Obama '08?

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
More specifically, if reason prevails and she turns out to not be the candidate, I don't think the person who will replace her will necessarily be to her left. More electable, yes (I hope), more left, not necessarily.

Dunno. According to Pollingreport, the next candidates in line are Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. All of them, except Biden perhaps, are to the left of Hillary Clinton. None of them strikes me as more electable.

That is depressing to see, for sure, but at this time represents name recognition more than anything else. Most poll respondents probably wouldnt be able to name any other Democrats than those (and Dean, who cant run).

But yes, the lack of credible alternatives to Hillary (I mean, Kerry? Seriously? Al Gore??) is depressing, which makes me suspect '08 is a lost race for the Dems. All of which just increases one's desire to see Obama join the fray..

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
More specifically, if reason prevails and she turns out to not be the candidate, I don't think the person who will replace her will necessarily be to her left. More electable, yes (I hope), more left, not necessarily.

Dunno. According to Pollingreport, the next candidates in line are Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. All of them, except Biden perhaps, are to the left of Hillary Clinton. None of them strikes me as more electable.

Pretty strong results for Hillary in every one of those polls. Perhaps we ought to rethink her chances, after all.

We know that it does not matter who the candidate might be, the same species of 'swift boat' strategies will be applied against that candidate. That is just a given in this climate.

Would Hillary be any more susceptible to such strategies than others? It is hard to imagine any new direction or new content in such attacks which hasn't already slithered into the public 'debate'. And as she has survived all such to this point (it will be sixteen years of them!) that begins to make her look like a real survivor, and along with that, it makes her, for many, an unfairly victimized hard-working politician who is a woman and mother. Tougher than most manly men, perhaps? Resolute, one might say. She doesn't cut and run. Stays calm and stays the course. Probably has a much larger dick than nervous and infantile George.

Folks like Finn and McG and mysterman and fox are NOT going to vote democrat even if george gets caught humping a farm animal. How many on the right presently posting here would ever vote dem? Outside of this fixed segment of the electorate though, with their visceral reaction against anything Clintonian, perhaps we discount too quickly how folks will consider her in two years.

As things go seriously to shitt, the desire for change will increase. And Clinton can surely count on big positives simply through association with the period of peace and prosperity which preceded this administration.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Pretty strong results for Hillary in every one of those polls. Perhaps we ought to rethink her chances, after all.

Also look at Pollingreport's "General Election" page, which I visited after submitting my last post. Compared with the other Democratic candidates, Clinton consistently ranks near the top in "acceptable"s and "definitely vote for"s, and near the bottom in "unacceptable"s, "definitely not vote for"s, etc. If name recognition was the most important thing that sets her apart, she should be high in "pro" votes and in "con" votes. But she isn't. Among the general public, she's lower in "con" votes than most of her Democratic competition, though not as low as Giuliani and McCain.

Not that I find this depressing, mind you. I never bought into the "Hitlery" meme that right wing talk show hosts are peddling. And I have no respect when Democrats pick up on that meme by intoning that "Hillary is poison", as one A2K thread title put it. "Was immer auch geschieht: nie dürft ihr so tief sinken, von dem Kakao, durch den man euch zieht, auch noch zu trinken" (Erich Kästner). (Sorry, non-German-speakers -- this quote involves wordplay and is not translatable.)

0 Replies

Why does it have to just be an "echo", though?

Just for example, Blatham's "association," -- she was married to the guy who was responsible for all of that. She wasn't vice president, she wasn't secretary of state, she wasn't someone who actually DID anything to garner her share of credit for those good years. She was put in charge of a health care intitiative that failed. The rest was standard first-ladying and making cookies.

Her supposed "survival" has consisted of choosing the state most likely to elect her and moving there. Getting elected in New York, while not nothing (she did get the whole state to elect her, not just NYC), is much much different from getting elected in say Missouri or even Arkansas. And she is going to have to have national reach to become president, reach that I don't think she has (and not based on right-wingers' memes, based on my own research).

I agree with what nimh said about name recognition. While obviously I prefer Obama and want that to happen, Warner is another one who has low name recognition at this point but seems viable -- more so than Kerry, for example. (Kerry??!!)

Also, to reiterate, I am not saying that if Hillary fails to get the nomination that it won't be someone to the left of her who gets it -- I'm saying, in response to Finn's assertion that it will be, "not necessarily." More specifically, I don't think it is her relative leftness that is her primary problem.

0 Replies

(You edited -- replace "echo" with "picking up on the meme".)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

(You edited -- replace "echo" with "picking up on the meme".)

Yes -- "echo" was too strong. I'm doing this editing thing all the time to you lately; I'm sorry.

0 Replies

All the time, really? I hadn't noticed, no problem.

To change the subject a bit (not that it needs to be changed, but just remembered it), I was thinking the other day of what Obama's course should be if he WANTS to get the nomination for 2008. I realized that it's probably about what he's doing -- don't you think? Remaining high-profile, doing lots of favors, not committing himself. If he announces now, he makes himself a target, but he is still managing to get most all of the positives without announcing -- the buzz, the coverage, the fundraising magic, etc.

I don't know if this is right or not, but the idea made me happy.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Pretty strong results for Hillary in every one of those polls. Perhaps we ought to rethink her chances, after all.

Rethink her chance of what? Surviving the primaries or winning the election? I have little doubt that she could survive the primaries, particularly if she's running against the list in Thomas' post. I don't think she's the least bit capable of winning the general election.

0 Replies

The Fabian Society has essays about "who follows Bush" as topic in the latest issue of their magazine. Guess who they think ...
(Not online - so I just copy the title from my personal issue)

:wink:

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I don't know if this is right or not, but the idea made me happy.

I think you are right, too. Judging by previous elections, the optimal course is to deny he's running until Summer 2007. Then, in fall 2007, he announces that the good, hard-working people he met as a senator have finally persuaded him to drop his concerns and run. Their encouragement was just overwhelming. (Insert three anecdotes, each featuring one hardworking person and what he or she said to him. Make sure that the three are carefully selected to match the voters he intends to reach, that their quotations strike the right mix of self-depreciating humor (1x) and "together we can do this" enthusiasm (2x), and that the whole thing sounds completely unscripted and natural.) And the beauty of it is, he may not even have to lie in this fall 2007 announcement!

PS: How dare you change the subject to Obama in a thread titled "Obama 2008"?!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

[And the beauty of it is, he may not even have to lie in this fall 2007 announcement!

Do you people even hear what you say?

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

blatham wrote:

Pretty strong results for Hillary in every one of those polls. Perhaps we ought to rethink her chances, after all.

Rethink her chance of what? Surviving the primaries or winning the election? I have little doubt that she could survive the primaries, particularly if she's running against the list in Thomas' post. I don't think she's the least bit capable of winning the general election.

I understand, but that's the assumption I'm questioning. Thomas' observation/notion that we forward a 'meme' with very positive consequences for Republicans when we simply accept this assumption and then forward it ought to gain our attention. Consider how ill-equipped Bush was for the Presidency and how evident that was, and yet how the Republican singularity or unity of message and organized/enforced support for that candidate and message proved so effective. There's no question that such smacks of authoritarianism of the sort we all despise, but these guys play for keeps and we better match them.

As regards soz's notes on Hillary...I'm really not convinced that the electorate will be very much susceptible to attacks or criticisms based on her election in an easy state. That's a fairly sophisticated criterion of the sort that pundits will point to, for sure, but I doubt it will effect many. And I think the same argument can be made regarding her first lady status and the healthcare program.

On healthcare, the electorate tendency that the modern Republicans absolutely count on is the short-term nature of what rattles about in most peoples' noggins and that will apply here.

On the "it's Hillary and not Bill this time" point, it's hard to say how much this might matter. They are certainly tied together in everyones' mind. And can anyone imagine a better candidate booster than Bill will be? He'll be there all the time, and he'll be loved again.

And to take up soz's thoughts on the possibility of Obama keeping low and prudent (his powder dry, to use that applicable cliche)...I think there is a bloody good chance that that is precisely what is happening. Everybody seems to understand the potential of this fellow and he's got good people around him and great money behind him too.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Thomas wrote:
[And the beauty of it is, he may not even have to lie in this fall 2007 announcement!

Do you people even hear what you say?

Yes, we do. The difference between you and us is that we understand what was just said by us.

0 Replies

One further note...Hillary now has, as a consequence of her performance as Senator in New York, a rather large and impressive set of kudos from Republicans as a hard-worker, as a person who gets things done, as someone "we can work with", etc.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As regards soz's notes on Hillary...I'm really not convinced that the electorate will be very much susceptible to attacks or criticisms based on her election in an easy state. That's a fairly sophisticated criterion of the sort that pundits will point to, for sure, but I doubt it will effect many.

That wasn't my point, really -- the point was just that she was elected in an easy state. As in, the fact that she was elected there has limited import in the discussion of whether she could win a national election; she was elected there, but could she be elected anywhere else?

Quote:

And I think the same argument can be made regarding her first lady status and the healthcare program.

Perhaps. I do think that many people will say, sure, those were good times, but what did SHE have to do with it, really? And, to skip ahead, I think that Bill is a two-edged sword in terms of campaigning -- he'll make everyone fall in love with HIM again, but he is so patently the master and it's so impossible for him to hide his charisma that I think she'd suffer mightily by comparison. There was something about that recently, when they both gave speeches -- could it have been Reagan's funeral? That doesn't seem right. But it was some ostensibly neutral and much-watched occasion where they both spoke, and she was SO left in the dust by Bill, who was at the time obviously trying to give her room to shine.

Quote:

I think there is a bloody good chance that that is precisely what is happening. Everybody seems to understand the potential of this fellow and he's got good people around him and great money behind him too.

Sure hope so...

Oh and Thomas, Laughing

... I know, it's just been that I've purposely steered this thread back on topic a few times, and wanted to be sure that it was clear that I was fine with continuing the discussion of Hillary, which is also within the scope of this thread (see first post...)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
Thomas wrote:
[And the beauty of it is, he may not even have to lie in this fall 2007 announcement!

Do you people even hear what you say?

Yes, we do. The difference between you and us is that we understand what was just said by us.

Well, Dems generally do believe their own lies. It's why Arnold said the following:

"One of my movies was called 'True Lies'. It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

Carry on.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

blatham wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
Thomas wrote:
[And the beauty of it is, he may not even have to lie in this fall 2007 announcement!

Do you people even hear what you say?

Yes, we do. The difference between you and us is that we understand what was just said by us.

Well, Dems generally do believe their own lies. It's why Arnold said the following:

"One of my movies was called 'True Lies'. It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

Carry on.

Indeed a wit on par with Wilde. Did he have his hand on your breast at the time?

0 Replies

soz

Quote:

That wasn't my point, really -- the point was just that she was elected in an easy state.

Gotcha. True enough.

I guess it was the King funeral you allude to.

You know I've been cheering for Obama for a long while now. That hasn't changed. But I think we ought to also comprehend and work within a mix of possibilities. This seems to be an incredibly volatile time and we'd be wise, I'm arguing, to keep a very wide view of the horizon and avoid the potential traps that will either just appear or which will be strategized for us to fall into.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I guess it was the King funeral you allude to.

That makes a lot more sense, thanks.

Quote:

You know I've been cheering for Obama for a long while now. That hasn't changed. But I think we ought to also comprehend and work within a mix of possibilities. This seems to be an incredibly volatile time and we'd be wise, I'm arguing, to keep a very wide view of the horizon and avoid the potential traps that will either just appear or which will be strategized for us to fall into.

Well, of course.

0 Replies

I've used myself as an example of what I consider the moderate, non-affiliated American voter, i.e., the swing vote. I voted against George Bush in the previous two elections although I had no affinity for either Al Gore or John Kerry.

There is no way I can see myself voting for Hillary Clinton and it has nothing to do with Bill. She was interviewed many times during the many months/years leading up to Bill's impeachment. She repeatedly put all allegations of wrong-doing on his part to 'our enemies trying to bring us down'. This was more than a wife with blinders on defending her nincompoop husband. I believe she was actively and politically involved in his administration (although she did it quietly after the health care fiasco) and took on his enemies as her own. She's got too many ghosts in her closet for me to consider her as a Presidential candidate.

The only possible way I see Hillary defeating anyone the Republicans come up with is if Pat Robertson gets the nomination. Obama I could perhaps vote for. I don't know enough about Warner. I'd love to see a moderate from either party survive the primaries and get the nomination but it's been impossible in the recent past.

Oh, that either Bradley or McCain were on the ticket eight years ago!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know