Finn dAbuzz wrote:
A very reasonable analysis Sozobe
Thank you!
Quote: However I think you may be underestimating the nostalgia that exists among many for the Clinton years, and Bill Clinton's popularity among Democrat voters. I'm not sure that forums such as A2K and left-wing blogs provide an accurate picture of Clinton's popularity. Clinton is, in essence, the Democratic Establishment's candidate, and bloggers and participants in cyber-forums tend to be less than orthodox.
Yeah, I think you have a point that I may be underestimating the nostalgia. I think that may also be part of the generation gap, in terms of Clinton's and Obama's support. I'm not sure where I'd fall, there. I voted for Bill and was happy to do so. I watched his inauguration at some ungodly hour when I lived in England and was thrilled. I liked a lot of what he did as president.
I also clearly remember seeing him say "I did not have sex with that woman" -- live -- and having my heart absolutely sink. I thought up until that moment that it was just Republican dirty tricks, but when I saw him say that, I knew he was lying. I held out some hope, but as it all came out, I was extremely angry at him for doing such a dumb-ass thing. Personally, I think that what a politician does in his or her private life (with consenting adults anyway) should remain private. But he knew full well what the atmosphere was and how fatal it would be if he was found out, and he did it anyway. Stupendously stupid.
So I'm a mixed bag, I guess. Probably not representative.
Spare thought -- his recent red-faced, finger-jabbing stuff is quite reminiscent of the "I did not..." press conferences. I wonder if there are other unpleasant associations being made out there. (I tried to watch a CNN video of the confrontation between him and the reporter, but it was taking forever to load so it was in super slo-mo... whoa, the micro-expressions! But I digress.)
Quote: While this compliments her campaign's contention on relative experience, it is certainly not an argument she will want to make: "I can prove I have more experience in politics! The Republicans will have more mud to sling at me!"
Yep.
Quote:In any case, as much as Democrats would like to blame Republican attacks for Kerry's defeat in 2004, they were only a part of his problems, and they alone will not be able to defeat Clinton or Obama in 2008.
I agree. I've been saying since 2004 that once the bases are covered (good policies, integrity, etc.), I've wanted the 2008 nominee to be someone charismatic and likable. I think that a lot of what people do when they vote is have gut reactions and then seek to rationalize/ justify them. I think that Kerry engendered gut reactions that made the Swiftboat stuff stick -- even though he did a bad job of parrying it, and even though the Swiftboat stuff itself was of course reprehensible. I said at some point recently that Obama's rubber and Hillary's glue, and that's part of why I want him to be the nominee. We'll see how rubberish he is in this stretch. Were you the one who said that Obama's at a tipping point? I tend to agree.
James Carville just said something about how if it's the Clintons vs. the media, the Clintons always lose. It's arguable, but if it's true, isn't that another reason to avoid having Hillary be the nominee?
Quote:The quote you refer to is from a National Review piece by Byron York, but you've relayed it accurately.
OK, thanks for the cite.
Quote:Obama's ability to inspire and excite crowds, manifests itself in a style of rhetoric that he will not have many opportunities to use on TV,
I don't know. Evidently his victory speech after Iowa won over a lot of people (that was on TV). His Ebenezer Baptist speech has something like 500,000 views on YouTube (the 34-minute version!) and pages of rapturous comments.
Quote: and that is the medium through which the candidates in the general election will have to work whatever magic they may have. It is true though that Obama is head and shoulders above the Republican candidates in terms of public speaking, and in that regard he will be a formidable opponent.
Yep.
Quote:I think you're correct that Republicans would prefer to see Clinton the nominee, but that may be, in part, because they have had a strategy to use against her sitting on the shelf for quite some time now.
Yes, that's a good point.
Quote:I'm sure someone is right now trying to figure out how best to beat Obama, but he's something new and will require tactics different than those that can work against Clinton.
Yep.
Quote:Bill Kristol regularly remarks on what a powerful candidate Obama is and how well his campaign is run by David Axlerod, but that could be Bre Bill's way of enticing Dems to throw the Repubs into the briar patch. I've heard the same thing from a number of conservative pundits and they just doesn't ring entirely true.
Hmm. Possible. (That it's just a tactic, and they think Obama will be easier to beat.)
Agree with most of the rest, won't take it bit by bit (this post is getting long!). Sure hope terrorism stays out of the equation, for a whole bunch of reasons.
