Obama '08?

It is clear and it is something we disagree on. Not on what you describe as playing an important role; we agree that it does. But on the exclusive role you often appear to grant it.

Your line appears to be that the fiercity of the attack and its impact on the Dem candidate will be equal no matter who the Dem candidate is, and is purely a factor of the processes you describe. I disagree on the implied exclusivity (and externality) of that explanation. The attack on Kerry was a given, but the impact it made had lots to thank to Kerry himself, his flawed personality, campaign and politics. Similarly, putting up another Clinton will literally gift the attack with a resonance and a passion that it simply would not be able to mobilise against, say, Edwards or Bayh or some new face. As I wrote,


It is silly, IMO, to brush away Hillary's Clintonness as a non-issue that is purely a factor of the Republican attack machine that we would have to face anyway. There's too much tunnel vision in that.

There are a lot of people out there, left and right, who have strong negative reactions to either or both Hillary Clinton and a continuation of the Bush-vs-Clinton era. Both irrational, emotive ones and reasoned, political ones. You cant wish that away, or reduce it into a mere factor of the other party's media machine. It is there, and for many who dislike and distrust Hillary it is a sincere reaction, rather than merely some foil of Fox-whipped memes.

(Ie, just because Fox is out to paint Hillary in a bad light doesnt mean she wasnt unlikeable in the first place).

I acknowledge the source of the attack as being rooted in a "political and ideological and media machinery", which has developed over the past fifteen, twenty years (with further roots back to the Goldwater candidacy) into a Republican machine that is quite unlike its predecessors. But unlike you (to my impression), I dont see that as sufficient explanation for the Dems' loss of power, or as the one major focus the left or Democratic Party should concentrate its vigilance or effort on.

I think it is a serious mistake to solely or even primarily locate the cause of the Democratic Party's loss of power over the past era in the power of the conservative/Republican machine. Sure it has been potent in many dimensions, but what doing so does is slipping out of facing up to the Democrats' own role in their demise. A role that goes much farther than "not having been as ruthless as they were", whereas I often get the vibe from you that that's the extent of the problem as you see it.

Evil conservative media & ideology machine or no, the Dems carry a lot of responsibility themselves for their past defeats. First, obviously, there's the people. I mean, Gore came this close - how would a less anodyne candidate have done? And although Gore was hard to pass by as sitting VP, there was an open field in '04 and yet they came up with John Effin Kerry. And even Kerry came within 3 percentage points. Imagine what a less flawed candidate could have done.

The Dems' failure goes far beyond human resources though. Its not just that they failed to match the conservative machine blow-by-blow. A few substantial, controversial but common sense re-thinks of its own profile and priorities would have overcome that 3% gap too. I sketched where I personally believe the Democrats should go. It is the opposite of what Hillary stands for, on a number of levels. If the Dems go with Hillary, they waste, IMO, yet another chance.

nimh

Just axiomatically, the Dem party is responsible for its losses. The questions are, what is it up against and what will it take to reverse the last two decades? If my estimation of what it has been and is up against is close to accurate, then that has pretty serious ramifications regarding how it must respond. It certainly is not the case that the Dems simply got lazy or got stupid. It is not the case that they moved too far left (as you and I understand). Your Progressive tradition argument suggests they might have gone too far right in some cases and in others, didn't respond to cultural moves to the right. Many agree with you including, to some extent, myself.

Sure, Hillary will fall into a pre-existing framework of division. But here's another place where we don't agree. I do not understand your reaction to Hillary. I do know that precisely the "buttons" you seem to manifest or explicate (she's cold, she's sneaky, she's ambitious for the wrong reasons, she's not trustworthy) ARE the talking points hammered home by the American right for a decade and which have been picked up and repeated endlessly by a very facilitative American media. Why do you not trust her? Serious question. What has she done or said that provides anything like empirical evidence that she deserves special condemnation on this point?

Bernie wrote-



I keep a track on the light patterns.

Do you not remember- "Keep a clean head and always carry a light bulb" at a press conference in London. Bob was waving a giant light bulb as he said it. Somebody had asked him, if my memory serves me well, what was his message.

It's a traditional strand. Shakespeare has plenty. And Homer, who's door everybody should open if only to take a peek.

Did you never read Sir Henry Rider Haggard?

"There's plenty more where I came from." Quatermain's son says when his father expresses doubt about the dangers inherent in what he about to take on.

Watching the light patterns. Rivers flowing are boring after a bit.

I remember when Casium Clay lived in South Shore. Apparently,
after the neighborhood turned slum-like, Clay decided to move "up".

I'ts hard not to be, when I look at a City ( Chicago ),that today is 40% Black and 50% Hispanic with the remainder presumably being 10% White.

There was a time, when my uncle would walk home from his law office ( downtown) to his home on 76th street. No longer!

It's nice that you enjoyed your "white island" at the University of Chicago. For your information, it's because of the surrounding areas around the U of C that enrollment and student quality at the Univeristy has declined. What parent wants there kids raped, shot at, intimated, etc. on their way to school?

What color are you, Miller?

I'm still wondering why Obama has 3-4 locks on his front door, when Hyde Park is such a lovely area?

Vn wrote-



That's a new one on me. Almost monastic.

There's no community gardening in England that I've ever heard of. The local authority tidies the garden and we mess it up again.

We are taxed to pay for it of course but what the hell. Paying taxes is better than flipping gardening.

In more ways than one. A short distance from this "garden", I witnessed a young man being knifed to death, as he tried to board
a City bus. Something tells me that the people in the "garden"
continued their weed pulling as the blood roared through the City
sewers.

Hyde Park is sort of an up-scale version of BridgePort ( famous for the home of Mayor Daley ), both being very predominately
white.

Good grief what a bunch of nonsense! You never lived there and you know nothing about it, Miller. If Obama does have that many locks it is probably because he is famous as in "Senator." And a Dem at that. Also, the University has not lost students because of crime. It used to be a high crime area, but it is not any longer.

Community gardening is enjoyable. Try it sometime. Any kind of gardening is good for your soul and your physical being.

Back to Obama. He is going to be interesting to follow if the Democrats take back the senate. My Hyde Park friends detested Lieberman and my best friend went to law school with him and Jeff Greenfield...they were in the same class. She thought he was an arrogant fool then....some people never change

My neighbors on both sides were professional African-Americans. Also across the street. Forget about "white island" Harumph to you. :wink:

I'm pleased. It needs doing and, after a 60's decorative summer evening on Blue Blotter, I'm no longer up to the task.

It is obvious to me, Mr. Miller, that Vietnamnurse knows very little about the University of Chicago Area. Does she not know that the busiest University Police force in Illinois are the University of Chicago Police?

Does she not know that Whites walk on 55th and Lake Park Avenue after dark at their own peril?

Is she completely unaware that Woodlawn is the most dangerous section of Chicago?

***************

And as for Obama, he is a laughing stock among many African-Americans. He has a Hispanic Nanny and has written off any contact with Jackson's organization. I think Obama feels he is one of the "House" people!!!

Mr. Nimh wrote:


There's the difference. I would say that the "racial slippage" in polling numbers means that if, as I wrote, Obama would hypothetically run for Presidency as the Democratic nominee, and in "the final week of the campaign is ahead by one or two percentage points, I would be very worried indeed." But if, like now, he gets a chart-topping 72% job approval rate, no realistic amount of "racial slippage" would change much about the fact that he's apparently greatly popular, with a cross-over appeal to Republicans/Independents. I mean, take 5% off of that rate, and its still near the very top of Senator approval rates.

The "racial slippage" you cite doesnt suddenly make all polling worthless. It just means you have to factor in a difference. The difference however will never be enough to turn a 72% approval rating into something merely mediocre or negative.

***********

You are incorrect, Mr. Nimh.

I am glad that you noted Wilder's ten point slippage. You are aware, of course, that the ten point slippage was in Virginia when he ran for governor.

The reason you are mistaken, Mr. Nimh, is because you take a 600 ( six Hundred) person vote in ILLINOIS and then jump to the conclusion that Obama could hypothetically run for president as the Democratic Nominee.

I am very much afraid that you do not know US politics.

Obama would be steamrollered as A Presidential Candidate and would be a deficit to the ticket as a VIce Presidential Candidate.

Here are some vital statistics that you are apparently unaware of:


a. There are about 42,000,000 African Americans in the USA at present.

The registration rate was 69%. The 42,000,000, of course, include those not old enough to vote( 33%) so the total of possible voters is about 28 Million but not all of those are registered so that makes only about 70% of 28 Million actual voters--

That means ONLY 19,000,000 or so would be able to vote for Obama even if all of the registered African-Americans voted for him. The actual turnout was only 60%

You are, of course, aware, Mr. Nimh, that African-Americans vote as a bloc for African-Americans. Why, Obama would get almost all those votes-I would say 11,000,000, but that would be nothing new SINCE ALL DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR HIGH NATIONAL OFFICE HAVE GOTTEN 90% OF AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTES SO HE WOULD ADD NOTHING TO THE TICKET.

But, he would be hammered by other segments of the population.

At Present, Non-Hispanic Whites have a voter registration of 75%. and a turn out rate of 67%

He would get very few of those votes ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTH!!!!

If you think that Obama would get a large slice of Hispanics(58% registered and 47% turnout) you don''t know a thing about the fierce enmity and clash between Hispanics and African-Americans. In every city that I have referenced( I have done some work on Education and Busing) Hispanics are adamant about their refusal to send their children to schools where African-Americans are present in large numbers.


If the Democratic Hierarchy were stupid enough( they aren't) to really push Obama for National Office, he would be a target for the opposition who would surely question his upbringing(two years in A Muslim School) and his drug use( Admitted Use of Cocaine).

*************************************************

At present, Rep. Ford has a rating of 33% in the Polls in Tennessee. He is an African-American. He will be hammered in the election. His numbers will not rise above 25%.

Mr. Nimh wrote:

There are a lot of people out there, left and right, who have strong negative reactions to either or both Hillary Clinton and a continuation of the Bush-vs-Clinton era. Both irrational, emotive ones and reasoned, political ones. You cant wish that away, or reduce it into a mere factor of the other party's media machine. It is there, and for many who dislike and distrust Hillary it is a sincere reaction, rather than merely some foil of Fox-whipped memes.

end of quote:

It is obvious that Mr. Blotham knows nothing about Hillary. Mr. Nimh is quite correct.



Quote from Rasmussen Reports
Hillary Meter
40% Say They Would Definitely Vote Against Her in 2008
August 9, 2006
Forty percent (40%) of Americans say they would definitely vote against Senator Clinton if she is on the Presidential ballot in 2008. This is up from 34% in our last Hillary Meter survey. Twenty-nine percent (29%) said they would definitely vote for her, unchanged from two weeks ago (see trends).

This survey was completed just before the much talked about Connecticut Senate Primary, where Joe Lieberman was defeated by anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont. Some believe that the Lamont's victory may signal more complications for Senator Clinton.

Despite her challenges on a national level, Clinton holds a 30-point lead in her bid for re-election as Senator from New York.

Today's Hillary Meter places the former First Lady a net 55 points to the left of the nation's political center. Two weeks ago, she was 52 points to the left of center. Currently, 46% label her politically liberal, which is four points higher than our last survey (see trends). Just 8% consider her conservative.

The political center is calculated by subtracting the number of liberals from the number of conservatives among the general public (35% conservative, 18% liberal for a net +17). For the Senator, 8% conservative minus 46% liberal equals a net minus 38. The minus 38 reading for Senator Clinton is 55 points away from the plus 17 reading for the general public.

Forty percent (40%) of those surveyed have a favorable opinion of the senator, while 42% have an unfavorable opinion.

Still, 25% think that it is very likely that she will the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 and 34% think it is somewhat likely. These numbers have changed little over the past year.

The Hillary Meter is a twice monthly measure of Senator Hillary Clinton's effort to move to the political center. The next update is scheduled for Wednesday, August 23, 2006. For as long as the former First Lady is a viable candidate for the White House, Rasmussen Reports will monitor public perceptions of her political ideology

End of Quote

FORTY PERCENT WOULD DEFINITELY VOTE AGAINST HER!!!!!!!

A federal judge bought our house on Woodlawn Avenue. It is soooo unsafe.

Only people, born and reared in the City of Chicago know how very dangerous this area is. By the way, the University of Chicago, like many other Colleges in major US cities, tends to keep quiet about revealing the level of crimes in the area.

Perhaps there's hope in the future however, as I read recently in the Tribune, that many of the Blacks recently uprooted from
the Projects, are now making their way out to the suburbs.

Why the city limits of Chicago is constantly changing?

Typical response of a white "island" girl, to a kid from Chicago's streets.

So...why does Obama have 3-4 locks on his front door?

edited...