Obama '08?

Yep.

I started the thread in 2006 -- I'd been following him since 2002 at that point.

There haven't been many surprises.

That's actually part of why I started out feeling so strongly about him -- I liked his consistency, and how I felt like I'd be able to predict what he'd do and he'd do it. And that he did what I'd want him to do the vast majority of the time (not always).

The race speech is an example. It was what I thought he should do and what I thought he was going to do, and as I watched it I kept hoping he would say something and then there he'd go and say it. It was a good reinforcement, for me, that he is the person I've thought he is throughout. Not perfect, to be sure (neither he nor I have claimed that), but a smart guy with his head screwed on right, who knows how to gather information and then do a gut check and then go ahead and do what he thinks is right. I'm pretty damn excited about the idea of having someone like that as our president.

I think it has been a mixed bag for Clinton. On the plus side, I think she has really cemented her position with certain constituents, specifically middle aged women and white, rural working class voters. This was not particularly a weak point to begin with, but she really painted herself as a leader of these particular groups. She also found her niche as a politician. IMO, she started out her Senate career with a vague idea to not offend anyone so that she would be in a good position for a Presidential run. After February, I think she figured out that a) that doesn't work and b) she does have positions that are important to her and worth laying it on the line for.

On the negative side, she's routinely come up with truly ridiculous statements that give credence to the "she'll do and say anything to win" crowd. Just a partial recap: her experience includes dodging bullets in Bosnia, bringing peace to N. Ireland, and helping refugees in Macedonia. She "won the popular vote" by counting states that had been disqualified by the national organization and where her opponent removed his name from the ballot and by not counting four caucus states that she lost. She's always been against NAFTA even though plenty of evidence says otherwise. She also alienated the formerly pro-Clinton black vote with her "Obama has a problem with white, working class voters" remark and has attacked the motivated, activist part of the Dem base with her anti-MoveOn type comments. I also think the Clinton "brand" has taken a hit as President Clinton has gone off the deep end a couple of times. Some of this was pre-Feb, but a lot was after that.

Nihm's remarks are also germane. Despite the media narrative that she's been in control since the end of February, the facts show she's only about break even. Texas was essentially a wash, Ohio was a nice win, but her win in Penn was not especially impressive and she got hammered in Miss and NC. She won Ky and WV with impressive margins, but the voters there tainted the win by making plenty of rasict comments to the press. This is not something you can brag about when chatting up your Democratic buddies, and Obama can add in Oregon and a 75,000 person rally to blunt that argument. Plus Clinton, while initially successful, has been almost shut out of the super delegate contest.

On the whole, I think Clinton can go back to the Senate as one of the biggest names in the Democratic party and she is completely out of the shadow of her husband. I think she also erased some of the comments in early March that her campaign was completely incompetent, so that's a plus.

If he does that, then why does his voting record show that he is by far the most liberal of all the senators?

That's not thinking. That's running on emotion.

While the second part can of course be disputed, it's more subjective -- the first part is just plain objectively wrong. We went into it here (more posts on the subject on previous pages of that thread).

I agree with that. She has also gained a strong position for herself in the event (however likely or unlikely you may see it) that she has a shot at the nomination in 2012.

It was predictable, the warnings were posted, and it is a case of buyers remorse for the Dem party, without a doubt.

People talk about bubbles in economic cycles and commodities. It happens in politics too.

Keep telling yourself that, as he kicks the crap out of your candidate this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

c.i.'s been wavering from the beginning. This isn't anything new.


Nice post, engineer.

I do think that overall Hillary's standing has taken a hit, though. Before all of this her reputation was tough but smart, a workhorse, thorough, etc. That's been damaged by her conduct in especially the later part of this campaign, I think.

I agree with soz's last post. Hillary's been hurt more than she has gained since Feb, most often from what she's said to win votes. She may have won some battles, but lost the war.

Thanks Soz. I didn't know much about him in the beginning, but I have definitely come around to a feeling he's the best guy for the job. He seems to be our best chance for a reasonable, intelligent, and--dare I say it?--ETHICAL president. And, there is a small chance that he could actually be a GREAT president. That might be too much to hope for at this point, but still, it looks to be a possibility at least.

On a side note It's nice to hear the voice of reason every once in a while in this thread. It seems it is drowning in screeching partisan horseshit most of the time.

Why not just nominate McCain?

He's gonna win anyway, and, he's a Democrat.

I know exactly what you mean, and agree. I'm not expecting it per se, but even the possibility is pretty amazing.



Likewise, Kicky...

I ordered our Obama merch today. T-shirts, yard signs, buttons...the t-shirts have been on back order forever. Ain't it grand?

That's about the smartest thing you've said since your involvement on a2k.

McCain is a Bush democrat; spend and cut taxes for the very people able to pay taxes.

Spend 12 billion every month in Iraq, and cut all the necessary social services and benefits for our veterans and the American People.

Most states and local governments are struggling with revenue shortfalls, while we build schools and improve the infrastructure in Iraq.

Makes a whole lot of sense. McCain wants to continue on with the war in Iraq until we "win." Whatever that means, because our economy and the American People have already lost their jobs and homes - with more of the same for years to come.

From this vantage point, Obama looks better every day; at least he'll tax and spend the money for the American People.

It's not my fault that you don't pay attention.

You stated that since deciding to stay in the race, Hillary has "gained considerable ground". When I point out that she actually lost considerable ground, trailing Obama by ever greater margins, I'm making a "silly and unworthy" point that I "should retract"?

Okay...

Skipping past the pomposity, I'd say that if you are going to say that by staying in the race, Hillary has gained considerable ground, the most obvious metric to measure this by is how she has performed in that race. And by that metric, not just has she not gained ground, she's lost considerable ground.

You prefer to skip this measurable metric and move on to a more nebulous gain in "overall political stature and prospects". This is a common disagreement we have. I prefer to go by concrete, measurable yardsticks, which you often consider trivial and transitory, while you go for overarching impressions of the larger picture, which I often consider nebulous blanket assertions.

But even taking your perspective on this one, I still disagree. You think that Hillary's overall stature and prospects are now better than in February? Remember: just half a year ago, Hillary was considered the anointed frontrunner, the inevitable nominee, with Obama running a mediagenic but by then stagnant challenge. Even after Iowa, the Clinton campaign itself still expected to wrap up the whole thing on Super Tuesday. She was Ms. Democratic Party, and held enough sway over the party to corral an overwhelming lead in superdelegates in the run-up to that day's contests. As impopular as she was among independents and Republicans, she was widely popular throughout the Democratic Party save some of the liberal activists and the netroots. Though South Carolina had sowed first doubts, African-Americans still loved her.

Now here we are, half a year later. Hillary's won a cult status among conservative, rural Democrats who distrust the Obamaites, and among older white women. But she has become increasingly toxic to entire Democratic constituencies. Foremost among them African-Americans, swathes of young and high-educated voters, and the new generation of net-driven activists and donors that are changing the rules of how Democrats run election campaigns.

Since Super Tuesday, she has effectively devolved from being the establishment candidate to being the candidate of "demographic" resistance, the candidate of poor whites who feel excluded from the party's hall of power. One may or may not sympathise more with that underdog position than with her erstwhile establishment identity, but one thing it does not signal is a gain in political stature.

Among top party officials, evenly divided sympathies have turned into annoyance and frustration. Since top Clinton donors twice threatened Pelosi to withhold funding from the DSSC, she is quite livid. Howard Dean is annoyed, Ted Kennedy estranged, and a legion of Obama-supporting Governors and Senators increasingly upset with her attacks on him in the context of a doomed campaign.

Back in January, there was a mass of superdelegates who were cowed enough by the Clintons' hold over the party and its donors to at the very least refrain from expressing a preference. That was illustrative of a continuing sway over the party apparatus, which has now all but dissolved. The surprising incompetence with which she squandered an almost certain win has demystified the Clintons' mythical prowess, the stature they naturally held since Bill became the only Democrat in 25 years to win a presidential election.

When it comes to funding and organisation, the rules have changed. The exclusive power of top donors and institutional supporters like the unions have been matched by an Internet-operated grassroots machine; and it is dominated by people who are now scathing of the Clintons. And of course much of that anger will dissipate as time passes, especially if Hillary vigorously campaigns for Obama, but a landmark shift has taken place.

This is the bottom line. Up till last year, not just did the Clintons still loomed large over the party and its machine, Hillary was widely expected to be the next President, or at worst nominee and opposition leader. Now, she will at best be relegated to a nice position in Obama's administration, or an Al Gore-like position of symbolic, figurehead authority. That's not "gaining considerable ground".

If she had dropped out after March 4 and vigorously joined Obama in the campaign, she would still have been the obvious and almost universally liked number two of the party. Now, if Obama wins, she will be one prominent administration figure among others gradually gaining equal prominence. At the very best for her, Obama will lose this fall and she can try to become the de facto opposition leader. But she will face stiff competition from rivals like Pelosi, Dean, Senatorial rank-pullers like Reid and Schumer and a number of rising stars, who will no longer fear the Clintons' hold and are likely to blame her at least partly for their nominee's loss. Moreover, any attempt to achieve an Al Gore-like power broker status by using her greater fame and popular appeal is burdened by the fact that significant swathes of the party's rank and file have come to really, really dislike her.

Even if Obama loses and she successfully navigates through the shark-infested waters afterwards to become the de facto leader of the Democratic opposition, that only puts her in the position of returning in 2012 in the very same role she had now to start with. Some progress. But even her success then will be doubtful, as the emotional loyalty to "the good years" under Bill Clinton, which drove much of her popular appeal among downmarket voters this time, will have faded further, and a return to the 90s will seem more anachronistic still.

Good analysis, nimh.

Nice post, nimh.

I need to go do some stuff and I actually don't want to leave the computer -- today is proving to be a pretty exciting day and I want to know what's happening as it's happening! But I guess I can wait a couple of hours...

Hear that. Trying to stay busy at work.



Cycloptichorn

Nimh writes


Philosophical question: Do you think they would dislike her as much if she were a man?