most of Clinton’s supporters will come over to supporting Obama, because he is so much closer to Clinton’s positions on virtually every score than McCain is. Clinton, not surprisingly, has enjoyed a huge advantage among middle-aged and older women. Many if not most of this constituency will be on the women’s rights side of most social issues, including abortion and gender equality. Are such women going to vote for McCain, a candidate who has promised to continue to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, to hack away at Roe v. Wade, or are they going to vote in droves for Obama, who is virtually identical with Clinton on such issues? Similarly, blue-collar workers and union members should want to vote for the one remaining candidate who backs extending union and workers’ rights; the elderly might want an old man like McCain in the presidential office, but if they care for their health benefits and preserving Social Security, then again, if they voted for Clinton, they would be somewhat irrational in not voting for Obama.
How much can disappointment at one’s candidate’s loss, assuming it is fair and square, go against one’s own interests and values when it comes to casting a vote?
One might add here that the operative words are “fair and square”, because I do not have the same confidence that the same rallying around would happen were the reverse to happen, and the superdelegates went against the pledged delegate tally and make Clinton the nominee. There would, in any case, be loud shouts of betrayal of the democratic (and Democratic) process, justifiably so in my opinion, and this would already cause a greater falling away of support for Clinton—possibly splitting the party. Even were this not the case, the fact is that the extra strengths that Obama brings are precisely the add-ons of a potentially dominant Democratic coalition. There is the African-American constituency, who will vote in large numbers, holding their noses, also for Clinton, but not in anywhere near the numbers that they would for Obama, and this could already be a crucial weakness for a Clinton campaign. Even more significant, though, is the fact that much of Obama’s success has come from energizing the young, at universities and in many other walks of life, as well as independents. The youth vote is notoriously fickle, and, with no Obama “movement” to keep them motivated, might well simply disappear from the electoral process come November; similarly Clinton is very weak among the sort of independent-minded voter for whom Obama’s “come together” theme has been so attractive. They also will not turn up in November in big numbers if Clinton is the candidate, or might well vote for the “straight talker” Mc Cain.
At the end of the day, the “electability” argument is a disingenuous argument, reeking of opportunistic exploitation of such distractions as the Wright spat. It distracts from the real question, the real choice, in this primary campaign: who is the best candidate, with the best policies, and with the best chance of uniting the country, enacting effective legislation, and becoming a president about whom all Americans can be proud? Clinton’s effort to muddy the waters about how superdelegates should vote does not change the fact that Obama will get the nomination because he has an insuperable lead among pledged delegates, and the superdelegates will, in a majority, realize they cannot buck the result of the actual primary campaigns. Once Obama is the nominee, support will coalesce around him, as it usually does in such contests. If he is given enough time to heal the rifts within the Party, and smooth the feathers of his opponent and her camp, he will then go on to the general election with a united party behind him, and most probably, given the parlous and perilous state of the country, go on to a landslide victory. It is not the “electability” at this point of the candidate that matters, but of the Democratic Party. In that sense, the earlier the Party can come together, end the drama of the polls and primaries, and reunite its forces on Obama and a platform for reform and change to benefit the People as opposed to the special interests and corporations who have for too long been running the show under Bush, the better off we all shall be. In a sentence: “End the drama; vote Obama!”
I heard what Obama had to say about Hillary and McCain’s promise to lower gas prices and it made me think about when my family and I were in the U.S. over the Christmas holidays. We rented a Prius and every time we filled up, I smiled. This car gets about the same m.p.g. as my Vespa. Now just solve all the battery issues, recharge with renewable energy sources, eliminate fossil fuels entirely and we’re on to something.
Here in Brazil there is no such thing as hybrid technology. It’s because like most things here, the fix is in. Newer cars are flex-fuel, which means they run on either gas or ethanol. At around three bucks a gallon ethanol is cheaper than gas at five. To a large extent. profits and taxes are fuel based, and there are no doubt disincentives in place preventing car manufacturers from either increasing mileage or using batteries. Someday a politician will come along and things might change, but in the U.S. that politician has already come along. All we need to do is elect him.
There, the fix is in too - though they're are a lot more fixers who compete - and rarely does a day pass that I think no way are my fellow Americans electing this guy. I get gloomy. Isn’t politics mostly about fooling the fools? A good person in office has to make do with crappy legislation and lie about its worth to the electorate, who “can’t handle the truth.” This, I believe is what Obama is running against. He’s running for good and truthful government, something that Hillary and McCain want him to do because they believe that America isn’t ready for it.
They think it makes Obama an easy target. Oh, McCain likes the way it sounds, even naming a bus after the idea, but can’t bring himself to pay the political price to actually do it. Hillary though has never been in the game, and for her small incremental improvements are the best that can be hoped for. Look at the polls and react is not a bad policy, as long as leadership isn’t required to inform the people they’re eating horseshit and being told it’s filet mignon.
I too want something done about obscene oil company profits (along with many other unfair things that America has learned to live with.) I do not want to vote for someone who tells us that these profits are “windfall.” Windfall is the unexpected, and oil companies and their lobbyists have carefully plotted for such profits for decades. Subsidies, mergers, price fixing, and dare we say war? To oil companies does Afghanistan mean much more than a pipeline? Does Iraq mean more than an experiment to gain influence gone bad? This is the kind of crap that must stop.
Can Obama sell it? Yes, we can!
The CLINTON INSURGENCY MARCHES ON
The Clinton Insurgency will continue on no matter what party leaders say or do. She stopped running for President in '08 sometime between Super Tuesday and Mini-Super Tuesday when the "Campaign To Elect Hillary" morphed into the "Campaign To Defeat Obama" at all costs.
So we loyal DEMS have to recognize that and behave accordingly.
The Clinton Insurgency will just move to the Senate if she fails in denying Obama the Presidency.
There, she'll caucus with Sens. McCain, Lieberman, and the rest of the REPS to keep blocking Progressive legislation and help create a failed Obama Presidency.
Of course, she's still got a great chance to avoid that by bringing to pass her preferred self-fulfilling prophecy of a failed Obama General Election campaign that produces a McCain Administration.
If The Clintons can pull that off, then they'd gladly take the heat while slowly trying to spin themselves back into DEM good graces.
So please stay informed and aware. Based upon The Clintons' words and deeds that we are all currently witnessing, there is absolutely no reason for any of us to be caught off guard or not prepared for their continued assault against Obama and any type of "Change You Can Believe In".
The Clintons are desperate to remain "titular heads" of the DEM Party, even if it means dooming us, the country, and the entire world to another four years of wandering in the wilderness during a McCain or Cheney-Lite Administration.
"Change" Will Beat McCain in the General Election, Not "Experience"'Electability' has almost uniformly been at the bottom of the list of criteria that voters have based their choices on - so why is it at the heart of Hillary Clinton's central argument in support of herself?Because she knows that for her, this election isn't about the pledged delegates anymore; she cannot overtake Barack Obama's lead. So her electability argument is directed squarely at the superdelegates.And it is deeply flawed.Caught up in shaking off the numerous kitchen sinks thrown his way, Barack Obama hasn't been able to satisfactorily respond to Clinton's notion that only she can take this thing all the way to November. He doesn't only need to formulate a response - he needs to make it the central focus of his campaign from here onwards. Fortunately, there is a very simple and very effective way to do that:Bring back the 'change' versus 'experience' argument.Hillary Clinton has run her campaign on her experience. Is that applicable in the primary season?Yes - she has more 'experience' than Obama.But what about in the general election? Will she:(i) keep telling voters to elect the candidate with more 'experience' - clearly leading them to vote for John McCain, who trumps her easily on it; or(ii) change her tune and start saying that 'experience' is not as important as she thought it was back during the primaries?Everything that Hillary Clinton has used against Barack Obama in the primaries - from amount of experience needed, to answering that 3 am phone call, to 'actions, not words' and 'solutions, not speeches' - goes against her in the general election against McCain.Think about it - by any form of measurement, John McCain has decades more of experience - whether it's military, government, or life experience. He has also probably really answered a few 3 am (give or take an hour or two) phone calls as a ranking member of the Senate Committee of Armed Services. And by working across the aisle with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman, often to the chagrin of his own party members, McCain also appears to many voters, including independents and Democrats, as scoring well on 'actions' and 'solutions'.Is Clinton going to go into the general election against John McCain touting these factors as her basis for electability? If she does, he walks all over her. If she changes her tune, she loses her credibility, instantly becoming a flip-flop artist.On the other hand, the theme that can work against John McCain is 'change': change in foreign policy, change in the Iraq war strategy, change in the Bush tax cuts, and so on. These are the things that McCain can legitimately be challenged on and beat on the basis of - lack of judgment, blind conformity, and adherence to old-school 'Washington politics'.The 'change' argument is the only one that will work against McCain in the general election.And Hillary Clinton cannot make the change argument in the general election anymore. Only Barack Obama can.Barack Obama can, holding on to the same platform of hope and change that brought him this far, go safely into the general election against McCain and draw a clear, irrefutable contrast with the other side without losing a shred of consistency or credibility.Hillary Clinton cannot: if this is about experience, Clinton loses to McCain. If it's about change, Obama wins against him.This is Obama's strongest argument to the superdelegates now. He ought to say it more often. Simply by using Clinton's own words against her.
I won't bore you with another lengthy epistle, but the time is NOW to stem the diversion of attention and focus of MSM on the deceptions being force fed broadcasters, print, and web newsrooms by the HRC-Camp! Call every media outlet in your community, and if you can afford some long distance calls... national media centers too. Barack Obama, himself, tells us how... with the same message we should send to the media, that he sent to the Superdelegates.
You don't have to go far to see why this is needed NOW
Electability?
All this electability speculation is stupid. It's the "Media" (who want the battle to continue for rating's sake) and the Republicans (who benefit from Democratic Squabbling) that keep pushing this stupid topic. Both Clinton & Obama are strong candidates. Whoever gets the nomination would have to announce their official Al Qaeda membership to lose against the Republicans!
It's insane. 8 Years of George W. Bush have guaranteed at least 8 years of Democrats in the White House. Right now, the Democrats could run Jack The Ripper and beat John McCain in a landslide victory in November.
Whoever has the most pledged delegates and popular vote must be nominated and quickly, so we can get to the business of repairing the 8 years of damage created by America's worst president.
Gallup Poll today:
[boldface highlights by MW]
PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in national Democratic preferences for the nomination, 50% to 42%, in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 20-22...With Obama currently leading Clinton nationally by eight points, it appears Pennsylvania is not a Democratic bellweather state.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106765/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-Clinton-42-Nationally.aspx
Electability
Much of Clinton's current campaign positioning is based on her claim that she is more electable against John McCain next November. Analysis of Gallup data, however, does not find empirical justification for this claim at this point. In head-to-head matchups against presumptive Republican nominee McCain, Clinton and Obama perform almost exactly the same.
In Gallup's latest tracking of the general election, based on interviewing conducted April 18-22, McCain has a one-point lead over both Clinton and Obama. In the April 18-20 USA Today/Gallup poll, both Clinton and Obama were slightly -- but almost identically -- ahead of McCain among likely voters.
In neither instance is there any meaningful difference in how the two candidates stack up against McCain.
Clinton has argued that her wins in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio underscore her ability to win possible swing states in the general election next November. But a recent Gallup analysis of the vote patterns in states that were competitive in the 2004 election shows that Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same when paired against McCain in these swing states -- again giving no indication that either of the two Democratic candidates at this point is more "electable" than the other.
Furthermore, in that analysis, Obama did slightly better versus McCain than Clinton did in both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican states.
The demographic coalitions of support put together by the two candidates appear firmly in place by this point in the campaign, and it's likely that the winners in the states to come will be determined more by the composition of the population in those states than by any result of campaigning. At the same time, Clinton's argument that she is more electable in the fall does not appear at this juncture to have support in national data; both she and Obama fare equally well when pitted in polling against McCain.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106774/Day-After-Pennsylvania-Primary.aspx
It is a hot topic on the media waves, and after a few months of the 2008 Presidential Primary season, we now focus on what the actual numbers say. There has been a challenge that states needed in order to win the General Election are more in favor of Hillary Clinton and John McCain; negating the overwhelming number of states that Senator Barack Obama has won, along with the delegates that his campaign has brought in.
With the help of the running tally listed on msnbc.com, from the exit polls of real voters, the following below facts are laid out. We have analyzed not only the delegates in the states, we have also looked at the Electoral College counts themselves since they ultimate decide the outcome of the office and Florida and Michigan Delegate counts are not counted.
Texas - The state that saw a statistical deadheat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (Obama took the Caucus, Clinton the Primary, and Obama the delegates by 99-94).
If we further break down the numbers, we have 2,050,000 (rounding down) votes for Barack Obama in a General Election, assuming that only ½ of Hillary Clinton supporters come over for Barack, and the other ½ vote for an alternate candidate. If we get very (Santa Claus) generous, we can give John McCain that ½, raising his total to 1,410,000 (rounding up). This leaves a short-fall of over 600,000 votes, the likes of which cannot even be made up for by Huckabee’s total that rang in at 532,000.
Result? Obama takes Texas, and its 34 EC votes.
California is the big heavyweight, and we’ll go ahead and get it out of the way, right away. An analysis of the Golden State reveals the following; 52% Clinton – 42% Obama – 4% Edwards. Being generous again, we look at a 50% split for the two, giving Clinton 54% and Obama 43%; total vote counts of 2,200,000 for Clinton and 1,830,000 for Obama..rounding them both down slightly. Adding the conservative 50% from Clinton to Obama again gives Barack 2,881,013 total votes to McCain’s 3,564,047 with all the GOP vote + ½ of Hillary’s count. That’s a difference of 683,034.
Result? McCain takes California, and its 55 EC votes.
Florida has been perhaps the single-most controversial state in electoral news over the history of the United States; far eclipsing any vote rigging that ever occurred before (it is the information age, and should be theft-proof and fool-proof) As we all know, the Florida Democrat Primary will not be counted toward the delegate totals. However, it does deserve mentioning here. A breakdown of the actual vote shows that another statistical dead-heat! (word is getting familiar, yes?) With Senator Clinton receiving 50% of the votes cast, Barack Obama took 33% to John Edwards 14%, with an additional 1% left-out. Now, we’ve been more than generous to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, so let’s give Mr. Obama the benefit in round number three. Even if we add all the votes cast in the Democrat Primary, we have 1,684,390 votes for Democrat Candidates to 1,916,212 for the GOP. It is not likely that either Hillary or Barack are going to pull away nearly 250,000 Republican voters from McCain, which means that the Democrat nominee will need to bring in new voters. Barack Obama has brought out record numbers of new voters by every account given. Can he find more than 300,000? With over 17million people reported as living in the state of Florida, that means that only 21% of the population actually voted. The trends show that there is only one candidate who picks up big clumps of new voters. That candidate is Barack Obama. Adding just 4% of the population to the numbers for Obama, and we get 2,364,390 for Barack; leaving McCain with 448,278 new voters he will need to find in order to just tie. With all eyes on the Sunshine State, not even the Bush machine can hoodwink the population this time. Advantage – Obama.
Result? Obama takes Florida and its 27 EC votes (that makes it 61 – 55 in favor of Obama, so far)
As long as we are speaking about Florida, let’s go ahead and look at her sister Michigan; a state where Barack was not even on the ballot. To keep it simple, and short, let’s look at ½ of Hillary’s totals again, and the rest coming from those uncommitted and the remainder of the field that was on the ballot. Rounding down Senator Obama by a few again, he totals 429,699 with only ½ of Hillary’s voters. McCain draws in more than 2x that number, at about 866,436. However, Democrats have won the state in both 2000 and 2004, and there really was no election held at all in Michigan. Sorry Johnny, we have to give this one to Senator Obama. Romney and the rest of the GOP field creamed you here, and even with all the GOP vote, you simply will not move the Democrat mid-west.
Result? Obama takes Michigan and its 17 votes (while we’re up here, let’s go ahead and throw in MN, IA, and WI, bordering states where Barack easily wins over all with the numbers: EC totals = 27)
So far, we have Obama v. McCain – Big States, with Big Numbers at:
As this starts to look like a run-away election, let us go ahead and allow our candidates to go back to their home states to pick up support. Just to pre-face, both New York and Illinois carry a large number of votes; 31 and 21 respectively, while Arizona brings in 11. We will start with Arizona.
McCain takes 480,351 votes with every GOP number cast during the primary (he only won 47% in his own state, far below both what Clinton and Obama brought in from their respective states!)
Looking at the Democrat side, we will give Obama everything from his party for 379,642. The GOP has had this state on lock-down 3 of the last 4 Presidential Elections. And though Mr. Gore did lose his own home –state during the 2000 election, we’re going to give the Cactus State to John McCain.
Result? McCain takes his own state, and its 11 EC Votes.
You have to go back to 1984 to find a Republican Presidential Candidate who won in NY. Most of us are familiar as well with Illinois’ history with Presidential production. Giving both states to Obama, we now have the following EC totals:
Obama – 157
McCain – 66
From here, we will narrow things down to just the states where Democrats have dominated during the last four Presidential cycles; going back to 1992 and forward to look at the total Electoral College votes for the two main candidates for the General Election; Barack Obama and John McCain:
Adding in the states of OR, WA, NH, NJ, CT, RI, ME, VT, DE, and MA, we get 70 more EC votes for Barack (if my math is correct…) That gives Senator Obama 227 votes in the College; just 43 shy of what he would need to secure victory. With 293 votes still on the table, John McCain would need 204 of them to Barack’s 89 in order to come back and secure victory.
Given the numbers where McCain actually won convincingly during the Primary, here is how it should pan out by the trends:
Victories in Miss, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, UT, WV, KY, and Montana, for McCain place him at 133 Electoral College Votes.
With the landslide victories that Barack saw in the following contests, we give those to the respective Illinois Senator: Alabama, Alaska, D.C., HI, Idaho, KS, LA, MD, Nebraska, ND, SC, VA, WA, WY, and he picks up 106 more votes.
Our new totals
Obama – 333
McCain – 133
With 72 votes still on the table, Senator McCain can have all the rest, and will still need 65 back from Barack out of those above numbers!! States where Barack not only won big, but many of which McCain did not do so hot at all.
Elect-ability? What do you think?
A couple of weeks ago, Hillary's hobbyhorse was experience. After a closer look to what she pretended her experience, it came to the conclusion that it was more verbal than factual. She now seldom mentions her experience. Now let's ask her a little about her electability.
I think that's very important, for it's the last grip she gets in her attack against Obama.
What's makes Hillary pretend she's more electable that Barack?
She alleges that Barack is more vulnerable? Is it that true? Because every
slip of the tongue from Obama is magnified by her, in such a way to make it look like a huge big mistake, and a pretext to try to make people believe she is better candidate for general election. She adopts this attitude, because she seems to be the only democrat candidate with a license to attack other democrats. But does that mean she won't be attacked hard by the Republicans, that she won't receive the same or worse treatments than she's doing to Obama? Can Hillary stand hard critics on her ethics, on her relation with doubtful people that surround her, on her huge amount of lies? Can she bear Republican attacks on all her scandals?
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
What does Hillary reproach other candidates that we can't find worse on her side? Isn't her allegation about Barack's surrogate on NAFTA less grave that her chief campaign lobbying on Colombia free trade? Is the Obama trade with Rezko worst than Clintons' relationship with Peter Paul, an ex-con, and notorious swindler? What about Hsu? Who hasn't seen "Hillary, the movie"?
How can someone of this background pretends she's more electable that any other? How can a forgetful 60-year-old person -according her own husband words- who is too tired to tell the truth at 11PM, can pick up a 3-AM-phone call at the White house? What would she find to say at 3AM, if she loses her memory at 11PM?
I believe it's urgent that Obama's campaign does something about that electability matter, that the campaign makes people understand that this question isn't less capricious than any others. Let's silence Hillary on this, as well as it happened on her experience. Let's do it, but let's do it now !
This is what I wrote to a friend who is sitting on the fence and is concerned about the ability of either Democratic candidate to defeat the GOP attack machine in the fall:
Either candidate will have to overcome obstacles in this historic race in the fall. Either Obama will have to introduce himself to the electorate on his terms or Clinton will have to re-introduce herself to overcome misperceptions about her. Of the two, only Obama has shown that given a reasonable amount of time, he can pull together the money (without having to sell his soul!) for TV ads on the air and put people in motion on the ground to accomplish this task. That is one major reason I am supporting him.
The bottom line (and this is for you, dear reader, and not my friend)--of the three candidates remaining, Sen. Obama is the only one who people genuinely want to like. He comes across as authoritative, but not authoritarian--he listens and doesn't shout people down, but when he talks, people want to hear what he says. I never feel like Sen. Obama is talking down to me, telling me that something is for my own good.
I wish the fall campaign could begin now. (About that 5% chance of catching up, Sen. Clinton...)
Ok, so she knows everybody's on to the "You can have us both" strategy and knows it is just so much hot air, since Obama made it clear he's not running for anybody's vice president.
Wanna take bets on her next line of attack?
Bill Clinton has tipped the hand on it today. Now, it's something along the line of, no matter whether she's behind in popular vote, pledged delegates, states won, or ANYTHING, she's till more electable and should be chosen by the convention.
Ok, let's look at that. Less popular vote - nope. Fewer pledged delegates - nope. Fewer states won -- nope.
Ok, I give up. None of it convinces me that she's more electable. Why, exactly, does any of that make her more electable?
So, what we're doing here is waiting for the other shoe to drop on the latest Billary special -- yet another "theory of the week" on why she's the one they've just gotta go with, dammit.
I'm all ears, Bill. Any time you're ready.
