Making the case for a McCain match-up

January 31, 2008

Now that Democrats feel pretty confident about which Republican they’re going to face in November, the race for the Democratic nomination appears poised to enter a slightly different phase: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will probably start making the case that they can beat John McCain in a general election, and their rival can’t.

To be sure, electability has been a part of the campaign process from the beginning, with Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards each emphasizing it at different points over the last year. But it was always more of a broad, general pitch about the candidates’ appeal.

Now, it’s going to get focused. Dems aren’t just talking about taking on a generic Republican opponent anymore, they’re talking about a specific, known quantity. For that matter, it becomes easier for voters to imagine what a head-to-head general-election match-up would look like, which in turn may help dictate their choices.

For his part, Obama seized on a perceived opportunity at an event at the University of Denver yesterday.

“It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, “who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like.”

He reportedly added, “We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that’s exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One.”

The argument wasn’t exactly subtle.

As it stands, I actually think this is a healthy development. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, and it gets tiresome to hear them argue about peripheral points. Having a GOP rival in mind should help focus the debate between them, with each able to make the case for how and why they can win the election.

As far as I can tell, the basic pitch from Obama’s perspective will be:

* He appeals to more independents and frustrated Republicans than Clinton;

* He represents a better contrast (old vs. young, new vs. stale);

* He unites the left and divides the right, while Clinton divides the left and unites the right.

And the basic pitch from Clinton’s perspective will be:

* She has better support among independents and frustrated Republicans than the conventional wisdom suggests;

* McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced — especially on matters regarding the military and national security — a line he can’t use against her;

* The right may rally against her, but she knows how to deal with their attacks, persevere, and come out ahead. Can we say the same about Obama?

We’ll probably see quite a bit of this at tonight’s debate on CNN, the first head-to-head debate of the year. Should be interesting.

I disagree that Obama and Clinton agree on most policy positions. It is true that their real differences aren’t apparent without taking a close look at them (which the media rarely does). There are fundamental differences in their philosophy of government, which also explains why Obama has much stronger support from independents. Obama’s views often transcend the simplistic left/right spectrum, giving him the ability to move beyond the same arguments we’ve had for years.

Now that it is a two person debate I’m hoping some of these differences come out tonight.

  • Obama’s views often transcend the simplistic left/right spectrum, giving him the ability to move beyond the same arguments we’ve had for years.

    If someone doesn’t find a synonym for “transcend” soon, I’m going to have a total nervous breakdown.

    Their policy positions are posted on their websites. The “media” doesn’t have to interefere at all – go read them both. I have – they aren’t different enough for me to care much about which one gets the nomination. You may be different, but your argument would be more convincing to me if you, you know, pointed out a few differences.

    And Obama is going to have to work with politicians who haven’t “transcended” the left/right spectrum yet. So even if he’s achieved a Nirvana-like state of political perfection, he’s going to have to deal with the normal people in Congress to get anything done.

  • There is far more to their views that a simple listing of views on a web site.

    Differences in their attitude towards government is seen in their views on health care mandates, gun control (especially seen with the vote over allowing confiscation of guns), needle exchange policies, Clinton’s obsession with video games. There’s a marked difference between the two on issues of presidential power and executive privilege.

    I’m not speaking of any Nirvana-state of perfection. I’m speaking of views which will allow him to work with both Democrats and Republicans to actually get something done. He better understands where each side is coming from. He doesn’t have to work with politicians who have transcended the left/right spectrum. He’s be better able to work with the current politicians on both left and right. This has been seen in his successes in the Illinois legislature.

  • “electability has been a part of the campaign process from the beginning”

    The Dems shouldn’t focus on electability vs. the Republican candidate. There will always be a poll giving someone the numbers they want to push and voters shouldn’t make a decision about the future on a pollster’s numbers from the past.

    Obama’s’s comment, “Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans,” is spot on. If experience is the ultimate arbiter of who should be elected, then McCain’s too long stint in Washington trumps even Hillary’s tenure. I’d rather vote for the person with the best mind and not just the oldest brain.

  • at the end of the day it shouldn’t matter who the repub nominee is or who the dem nominee is, the dem’s message needs to be — on the heels of 8 years of a republican controlled white house and 7 years (one could argue 8) of a republican controlled congress, do you really want 4 more years of THIS?

    given the approval ratings for bush and congress BIG brush strokes are all that should be required on this canvas, IMHO.

  • * McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced — especially on matters regarding the military and national security — a line he can’t use against her;

    I would sooner think Obama would make McCain look stodgy and cantankerous. No offense to our fellow commenter, but a curmudgeon, if you will.

  • Although it is nice to ‘know’ and ‘assume’ that McCain will be the Republican nominee. It’s nice to suggest to ‘prove’ that you will be the one who can ‘defeat’ the Republican candidate.

    Anybody remember the last one in the Republican party who was 100 % sure that he would be the MOST qualified candidate to defeat Clinton in the upcoming election? He said he was the only one who had the credentials and the right philosophy to defeat the Democrats during the general election?

    He also had this special primary election strategy by backing out of any State election a few weeks before, as soon as he found out that the polls starting to go south for him. He also had one of those ‘secret plans’ to deal with Al Qaida. He also was absolutely sure he was the one who would win the Florida election.

    How did that turn out? The point is, that a lot of times, voters don’t really care what comes out of a candidate’s mouth, when his/her actions aren’t congruent with their current and/or past behavior.

    Actions speak louder than words. I will be looking closely what Obama and Clinton accomplish in the Senate between now and November. Having to run a Presidential campaign will not be a good enough excuse for not doing anything in the Senate, or not taking the lead on certain issues.

  • As an Edwards supporter, I am now left with Obama and Clinton. Fine, they’re largely the same. But they differ in at least 2 or 3 key areas that are important to me:

    1) Obama was right on the AUMF; Clinton was wrong. That is huge, IMHO, and will be a bludgeon that Obama should use over and over again. I really like the ‘being right from day one’ theme.

    2) Clinton voted for Kyl/Lieberman. Boneheaded move that does little to suggest that she can make the correct decisions in the future toward mitigating Republicans’ cravings for misadventure.

    3) Obama is not Clinton, and vice-versa. If they don’t differ substantively on ‘the most important issues,’ then it’s time for someone new. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is not new.

    I’d like to see Obama on stage against McCain. New blood vs. old school. Old school got us where we are as a country. I’m sad to see Edwards go, as he was a true progressive populist. Now that I have to make a choice, it’s Obama.

  • * She has better support independents and frustrated Republicans than the conventional wisdom suggests;

    * McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced — especially on matters regarding the military and national security — a line he can’t use against her;

    * The right may rally against her, but she knows how to deal with their attacks, persevere, and come out ahead. Can we say the same about Obama?

    I disagree on all three.

    1) Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but is that a selling point? If so, then anything goes. And IMO frustrated Republicans won’t like Hillary any more than Obama. Less would be my guess, since she’s been the devil since before they were ever frustrated by the Republicans. The only frustrated Republicans she’ll get will be the frustrated Republicans racists.

    2) McCain’s military experience will hurt Obama and Clinton equally. His military stupidity can only be strongly contrasted against Obama’s prescience on the AUMF. Hillary’s got a huge problem on that, and that’s obviously why Bill tried to push the BS that Obama hadn’t opposed the war.

    3) “she knows how to deal with their attacks”? I don’t see that. Maybe she does, maybe not, but she also has to drag around the baggage of those attacks, and that stuff will work on the idiots because it’s been thrown at her for so long. “Conventional wisdom” is that she’s secretive and vindictive and shrill. It’s not fair, but she’s damaged goods and we need a fresh face that, when the Republican attacks begin, they will be percieved as political attacks by a desperate party. If HRC is the nominee they will drag out the old attacks and those will be seen as more historical and less political (which is false of course).

    If Clinton and Obama aren’t significantly different on the issues, then we need to pick the one who’s most electable. The media seem to hate the Clintons, and it sucks to reward that behavior, but if we can have the media on our side it would help to get the landslide we really need to finally get some progress made in DC.

  • HRC’s “experience” argument goes out the window against McCain just as quickly as Obama’s. She’ll need new weapons in the general, and I’m not sure she’s got any.

  • Regarding knowing how to deal with the attacks, Obama is now on much stronger ground there.

    Clinton launched a Rove-style attack on Obama. Obama got the better of that, including making Clinton’s dishonesty an issue. He’ll do the same if the Republicans similarly try to distort his record.

    With Clinton it will be the same attacks all over again. Obama can make the Republican use of such tactics an issue in his favor.

  • I like the Obama pitch much better than Hillary’s… even though he leans more left than Hils and I disagree with a good portion of his stances, I really do believe he has the skills to converse and compromise with moderates and even some conservatives throughout Congress.

    If Hillary is President, even though her policies seem to be more appealing to moderates than Obama, the divisions that exist today between the two parties will only grow wider — as irrational as that seems. Moreover, despite the “close relationship” John & Hillary share, I think an Obama/McCain general election will be more fun and much more civil to watch.

    I just believe in my heart of hearts that candidates like McCain and Obama will be able to get the federal government functioning and attack some of the tougher issues this country faces. With Hils at the helm, I am not so sure.

    The question is can Obama really keep the momentum going through next Tuesday??? I hope so.

  • I agree with ‘entheo’ @5. Given what the country has gone through the last 7 years under
    Bush, and even longer, when you consider the Republican congress under Clinton, then it should be fairly easy to show that a BIG CHANGE is necessary in order to get OUR country back on track.

    If the Democrats – any Democrat – goes out on the stump and keeps repeating some of the FACTUAL misdeeds perpetrated by the Republicans. Stay away from the embellishments and trying to exaggerate the severity.

    What is a ‘dead ender’ going to counter in a debate? Bill Clinton did it too?

    Personally, that response is one that I enjoy countering, by listing off ALL the Republicans that have either resigned, are under investigation, or in jail due to things they did.

    Blow Job – vs – Vitter, Craig, Haggard, Foley, etc…
    Lying about ‘sex with Lewinski; – vs – 935 proven lies by the Bush administration officials between 9/11 and going to war with Iraq. – Lying about Valerie Plame – Lying about fired AG’s – lying about evedropping – lying about rendition – etc…..

    etc…

  • Chusid:

    Differences in their attitude towards government…

    The difference isn’t just in attitude of course.
    You can also talk about a sense of style.
    A sense of politeness. Classiness.

    When Edwards dropped out the meme that leaked out of the Hillary camp was:
    “reaching out to his supporters.”

    The meme that escaped from the Barack Obama camp was a carefully written piece…
    Redolent with the theme of two Americas:

    “John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.”

    Clinton is always grubbing and grabbing for an advantage.
    She has got no style at all.
    I mean really:
    Sitting on the Board of Wallmart while first lady of Arkansas?
    That alone should tell you all you need to know.

  • You think Billary has been completely vetted, and that we know everything about them?

    Name 3 major donors to Clinton’s Library in AR.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    Agree the differences go beyond attitudes toward government. The differences between them are far greater than can be expressed in a quick blog comment.

  • terraformer said:
    “1) Obama was right on the AUMF; Clinton was wrong. That is huge, IMHO, and will be a bludgeon that Obama should use over and over again. I really like the ‘being right from day one’ theme.”

    I’d by careful about the ‘being right from day one’ Bush still thinks he’s been right from day one. Cheney still thinks that if he could go back in time and do it all over again, he wouldn’t change a thing.

    You have to be able to change your opinion as you discover NEW evidence, proof, situations.

    I don’t hold Clinton’s initial vote for the war against her. The only evidence Senators had access to was the evidence the Bush administration allowed them to see. We all know what kind of cherry picked and doctored evidence that proved to be.

    As an example: Bush could have gone into Iraq, won the war – as we did – and then NOT make all the mistakes he did after Bagdad fell. Iraq could have turned out to be a success story, with minor glitches afterwards. If we had a decent president that’s what would have happened. Nobody knew at that time HOW stupid and moronic Bush and his neo-con cronies would end up being. If it turned out to be a success story after 6 months, it would have been Obama ‘wrong from day one’ instead of ‘right from day one’

    So… Clinton is off the hook for that one, However… some of her votes since their was no longer any doubt about the lies and mismanagement are certainly questionable.

  • It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One.”

    Exactly. And that is the test that Billary fails. His points of her agreements – her triangulatin’ – with McCain is just why this time we don’t need to elect Nelson Rockefeller, like we did in 1992.

  • Following up on Ron’s first post — just a few differences between Obama and Clinton

    –Obama has disclosed all earmarks. Clinton hasn’t.

    —Obama co-sponsored campaign finance reform. Clinton didn’t.

    –Obama released his income tax returns to the public. Clinton hasn’t.

    –Obama introduced/passed sweeping ethics reform. Clinton belittled it.

    –Obama pledged to take public financing in the general if his Republican opponent would do the same. Clinton won’t take that pledge (and after the Michigan/Florida pledge, we couldn’t trust her to keep it if she did).

  • They differ on a very big issue – the war. This war is not at all popular, and it’s being put on the back burner much to the convenience of the Republicans. I want them talking about the war and think it could only hurt McCain while helping Obama. McCain’s “bomb, bomb, bomb… Iran” video could be shown ad nauseum, and Obama wouldn’t need ad much more to the conversation; just point to his voting record.

  • I pretty sure Mr. Carpetbagger reads all the comments, and that he also has connections with a few of the Dem campaigns.

    So to that end, let me offer a McCain attack ad strategy that can save whomever the Dem nominee is millions of dollars—it’ll only take four ads to expose him as the nutball we all know he is.

    The first should contain a clip of him singing, “Bomb bomb bomb … bomb bomb Iran.” Include the quote from, of all people, Joe Scarborough about “less jobs, more wars.”

    The second should include the several times he’s admitted he’s clueless about the economy. Given the prominence of the issue nowadays, that should come back to bite him. Hard and repeatedly.

    The third can show him in 2000 calling the radical right “Agents of Evil.” Then juxtapose that with him sucking up to those some Agents, proving that he’ll pander to a constituency most folks are getting sick and damn tired of hearing about.

    The fourth is the dandy: A picture of his loving embrace of Bush. Show it along with his quotes supporting Bush’s Iraq policy (which he has never actually been all that critical of), his ones about us staying in Iraq for centuries (including him refusing to retract the statement), and just hang the weight of the war around his neck.

    Just run those four ads over and over again. Of course, the Dem should mix in the reasons why we should vote for him/her, rather than against someone else. But the point remains: Those four things could clearly show to independents that McCain is in no way any type of “Maverick.”

    Well, unless they think someone who mocks nuking another country, has no idea about economics, flip-flops way more than Kerry ever did, and who has consistently supported an incredibly unpopular president is, in fact, a “Maverick.”

    Personally, I’d call that person “clinically stupid.”

  • Either Obama or Clinton will make McCanine look old, slow, out of touch and tired.

    I prefer Obama, but in the end I feel Clinton would do just as well against McCanine. The side-by-side appearance will be one factor. The economy is going to play very large in this election, and that clearly benefits Dems, including Clinton. McCanine can’t really make a rally big issue of the War with either candidate–is he going to trash Clinton for her early war votes? No. Can he trash Obama for his position onthe war? Just let him try. Ditto for Clinton’s views once she kinda sorta saw the light. The jury is still out on what, exactly, ‘independents’ will do–I guess that will depend on what type of ‘independent’ one is, as there appear to be at least 3 if not more types of ‘independent.’ And the past seven years is going to strongly influence the electorate, especially in the area of willingness or excitedness to vote–and this should benefit either of the Dem candidates. Not to mention the clear money advantage the Dem party will have.

  • While I was taken aback by the viciousness of Obama’s attacks on HRC yesterday, I was more struck by the way he did it. He turned her arguments against her, tied into existing, negative perceptions, and made the case for himself — all without breaking stride. It reminded me of what Rs do so well — slip little loaded words into normal speech to create the appearance of truth, when they’re really just tapping into republican-constructed memes. The problem for Democrats is that they haven’t developed linguistic shortcuts — or frames — they can easily tie into.

    If Obama gets the nomination and can do this against McCain (or Romney), we may have something I’ve been waiting years for — a way to break down Republican frames without having to give a history lesson or bring out charts and graphs.

    I’m guessing we’ll see something along these lines tonight (depending upon the format) and it’ll be interesting to see how it plays. (And no, I’m not gushing over the guy, just wondering aloud if I saw what I think I saw.)

  • I think you all are delusional if you think that Obama isn’t looking for and taking advantages when and where he can – it’s just ludicrous to imagine that he just sits back, pearls of wisdom fall from his lips and everything goes his way. This is a guy who came up in the Chicago political system, for crying out loud – do you really think that system is somehow more pure than what is going on in DC? I think not.

    How classy was it that Obama released his statement on Edwards in advance of Edwards’ official and public announcement? The words were pretty, but if you don’t think he wanted to be the first out of the gate “reaching out” to Edwards supporters because of whatever advantage that might give him, you must be smoking something.

    Of course there’s more to the candidates than what is on their websites – but there is more to them than speeches, too.

    I hate to get back to the AUMF vote again, but nobody sat Barack down and made him register an actual vote. He got to give a speech, which is fine – speeches explain positions. But why is it that Obama gets every advantage in explaining the things he didn’t vote on, or in explaining the “present” votes, but it’s talk-to-the-hand time when those who did vote attempt to explain why they voted the way they did? I would have preferred that all the Democrats had voted against the AUMF, and was disappointed that so many did. Why do so many of you not take issue with Obama, when asked how he would have voted, saying he really didn’t know. Oh, right, he didn’t want to embarrass John Kerry or maybe nix his chances to give that speech at the convention. Gosh, no opportunism there. Why is there no issue taken with Obama saying that his thinking on the war wasn’t all that different from Bush’s? Huh? I can’t put that together with “I opposed the war from the beginning,” no matter how hard I try.

    Does anyone think that a John McCain general election campaign will not raise those issues and once raised, will accept the kinds of explanations I read here for why Obama said and did these things? I don’t think so. And if you think so, you have not been paying attention to how desperate the GOP is to win in November.

    Hillary won’t have any easier a time of it, but let’s not pretend that Obama “wins” on the war – against McCain – because he gave a nice speech. It’s ALL going to be on the table.

    It isn’t Hillary or Obama who are bursting into a chorus of “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and it isn’t Hillary or Obama who are shrugging her shoulders and acting indifferent to the possibility of decades of occupation – that’s McCain’s albatross, and both Obama and Clinton can make sure all of America sees it, and feels the weight of it.

  • I don’t hold Clinton’s initial vote for the war against her. The only evidence Senators had access to was the evidence the Bush administration allowed them to see. -Bruno

    The fact that it came from the Bush Administration is all they should have needed to heed warnings from the UN. It’s not like there wasn’t conflicting evidence out there to be had; it’s also not like Bush convinced them that bin Laden was swimming in Hussein’s pool. It was a distraction from the real enemy and Clinton and many Democratic Senators illustrated poor judgment and got swept up in the false nationalism of revenge.

    To then repeat the mistake against with a yea vote for Kyl-Lieberman shows incredible disregard for history and an unfounded trust in Bush.

    That is not the type of wisdom, trust, and judgment I expect in a President. We need to stop making excuses for them and hold them accountable.

  • #17 Bruno – “The only evidence Senators had access to was the evidence the Bush administration allowed them to see. We all know what kind of cherry picked and doctored evidence that proved to be.”

    And therein does NOT lie the disagreement – both Obama and Clinton agree that if the doctored evidence was right, the best thing to do at that time was aggressive UN inspections.

    But Obama was against authorizing military action before inspectors’ results were in, Clinton voted for it.

  • “To then repeat the mistake against with a yea vote for Kyl-Lieberman shows incredible disregard for history and an unfounded trust in Bush. That is not the type of wisdom, trust, and judgment I expect in a President. We need to stop making excuses for them and hold them accountable.”

    Agree 100%–the Kyl-lieberman vote is troubling. But really, to me it is troubling in the Obama/Clinton context. It is one of those things that has me favoring Obama. However, in the general, the choice is then a whole lot different. And I for one will take the “type of wisdom” Clinton has shown, if she is the nominee, over the “type of wisdon, trust and judgment,” or lack thereof, shown by any of the potnetial GOP candidates. It isn’t even close.

  • Hillary has no more objective experience than Obama. What McCain can use against Obama he can use equally well against Hillary. If it comes down to it, I prefer the candidate that has had the experience of going out to buy a gallon of milk recently.

  • * McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced — especially on matters regarding the military and national security — a line he can’t use against her;

    Whatever you think of the other pro-Hillary arguments listed, this one is patently false. Hillary’s “experience” and “readiness” is the central pillar of her campaign, and it’s a perceived-strength that is completely demolished next to McCain. What does that leave her in terms of making an affirmative case for herself? She can’t pivot to the “judgment” argument Obama has, because…she’s voted with McCain on all those big war votes. On torture McCain came out to her left…he’s adamantly denounced its use and can speak credibly on its horrors, whereas she’s given us Mukasey-like evocations.

    So then what does Hillary have left? Certainly not character and integrity; whatever you think of their actual characters, the undeniable truth is that McCain is viewed as trustworthy and of integrity by much of the population, whereas Hillary is not. Whether that perception is accurate is beside the point (much the same as the question of Hillary’s ‘experience’ is also beside the point). That’s just the way it is.

    So she basically spots him a lead in foreign policy (by being unable to contrast him in anyway while seeing him better her at her biggest strength) and character/integrity. She has to make all that up in economy/domestic policy. That makes his task much easier than hers.

    The flip side is that McCain, IIRC, took public funding and is gonna be pretty restrained in spending for the coming months. So that’s a plus for either candidate (Obama or Clinton) that nobody has mentioned.

  • For what it’s worth, I heard the author of a book on the politics of evangelical Christians on NPR this morning. He stated that the only thing that would bring out the Evangelicals in large numbers to vote for Romney or McCain would be if Hillary was the Dem nominee. I’d go farther and say that running Hillary would be the only thing that we could do to inspirit and unify an otherwise dispirited and fractured Republican party.

  • Honestly, my gut reaction is that Hillary will be a better match against McCain — I’m with Kevin. Although, I think it’s ours to lose either way. McCain has a lot of baggage with the war, and is terribly weak on the economy. His comments about staying in Iraq “100 years” deserve an attack ad, and Hillary can make the obvious case that Dems are better on the economy and use McCain’s constant admission he knows nothing about it against him. McCain is synonomous with Bush on the War. The only people still 100% behind Bush on war policy are McCain, Leiberman and Bill Kristol.

    For me, in a comparison, Obama lacks the gravitas to go against McCain.

    By the way, what was Obama’s vote on Kyl-Leiberman?

  • For those who think Obama can’t beat Clinton, take a look at this (thank you TPM):

    Another Rasmussen poll shows Barack Obama making up serious ground in a major Super Tuesday state. In California, Hillary Clinton has a bare lead of 43%, followed Obama at 40% and John Edwards with 9%.

    If Obama were to pull off a win in the largest state in the country, it would completely change the dynamics of the campaign. And if Hillary were to come out on top, it could give her a large number of delegates to fend off Obama’s advantages elsewhere.

    Hillary has LOST 14 points between last Friday and Wednesday!

    So much for the “inevitability” of a bridge to 1992 as the answer to the problems of 2008.

  • I hate to get back to the AUMF vote again, but nobody sat Barack down and made him register an actual vote.

    Why do you hate to go back to it?
    Is it because on that thread you got challenged with both the timeline and the facts.
    And you punted?
    Well not quite punted.
    You refuted the facts with even more excessive demands for ridiculous picayune evidence.
    If I recall correctly you weren’t going to except the timeline unless all 98 senators wrote sworn written testimonies. Or some such ludicrous nonsense.

    The good news Anne is that you now have only two choices: Billary or Barack.
    And if Edwards comes down in support of Barack, like many of us feel he will…
    I feel for you greatly.
    You’ll have to go back out in your backyard and eat, as you so aptly put it, another can of worms.
    That is, if there are anymore out there to be found….

  • Michael -a few things –

    One: Keating Five – not McCain’s finest moment in terms of integrity and honesty.

    Two: the laundry list of statements he’s made on the war that are in direct conflict with his assertions that he’s the only one who was right.

    Three: she is definitely on the right side of issues pertaining to women, children and families – and these are the “butter” issues that may triumph over “guns” if the economy continues its death spiral.

    Four: the majority of Republicans may view Hillary as being of lesser integrity than McCain, but she doesn’t get the kinds of numbers of voters she’s gotten so far because the vast majority of Democrats view her as a liar and a cheat.

    Five: Obama’s and Hillary’s votes on the war are identical from the point where Obama entered the Senate.

    Six: McCain can decide to opt out of public funding for the general election, and if he continues to roll up victories, fundraising may not be the issue is once appeared it would be.

    Finally – and this is something to keep an eye on. The media is beginning to turn an investigative eye on Bill Clinton again, in connection with his philanthropic fund. This is the one area where I always worried Hillary would have a problem – the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton. If I’m right, what is happening now is calculated to make sure that Obama is the nominee.

    Here’s the problem I have with this: the media may think it is doing us all a favor by using Bill to trash Hillary’s chances (not that the right wing and even some Democrats wouldn’t), and be assured that if there is anything to the latest allegations, it’s fair and maybe it is a favor to know now. But what could happen is that that same investigative will turn to Obama if he is the nominee, and that could be as much of a problem in terms of his electability.

    I think it may well be that Democrats are going to regret marginalizing John Edwards out of this race.

  • By the way, what was Obama’s vote on Kyl-Leiberman? -memkiller

    His vote was the same as McCain’s. 🙂

    I am angry that he didn’t show up to vote. Others have pointed out he issued statements prior to the vote that he did not support it, but that’s not what a leader does.

    Still, I’d rather have Hillary in the ‘not voting’ column than the ‘trust Bush’ column.

  • “I think it may well be that Democrats are going to regret marginalizing John Edwards out of this race.”

    Was it really the Dems? Or was it the media?

  • I’ll just throw this out there.

    The latest Rassmusen poll for California shows Clinton at 43, Obama at 40. That is a HUGE shift. Only a few weeks ago Clinton had a 15 -20 point advantage. Heck, just two days ago it was 49 Clinton 38 Obama according to SurveyUSA.

  • Uh, ROTF – we are talking AUMF, not Kyl-Lieberman. There is no timeline there – she was in the Senate, and he was not – which is why he couldn’t vote. Which is why he likes to compare his speech to her vote. Which is kind of why you look like a jerk for taking me to task on something I wasn’t referring to in my comment.

    Reading comprehension – it’s a good thing; you might try it.

    As far as Edwards’ future endorsement goes, last I checked, I was still able to make my own decisions, which is what I will do.

  • Five: Obama’s and Hillary’s votes on the war are identical from the point where Obama entered the Senate. -Anne

    Funding a war is different than starting one.

    The media is beginning to turn an investigative eye on Bill Clinton again…I always worried Hillary would have a problem – the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton. If I’m right, what is happening now is calculated to make sure that Obama is the nominee. -Anne

    Then maybe she should have been advised to leave him out of the campaign, or at least in the background. Hillary and Bill took control of the media spotlight and placed it firmly on Bill. He loves the media attention, and I don’t think there is any way you can deny that. I don’t think you can blame the media on this one.

    I think it may well be that Democrats are going to regret marginalizing John Edwards out of this race. -Anne

    This, however, is something I think you can lay firmly at the feet of the media. As I remarked yesterday, it’s the first time in history a candidate was ignored by the media because he was a nice looking white man.

  • “…what was Obama’s vote on Kyl-Leiberman? Oh, jeebus. Obama didn’t vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Talk about ripe on ‘having it both ways’.”

    Every tiny detail of this bogus complaint has been debunked ad nauseum on this blog, but that doesn’t stop the four-headed monster (Anne, memekiller, jen flowers and zeigest) from repeating it (ad nauseum).

    For those that missed it:

    1. Obama spoke against saber-rattling with Iran before the vote and provided policy proposals on effective diplomacy with Iran prior to the vote.

    2. Obama was in DC and prepared to vote against Kyl-Lieberman on the day of the scheduled vote. The vote was, however, postponed indefinitely.

    3. The vote was called the next day after Obama arrived in NH to campaign. Again, this vote was unscheduled and was called by Harry Reid despite previous indications to the contrary.

    4. Since he was out of town for this unschedule vote, Obama issued a press release on the day of the vote stating his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman (the vote was not going to be close, and therefore, there was no need for him to leave N.H.)

    5. Of the two senators that missed the vote, both were two of the five presidential candidates from the senate (all of whom have missed several votes as presidential candidates tend to do).

    Just an FYI.

  • bubba – maybe what I should have said was that America is going to regret that the media marginalized Edwards out of the race. Last night, it was all they could do to race past the announcement so they could breathlessly tell us what this all means to the now two-person race. I think Edwards – what he said, what his message was – got less than 10 seconds.

    I’m still angry – most especially because they just don’t ever stop inserting themselves and their oh-so-important opinions in ways that drive the process.

  • doubtful – I guess it wasn’t clear that I was not making arguments for Clinton over Obama, I was addressing the broader issues that would surface if McCain is the nominee, and what the arguments are.

    The points you raise are valid if we’re looking at Clinton v. Obama, but if Clinton is going up against McCain, he can’t bash her for her war vote; if if’s Obama v. McCain, he doesn’t have a “let’s go to war” vote – and his funding votes are no different than McCain’s – so I suppose it could be advantage: Obama on that one. Maybe – but I think the wedge for McCain is “if you were so opposed, why did you keep funding it?”

    I think whoever is the Democratic nominee will absolutley have to keep McCain from setting the agenda – he will want to talk non-stop about the war. He has to do that because I think his positions and his agenda on everything else just suck – and he knows it.

    Keep him going hard and long – I don’t think he’s really up to the physical and mental task of running for the presidency – it’s been 8 years since he did this, and he was out of it by South Carolina.

  • Simple fact is Obama can’t beat McCain. The latino vote would go to McCain simply because of the black/brown effect. Read his heath plan and then tell me that it is as good as Clintons and Edwards. Im the states to come he will not carry the woman vote or the white vote.Hillery wins CA, NY, NJ, AK, TN and CN and its over because she has the support of the establishment DLC. Ted Kennedy is old history and most women despise him so he can’t bring in the woman vote or latino vote for Obama. So in Nov get ready to vote for Hillary.

    p.s. HAS ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ THE (AUMF) IT DOES NOT GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO GO TO WAR IT GAVE HIM THE AUTHORITY TO SEND IN INSPECTORS HE ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY BECAUSE HE HAD A REPUGNANT MAJORITY THAT DID NOTHING TO STOP HIM.

    It’s easy to say that you were against the AUMF when noone knew whe you even were. What was he a State Sen of ILL that noone had ever heard of in 2002. Did he make a national public speech about it that I missed. The 1st I heard of him is when he ran against Alan Keyes and that only because Keyes is from Maryland and the talk was how could he run for US Senate in ILL. So its time to get off his bandwagon and vote for someone electable. Outside of a few thousand people most don’t know who he is. And beleive it when people tell you that this 18-25 demographic will be nowhere to be found in Nov. Never have and never will show up when it matters.

  • Edwards is a great guy and would have been a great person to represent the Dems in this election, but the fact is his campaign did not catch fire. We can blame the media or we can blame “uninformed voters” or we can blame whatever else we want. The simple fact is that there are two strong contenders still in the running for the Democratic nomination. Grousing about what could have been is a pointless waste of energy.

    The question now is Clinton or Obama? Chris’s comments on #42 are right on. Obama HAS been on the right side of these important things. I would go further and suggest that his potential to appeal to the widest group of people IS a huge consideration as to who the better choice to represent the Democrats in november.

    My preference for Obama is pretty obvious by now, but if Clinton gets the nomination I WILL vote for her because the alternative is a grossly conservative Supreme Court.

  • Keep him going hard and long – I don’t think he’s really up to the physical and mental task of running for the presidency – it’s been 8 years since he did this, and he was out of it by South Carolina.

    Naw. You are talking about a guy without a conscious and a huge appetite to be president.
    He can say anything and still sleep like a baby.
    I expect him to get stronger as time goes on.
    It is the same thing with Billary versus Barack.
    I like the thought of the younger Barack running the old monsters into the ground:
    Grind ’em out and grind ’em down and spit ’em out…
    But it is not going to happen:
    All of these candidates will find energy to keep on going.
    They’ve all got deep hungers…
    Esp so for the older ones…
    Being president is all they got left…

  • The media is beginning to turn an investigative eye on Bill Clinton again…I always worried Hillary would have a problem – the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton. If I’m right, what is happening now is calculated to make sure that Obama is the nominee. – Anne

    Personally I’d find HRC a more attractive candidate if Bill was out of the picture entirely. I cannot look at the guy without seeing him defiantly denying having had “sex with that woman” and being reminded that, had it not been for his stupidity, he would have been more productive during his last years in office and Gore would almost certainly have stomped Bush.

    Yes the media is obsessed with Clinton, but he also gives them a big, fat irresistible target. Obama has yet to set himself up that way. His lofty speeches may have them swooning, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s a conspiracy to make sure Obama is the nominee.

    These arguments are tedious.

  • Hillary Clinton will whip John McCain hands down.

    Women will vote for her over him (except of course the far right, stiffled, republican ones [but they aren’t happy with McCain either] and they might even sneak a vote in for her in the voting booth ).

    Young people will vote for her over him (McCain looks very old … HIllary doesn’t and has Chelsea on hand to remind them she knows what young people are thinking).

    Minorities will vote for her over him. (The African Americans will come to realize the difference again between Clinton’s treatment of them and the Republican’s and the Latinos will remember how most Republicans (if not McCain) want them all to go back from wherever they came).

    White men might be a problem … especially white republican men … but, they would’t vote for Obama either.

    Either one will win against McCain. I think maybe the Republicans have decided to offer McCain up since they know their chances of victory are quite slim … like they are telling Romney behind the scences … just let it go … you are young … you can run again. Let this old guy go out there and lose.

  • Mark D @ 21:

    Excellent suggestions. I really like them. All four of them. I hope the eventual Dem nominee runs with them.

    I especially like the idea of making use of the photo of McCain hugging Bush. There’s something about the way McCain is hugging Bush that makes him (McCain) look child-like, subservient, uncomfortable, awkward, and just plain weird. So it’s a two-fer. You get to tie McCain to Bush, and you get to portray McCain as small and strange.

  • * He [Obama] appeals to more independents and frustrated Republicans than Clinton;
    Obama appeals to ANYONE who is sick of the last 7 years of rhetoric, war and Bush dictatorship. In short, anyone left who has a brain.

    * He represents a better contrast (old vs. young, new vs. stale);
    McCain and Clinton: Old an busted Washington Hacks
    Obama: New Washingtong Hotness

    * The right may rally against her, but she knows how to deal with their attacks, persevere, and come out ahead. Can we say the same about Obama?
    Hell yes we can say the same about Obama.

    All that “Is White America Ready for a Black President” bullsh*t and the Middle East Name Crisis and the covert email smears and H. Clinton and Edwards ganging up on him in the last debate? And he STILL won South Carolina and came out smelling like a rose.

    Obama cannot just weather this election, he can weather the changes our country needs. Sad part is, now that Edwards is gone, he doesn’t have to fight just McCain, he has to fight McCain and Hillary and Bill.

    It’s going to be a tough slog, but he’s got my support 100%.

    We’ll probably see quite a bit of this at tonight’s debate on CNN, the first head-to-head debate of the year. Should be interesting.

  • Hillary Clinton did not start the war in Iraq. If she had been our president at the time, we would not be fighting in Iraq. Go read her speech and all the other democratic positions at the time who voted for the resolution. Also, read the transcripts of the UN Security Council at the time. Bush and Chenny were hell-bent on this war. Why didn’t Ted Kennedy stop them? Why didn’t he use all his muster to get all of the democrats to vote agains the resolution?

    The resulution didn’t authorize war … it demanded the UN send the inspectors back in, that Iraq give them complete freedom to look at whatever they wanted to look at and that if they didn’t … we could use force to disarm them. The UN did pass the resolution (while reminding people that Israel, by the way– was currently in violation of 31 UN resolutions – and the USA didn’t seem to mind that). The inspectors were allowed back in and were given complete freedom and Bush attacked anyway because he couldn’t find any WMD’s and needed something to do to make himself feel important. It really is sickening to read those transcripts – try it sometime … the way that body sees what is happening and can’t do anything to stop the arrogant idiots in charge of our country.

    Another thing people seem to have forgotten is how badly the majority of the people in this country wanted to go over there and “blow the piss out of them”. People were behind Bush at that point. I wasn’t, you weren’t but 100’s of 1000’s of people were … I would assume that had something to do with the 29 democratic Senators voting for the resolution … this is a representative government after all.

  • I especially like the idea of making use of the photo of McCain hugging Bush. There’s something about the way McCain is hugging Bush that makes him (McCain) look child-like, subservient, uncomfortable, awkward, and just plain weird. So it’s a two-fer. You get to tie McCain to Bush, and you get to portray McCain as small and strange.

    That picture is so disturbing in so, so many ways. (And for those who haven’t seen it, here ya go.)

    I’ve seen toddlers give a less sincere hug to a mother they haven’t seen in a week …

  • Marian’s argument (i.e. Hillary Clinton’s argument) that Clinton voted to authorize specifically to get inspectors into Iraq is contradicted by the facts. When Hans Blix was arguing that Iraq was giving his team the access they required and that he needed more time to inspect…Hillary was cheering the invasion on (in contrast with her husband, who was arguing to give inspectors more time).

    New York Daily News:
    “…just months after the bombs started falling, Clinton (D-N.Y.) called a Daily News reporter to insist she had no second thoughts about her vote for war. The war was worth it just to remove Saddam Hussein from power, she said. Clinton emphatically told The News in her 2003 call, “I felt that it was appropriate under the circumstances, which really went back to 1998 under the Clinton administration’s conclusion that the regime had to change, that the President [Bush] had authority to pursue that goal.” “Why was the intelligence consistent from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration?” Clinton added. “The intelligence was consistent for over a decade.” On the eve of war, even the senator’s aides echoed Team Bush’s confidence in a swift victory, including one who boasted, “It’s going to be a cakewalk.”

  • I especially like the idea of making use of the photo of McCain hugging Bush.

    I understand your passion.
    But not a lot of votes go into knee jerk mode when they see that picture.
    For most voters: a hug is just a hug.
    If anything, after the bitter fight in 2000, when Bush and McCain had that horribly awkward moment of reconciliation on stage, it shows that St. John is man enough to let bygones be bygones.

    In other words: You can’t spin that photo into anything harmful.

    The media is beginning to turn an investigative eye on Bill Clinton again…I always worried Hillary would have a problem – the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton. If I’m right, what is happening now is calculated to make sure that Obama is the nominee.

    Yes I am sure they all had a secret meeting last night and drew up the plans.
    Might even have used their TI-83s to make those calculations.
    Machinating bastards!
    Damn them for imagining that sitting on the board of Walmart while First Lady of Arkansas should be issue!

  • Chris,
    I just did a google search, and assumed it was another “present” vote or something. It’s just that, if we’re bragging about Obama’s vote on Kyl-Leiberman, I noticed why no one said Obama voted against it.

    You’ll get no argument from me that Hillary’s vote was offensive, and can find what I’ve posted about it in comments. To her credit, she immediately came out and sought to fix whatever was in the amendment that could be used that way, but I thought it was an obvious “Vote for Peace” like the one Kerry cast, taking the President at his word the authorization would be used with the best of intentions. It is, to this day, the largest reservation I have about Hillary — when you’re stomping for her because of how astute she is, what does it say that Hillary fell for the same trick AGAIN.

    Obama sure got himself in a pickle if he wants to make much of it, though.

  • It is a pathetic picutre. In 2000, I really thougth McCain should have been nominated … of course I was glad he wasn’t because I was so sure we could whip the idiot we failed to …

    After what the Bush’s machine did to McCain, I can’t believe he ever had anything but contempt for all of them.

  • …this is a representative government after all. -Marian

    Well, sure, but not a direct representation. We elect people who we believe will do the right thing on our behalf, not bobble-heads at the beck-and-call of the majority. I don’t fault the people for getting swept up with feelings of revenge; I fault the politicians who should have said ‘whoa.’

    doubtful – I guess it wasn’t clear that I was not making arguments for Clinton over Obama, I was addressing the broader issues that would surface if McCain is the nominee, and what the arguments are. -Anne

    Sorry, Anne, my mind is so locked into the Obama/Clinton race that I missed the point entirely.

    I do think Obama can still win the war issue against McCain because I do believe there is a difference between funding an ongoing war and starting one. If McCain has the gall to question him about the funding, Obama will score a victory by highlighting that his goal is to support our troops when they are at war and when they are veterans.

    The latino vote would go to McCain simply because of the black/brown effect. -Jim

    I really hate the oversimplification of the ‘Latino vote.’ There are so many different types of ‘Latino voters,’ and they don’t all exhibit the same voting patterns. Critical thinking does not benefit from such generalizations.

  • memekiller,

    I do not distinguish among the four heads of the four-headed monster.

    Since the monster is, yet again, slipping in another thoroughly debunked issue (as the monster tends to do), then I’ll have to refer you to CB’s previous post on the “present” votes.

    It’s sad that the four-headed monster can’t debate and discuss without continually referencing manufactured flaps.

  • It’s sad that the four-headed monster can’t debate and discuss without continually referencing manufactured flaps.

    They have nothing else. Otherwise they argue that there is no difference between Clinton and Obama and try to obscure the actual differences, such as on Iraq. They try to deny the actual differences where Obama is better but have no arguments for where Clinton is better. It is hardly an argument against Obama to say he voted the same as Clinton if they are ok with Clinton’s vote.

  • Somewhat OT, but the other day, one of my relatives surprised me by saying he’s really rooting for Obama. This is someone who I wouldn’t have suspected would seriously entertain voting for a Democrat. But he finds Obama “inspiring”, even as he admits that no politician ever delivers enough of what they promise.

    I didn’t ask, but I would not imagine he would vote for Clinton over McCain.

    I think political junkies may be underestimating “the audacity of hope” when it comes to the general election. There’s no way McCain is going to successfully say he can be the one to change Washington. If Clinton and McCain are fighting for the same independents… I don’t generally like that matchup. People who want to believe they are post-partisan are unlikely to swing Hillary’s direction there.

  • I’m no political guru, but i don’t like the way Clinton stacks up against McCain…not one little bit. He beats her hands down on “experience”, and that doesn’t count how many old narratives will be dragged out of the closet against the Clintons. (and though i haven’t read much about it, the Barrett Report scares me; there’s a reason five pages got redacted and buried) That race will come down to choosing between two moderates and i’m not sure that Clinton can bring out enough votes to out moderate, especially considering the ill feelings that many Obama supporters are developing.

    Obama might not be able to beat McCain, but i’d rather take my chances with youthful vigor against the the same old same old. Rhetoric doesn’t cut it, but it does make a difference. The contrast between Obama and McCain will be hard to ignore.

    And the bigger picture, in my mind, is which Dem will have the longest, widest coattails. I do think that Obama can actually mobilize the ever illusive “youth” vote, and if he does, those kids are going to go into the booths and vote Democratic down the ballot. Without a solid majority in Congress, a Democratic president won’t mean squat.

  • JRS Jr…

    Something not many have talked about is the need for caution.
    Barack understands this of course
    He has been walking a very fine line since the very beginning…
    If he widens his shoulders too much, stands a little too defiantly, lets his voice tilt a little to the red he enters into an emotional twilight zone:

    The angry black male beating up on a white woman.

    He has a lot variables he has to control.
    No doubt they get in the way of the free flow of his ideas.
    That’s the bad news.

    The good news is that against another man he can widen those shoulders.
    I expect, should he get the chance, he will prove himself to be a far better debater then most suspect. Right now, he has to dampen himself and play hyper courteous.
    On the other hand: he has slowly been pushing those boundaries…
    So I do expect a good showing tonight.

  • Chris,
    When this head of the four-headed monster read this piece on Obama’s “present” votes, I was so thrilled, this is what I e-mailed the author:

    Thanks so much for your piece on Obama’s “present” votes. When the charge first appeared at CBS, I said some professional ought to dig into this before it became a press release based scandal on cable. Looks like it was you.

    The other question I have though is those six mis-cast votes. Does everyone get that wrong? Or is it an “open secret” that politicians change their votes this way. I’d like to see a similar piece getting to the bottom of this if anyone tries to make something of that.

    I then sent the story to several media outlets, including CBS where, after they did a post on Obama’s “voting mistakes”, I had written the following:

    Hmmm… I don”t know what to think. It seems weird to hit the wrong button six times — what”s the average among Senators? And is it an “open secret” that this is used to reverse yourself, like Hillary”s “planted question”, which is done by every campaign, but only Hillary gets press about it? Then again, four of the six votes are not controversial, which seems to suggest an accident.

    Obviously, whoever gave you this has an ax to grind, and I hope some reporter, somewhere, is professional enough to do the leg work to find out exactly what the facts are here before it becomes a press-release based scandal that dominates the unprofessional cable shows.

    This is what I have posted here at Carpetbagger this week:

    If Obama’s supporters can keep quiet, I think this week I’m an Obama supporter, as I always am after I’ve seen one of his victory speeches.
    He does allow us to turn the page in the sense that the DC elite are about as likely to let go of their old Clinton hatred as they are admit getting it wrong on Bush. Obama provides them with an out, as it does a lot of previous Bush lovers who would otherwise be unwilling to swallow and “I told you so” Clinton Presidency.

    We always underestimate likeability. It’s everything, really. If you have a figurehead with the bully pulpit, the policy sort of follows. You set the tone, present goals that the oxen have to at least pretend to be working toward. You set the direction of the country.
    I don’t mind the cultism of Obama’s followers. Cultism means belief — that’s what makes people volunteer and go door to door in the rain getting doors slammed in their faces. It means they are touched on a deep level in a way that, no matter how unfairly, the Clintons never can. Cultism for Obama may be as irrational as hatred of the Clintons, but it works in our favor.

    I think the ground may have finally shifted… if they GOP is truly defeated, then it will be time to do what we didn’t do after the Civil War and WWI — reconciliation. IF the GOP is chastened, then it is time to finally reach across and to make a broad appeal that could truly create a Democratic majority. They had their moment, they had the power, and they didn’t create the Christian/Darwinian utopia they hoped for, so it’s time to treat them like Japan and Germany.

    Symbolism: I can’t tell you how far electing a man named Hussein Obama would go in undoing the damage of the Bush years.

    ( Now Clinton-haters — shut up!!! I don’t need you talking me out of this! )

    Now, shut up and accept my apology ass-wipe.

  • memekiller,

    I’ll simply refer you back to your comments in this thread. I don’t know what to make of your “apology”, but okay. Thanks?

  • As frustrated as I’ve gotten with Anne on multiple occasions and, to a lesser extent, zeitgest, I’ve never found memekiller to be anything but honest.

    And I agree memkiller, it was an unfortunate way the K-L vote went down, and it does put Obama in a tough spot to draw a policy contrast with Hillary. However, it presents no problem for Obama to draw a contrast with McCain (who also missed the unscheduled vote while out on the trail), while it does present a clear problem for Hilary in drawing a less-hawkish contrast on Iran with respect to McCain. And in that sense, it’s a clear political contrast between the two, in that in spite of missing the vote, Obama is still in much stronger position to present an actual clear choice on posture towards Iran (and FP posture in general) with McCain than Hillary is, in large part b/c of her vote on K-L, which is right in line with her vote on the AUMF.

    No? Is that clear?

  • Obama does provide a great oportunity for all of us to turn the page and try to build a strong progressive movement. Fair or not, enough people see Clinton in a negative light to make them question if she can do this.

    It is exceedingly rare for an upstart “rise above the fray” candidate to succeed, but Obama has made a strong case. Over the months I have used the term statesmanship to describe one of Obama’s stronger attributes. It is his ability to inspire while sumultaneously calling for rationality that has won so many people over.

    I believe our country desperately needs a president who emobodies statesmanship and dignity and one who will genuinely try to bring people together to discuss solutions to tough problems. I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that Barack Obama most closely matches that description.

    Obama supporters are not blind. We understand politicians and lobbyist are not going to suddenly join hands and sing folk songs and do what is best for the people just because he gets elected. What we see in him is a person who doesn’t automatically raise the hackles are every adversary before discussions even begin.

    And again, let me be absolutely clear: if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination I will vote for her. Either Obama or Clinton are better than the alternative by far. In the primary, however, my vote goes to Obama.

  • memekiller wrote above, “By the way, what was Obama’s vote on Kyl-Leiberman? Oh, jeebus. Obama didn’t vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Talk about ripe on ‘having it both ways’…I just did a google search, and assumed [Kyl-Lieberman] was another “present” vote or something”

    Sorry. Nothing honest about that.

  • This whole Obama thing is one big fairy tale. See below from Avedon Carol’s website the Sideshow, linking to Z Magazine on-line (read the whole piece from Z Magazine)

    Paul Street reckons the whole Obama thing is an illusion:
    http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

    So what sorts of policies and values could one expect from an imagined Obama presidency? There is quite a bit already in Obama’s short national career that has to be placed in the “never mind” category if one is to seriously to believe his claim (cautiously advanced in The Audacity of Hope) to be a “progressive” concerned with “social and economic justice” and global peace.

    Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).

    Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

    Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred – in a “tone laced with contempt” – to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine’s Joe Klein last year that he’d never given any thought to Al Gore’s widely discussed proposal to link a “carbon tax” on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation’s millions of working poor (Joe Klein, “The Fresh Face,” Time, October 17, 2006).

    Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations (Cockburn; Sirota). Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry – at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield (Sirota). Does Obama support the American scourge of racially disparate mass incarceration on the grounds that it provides work for tens of thousands of prison guards? Should the U.S. maintain the illegal operation of Iraq and pour half its federal budget into “defense” because of all the soldiers and other workers that find employment in imperial wars and the military-industrial complex? Does the “progressive” senator really need to be reminded of the large number of socially useful and healthy alternatives that exist for the investment of human labor power at home and abroad – wetlands preservation, urban ecological retrofitting, drug counseling, teaching, infrastructure building and repair, safe and affordable housing construction, the building of windmills and solar power facilities, etc.?

    Etc.

  • Amelia, regarding your post (#72), I just read the article you linked to. I am not convinced. The tone of this piece is very off-putting and makes me question the neutrality of its author. To be sure, there are probably some kernels of truth in it, but I would question any work with such fiery rhetoric.

  • Thanks for keeping an open mind, independent thinker. How about this one:

    By Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister blog

    Responding to the SOTU address, Senator Obama concluded his remarks with the following:

    Each year, as we watch the State of the Union, we see half the chamber rise to applaud the President and half the chamber stay in their seats. We see half the country tune in to watch, but know that much of the country has stopped even listening. Imagine if next year was different. Imagine if next year, the entire nation had a president they could believe in. A president who rallied all Americans around a common purpose. That’s the kind of President we need in this country. And with your help in the coming days and weeks, that’s the kind of President I will be.

    That sounds awesome—truly, it does. But I’ve got a few questions.

    1. Why will the Republican members of Congress rise to applaud you, and the conservative half of the nation tune in to support you, unless you pursue an agenda that appeals to them? How do you pursue an agenda that appeals to conservatives, but is also progressive?

    2. What is the common purpose around which you envision the country rallying? Do you regard “transcending partisanship” an end in itself, and do you foresee the GOP rallying around this goal? If so, how and why do you imagine that will happen?

    3. Assume for a moment that you are nominated and subsequently elected, and, despite being “the kind of president” in whom Americans can believe, the profound partisan rancor that currently plagues the nation doesn’t evaporate, that Americans fail to rally around a common purpose. What is Plan B? Do you move ever rightward trying to find support among those who refuse to rally, or do you say “Screw ‘em,” and go leftward to honor those who voted for you?

    4. Noting that the most bitter partisan divides on domestic policy regard issues of basic rights, such as reproductive rights and marriage rights, and noting further that the two sides of these issues are unlikely to come to spontaneous agreement, those subjects are likely to continue to play a divisive role in American politics. How do you plan to prevent such bedrock divisions from undermining the national unity you imagine? Do those of us on the progressive side of these issues have reason to worry that you will not be a vociferous advocate for any controversial or ideologically discordant issues?

    5. This last question regards not your possible presidency itself, but the general election campaign for the presidency, should you get the Democratic nomination and run in the general election against the GOP nominee: In 2004, John Kerry tried to stay above the fray and combat conservatives’ scorched-earth campaign policy by refusing to dignify the Swiftboaters with a response. In 2000, Al Gore largely did the same, as conservatives and the media promulgated a cavalcade of half-truths and lies against him. They both lost. Their respective refusals to engage partisan attacks, rooted in the erroneous belief that ignoring mudslinging means you don’t get covered in mud, has been oft-cited as contributing to their losses. In what way does your philosophy of a new politics accommodate those lessons?

    Thank you for your time, Senator. I know you’re busy, so if you’d like to shorthand all my questions down to “Can you please assure me that, as both the Democratic candidate and as president, you would be more interested in pursuing a progressive agenda than the pipe dream of post-partisanship?” that would be just fine. I look forward to hearing from you.

  • Amelia,

    I can answer those questions, as can just about anyone else who has been awake for the last few months.

    1) Read his website for his platform. Note his past bills for how to engage both sides. Heck, he even got Coburn (Oklahoma’s eternal shame) to cosponsor a really good earmark transparency bill. Anyone who can get Cobrun to sign onto something less than totally repugnant deserves some applause.

    2)Ummmm. Read his website again? How do people not see that he has actually done something and has policy proposals to boot? At this point, claiming you don’t know what Obama’s agenda is is simply proclaiming your willful ignorance.

    3)Rephrased: Do you a) pull a Clinton b)throw a fit or [unmentioned] c)continue to try to work on an American populace which really isn’t that divided right now and use them to bludgeon their representatives into submission? [How is it exactly that the Clintons, of all people, get to go after other people for triangulating? Bill practically put the word on the map!

    4)Now this may be sad news for some on the left, but most of America really isn’t that divided over issues of basic rights. Or rather, most of America doesn’t feel terribly strongly about it either way. IIRC, Dems spent the last 15 or so years moaning about the fact that Republicans kept using issues that most people wouldn’t usually care about to split the electorate. Isn’t it surprising to see liberals dragging out the same old fights to split off one of their own. Isn’t it even better to see it coming from the Clinton’s, who have never exactly been champions of homosexual rights? I think that most of America cares a lot more about the war and the economy than the above-defined rights issues, and are in agreement about the general course on those two issues.

    5) See Obama’s response to Hillary’s general willingness to sleaze it up. Point out the mud and how mendacious it is and then hit back by pointing out how typical it is to see that type of politician fighting in that way. Hammer home how stupid they must think you are and how sleazy they must be to stoop to such levels. Rinse. Repeat.

  • Well again, thank you for engaging, independent thinker.

    Starting from the bottom up, I don’t buy into all this Clinton sleeze stuff. I don’t see that Bill did anything wrong, nothing that hasn’t also been done by Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards. Not to mention, if you want to see real sleeze, you ain’t seen nothing yet–wait for the Republican slime machine, see for example,
    http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-kennedys-are-endorsing-obama.html
    for a funny, sad but true take on what an Obama candidacy will bring.

    Nor is Obama innocent — he just gets a free pass for all his slime.

    I don’t know who the “left” is but I’m probably more passionate about choice than any other issue – if you’re a female without options you have no freedom to determine your future. If you are conceding Obama’s dissing of this issue along with the gay issue, he’s not my guy, that’s for sure.

    The point of #3 above is that Clinton’s “triangulating” is indistinguishable from Obama’s “post-partisianship.” And I’m not so sure that Hillary is the same as Bill in that department – the political psycho-analyists always said that Bill’s problem was that he needed to be loved by all. Hillary doesn’t suffer from the same affliction.

    On #1 and #2 – Hillary has proven just the same her ability to work with others on the other side as well as to get Republican votes in her state of NY.

    I just think that Hillary is more reliably liberal/progressive — even despite her AUMF vote and others in the same category, Obama is worse. And he has personal qualities that are worrisome, like his inability to take criticism, his peevishness and petulance, his seeming narcissism, these are not good signs. He seems immature to me too, and I’m not talking about his age. The “snub” picture didn’t look like a snub to me, it looked like he was afraid of Hillary, afraid to confront her. He gets all worked up and obsessed about her criticisms – like when she (in effect) called him a weenie for saying he would meet with all these foreign leaders, it led to a series of exchanges ending with him saying he would drop the big one on Pakistan-his attempt to prove he was not a weenie. He needs to grow up.

    Anyway I suppose once you fall in love you’re not going to fall out of love. Good luck — I’ll be supporting Obama if he makes it to the nomination but I sincerely doubt he’d be elected.

  • Buddy, (Ass-Wipe #2):

    The difference between someone who is honest and a shill is that when someone is corrected, they admit it, as I did in the post you referenced. I did not look into it, I simply took your explanation at face value, assuming YOU are honest — despite the fact that this sort of assumption of good faith does not cut both ways. You and Chris then attack me again (I’m one of the four heads of the Apocalypse ), because I referred to the “present” votes in quotes. Again, sloppy on my part, but I was thinking of Glenn Greenwald’s complaints that neither Obama nor Hillary had managed to be present for any of the more controversial votes when their presence could bring some leadership.

    So again, I went back and showed a clear electronic trail of my position defending Obama in exactly this case ( something I would not expect from you when it comes to defending Hillary from smears, as the most cultish Obama supporters tend to sound like talk radio callers when it comes to her) — and yet Buddy refuses to let it go. I must be lying! Despite swallowing my distaste for the haters who support Obama and coming round to supporting his candidacy, I’m still lying for Hillary!

    It’s guys like you, Buddy, who keep me running back to Hillary every time.

  • Amelia, Nice Job.
    I cannot help but think that the Obama camp believes (and so it must be true) that partisanship will magically end when he ascends to the leadership position. The magic will occur because he “transcends” all categories and will work with all people in all ways for all causes.

    You are right on in saying … and then you either give up the desires of your base and move left or you alienate the left and they don’t work with you. Add Ted Kennedy to the mix … who the left hates as much or more than Hillary and who is the most partisan Senator and what do you have. Ted telling you to stand your ground and the right saying screw you. I think Ted Kennedy is the one with pseudopresidency desires. A person he can mold into his own version of a president. And, Obama is going to be beholding him. Hillary is not beholding to her supposed “pseudopresident”.

    It’s all interesting. I am glad to discuss these types of issues in this way. I am sick of one line pundits about Hillary and I hope, the Obama camp can start seeing the bigger issues involved. It’s not going to be a nice play date if Obama wins the primary and/or the election as I think he is setting them up for.

  • Amelia, regarding #78. I understand that you are a Clinton supporter and I can respect that, but I am really tired of the “Obama gets a free ride” meme. He is not getting any more a free ride than Clinton.

    The difference is that some of the Clinton campaign tactics really have been devisive. Such as attempts to make this a black vs white thing or by making misleading statements about rezco or “present” votes. The fact that huge numbers of people saw these manuvers as negative, divisive and/or misleading and moved toward Obama is just the nature of campaigning. The Clinton campaign gambled that they could stir up ethnic divisions (latino vs black for example) to score a victory in the primary and then “mend” things for the general election. The problem for them is that people are tired of these tactics.

    Obama can stand up to that kind of campaign and come out strong.

    Regarding the supposed “snub” picture. I’m sorry, but this argument just seems juvinile. He turned to speak to someone at that moment. Period.

    And Obama never said he would “drop the big one” on Pakistan (and by this statement I assume you are implying that he would drop a nuke on them). He said that if he had credible, actionable intelligence regarding al-Qaeda in Pakistan he would use military force if necessary…..and for the record, Clinton said he was “naive” not “a weenie.”

    Let me say again, that I respect your choice for Clinton, but I respectfully decline to buy into the divisive tone of the article you linked to. The reality is that no politician gets to the national level without some baggage. From where I sit, however, Obama has a lot less of it than the Clintons.

  • There’s something rather contradictory in these comments.

    Marian says, “I cannot help but think that the Obama camp believes (and so it must be true) that partisanship will magically end when he ascends to the leadership position.”

    That is not really accurate. Having a greater ability to bridge differences between liberals and conservatives is quite different from having partisanship magically end.

    Further up their are complaints that David Brooks has good things to say about Obama. Many conservatives have had favorable comments about Obama, and don’t see him as a big government liberal in the sense that they see Clinton.

    This sure sounds like a reduction in partisanship. Obama is able to promote progressive causes without receiving knee jerk opposition from conservatives. However instead of seeing the good in Obama’s ability to do this, and acknowledging Obama’s ability to bridge the partisan divide, the Clinton supporters use this as some sort of evidence that Obama is really a conservative.

    It is ironic that while Obama is pursuing liberal aims, he is receiving more partisan attacks from the Clinton supporters than many conservatives. It is the Clinton wing of the party which thrives on hyper-partisanship, showing why we are better off with someone like Obama.

  • I haven’t heard any divisive statements about race from either Clinton – oh, except the statement from Bob Johnson of BET. The uproar over the Jesse Jackson statement was the biggest bunch of bull since the last bunch of bull over anything Bill says. Black people like to vote for black people – they say that on TV every night and some of them saying that are black. Not to mention that being compared to Jessie Jackson is not an insult, not to me anyway – I remember 1988 and I loved his “they work hard every day” speech about poor people.

    Rezko is/was a slumlord and the questions about his relationship with Obama haven’t even begun. I’m not saying Obama did anything illegal, but I am saying his presentation of himself as His High Holiness, paragon of Purity and Virtue, are belied by the relationship. So it’s fair game.

    Obama’s “present” votes are questionable and are part of a pattern of him not wanting to take a position that might alienate people on the right – specifically on those issues that the “left” thinks are so important like abortion which you think we should get over as not important and too divisive.

    Perhaps more later, the debate is starting.

  • Amelia wrote, “Obama’s “present” votes are questionable and are part of a pattern of him not wanting to take a position that might alienate people on the right”

    Again with the “present” votes from another hater? When will they give it a rest?

    [see comment number 61 above]

  • Though I obviously like CB otherwise I wouldn’t visit this site there is more than one side to the question of Obama’s present votes. See for example, below, from Taylor Marsh’s website today:

    I thought I’d take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

    Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn’t been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

    Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn’t provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman’s right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.

    The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.

    – Bonnie Grabenhofer
    IL NOW State President

  • Amelia said, “Black people like to vote for black people – they say that on TV every night and some of them saying that are black…[Obama’s] presentation of himself as His High Holiness, paragon of Purity and Virtue, are belied by the [Rezko] relationship…Perhaps more later”

    Perhaps more later? Please God, no.

  • I think the debate tonight clearly shows why sites like this are so active. Democrats have two very solid, capable candidates. Tonight I saw things that refreshed my opinion of Hillary Clinton, but in the end I am still an Obama supporter. They both performed well, spoke the the issues well and both CLEARLY wanted to avoid the rancor of the last Democratic or Republican debates. That was wise on both of their parts.

  • Just back from the debate. I really wish we could expand the topics … I think we have hashed over the war, the economy and health care quite a bit. I feel like I know the differences and similarities between them on this. I want to hear what they have to say about social security, education, job growth, energy alternatives, how to halt global warming. There’s just a lot more I want to hear them talk about.

    Carpetbagger can you do anything about this?

  • MCD you are absolutely correct I will re-phrase as follows:

    People of various racial, ethnic or religious groups tend to vote for one of their own – especially if they perceive their group to be disadvantaged in terms of access to power. They see rightly that promotion of one of their own is also promotion for their own prospects.

    Please correct me if I am mistaken but in the litany of Obama/Clinton disputes Obama supporters have largely been unwilling to consider that their candidate may have in the least been at fault.

  • I missed John Edwards, there to challenge and hold Clinton’s and Obama’s feet to the fire.

    In some ways, having Edwards involved was a little like being there ourselves – challenging and asking the questions of the other candidates that we might have done if we could have been there on the stage.

    It’s great that Obama and Clinton have – at least tonight – reached some kind of detente – I saw some unity of purpose in some of the things they said about the Republicans. That’s a good sign. McCain’s “100 years” is a good thing to remind the voters about.

  • Wait…did someone really just cite Taylor Marsh and expect to be taken seriously? She’s the biggest hack on the lefty blogosphere, period. She’s at Rush Limbaugh levels.

    If you’re still reading Marsh and taking her viewpoint seriously, you’re just not engaged with reality. Sorry.

    • Comments are closed.