including this good piece by David Brooks in NYT who is sometimes nuts, but here on to something, I think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=opinion

Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.

** in that sense, 2008 more like the 1984 Dem race, with Mondale getting the solid Old Dems vote, while zippy Gary Hart was pitching new horizons and parameters that were hard to pin down, as Mondale famously tried with his deflating "Where's the beef?" quip

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

The liberal blogosphere, it seemed, had become a key constituency for any Democrat seeking the White House.

On the surface, that should have been a good development for Barack Obama. Obama is, in some respects, the ideal candidate of the Yearly Kos contingent--an insurgent who opposed the Iraq war, generated grassroots enthusiasm, and built a massive online fund-raising apparatus. But the bloggers who champion these things have not all rallied around Obama. In fact, many are strikingly ambivalent about his candidacy.

'The relationship is frosty," explains Micah Sifry, cofounder of techPresident, a blog that focuses on the interaction between candidates and the Web. "At various points in the campaign, Obama has said or done things that have antagonized progressive bloggers"--from calling Social Security a "crisis" to criticizing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"I think his instincts are liberal, but his governing style may not be," says Open Left blogger Matt Stoller, adding that Obama's readiness to embrace conservatives and chastise his allies on the left have caused many bloggers to wonder how strongly he would fight for liberal priorities as president. "The point is," Stoller adds, "I'm not sure. And this has been accentuated by the fact that no one [from the campaign] is talking to us."

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Obama has something Hart never had: wide support in the African-American community. Plus, Mondale was not disliked by a significant portion of the Democratic electorate, the way Clinton is.

---

yeah, but I am not trying to systematically compare the dynamics of 1984 (a 3-way race with Jesse Jackson, too) -- and the issues that are pertinent now that weren't then, and vice versa,

but the more ethereal Gary Hart DID appeal to college-educated boomers and the emerging high-tech new class ("Atari Democrats"), while Mondale's strength was much more union and working people under economic stress, perhaps like Hillary now ...

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

The real reason Clinton will almost certainly lose this race is the media, which seems to have largely bought into Obama's vacuous message, and given him a pass on the issues.

Clinton, by contrast, must put up with an extreme amount of cynicism that frames almost everything she does negatively. Her tears were "a cynically calculated move" (although when she is stoic she gets called a robot), she "pimped her daughter" (I wonder how Mitt Romney avoided that charge with his 5 sons all working for him). I recall one article I just read about whether she would lose gracefully - it compared her to the adulteress in Fatal Attraction. Hmmm... there's a very deliberately sexist analogy not chosen randomly (especially when the obvious analog for Clinton in that film is Michael Douglas' wife).

It's easy to criticize Clinton for his record in the 90s, but for 6 out of the eight years he was President he was stuck with a Republican congress that would have rejected anything and everything he would have tried to do that was remotely progressive. I'm not sure what more he could have done under those circumstances. In the 1993-94 period, Clinton actually tried to do a lot of good stuff and got rewarded with a GOP landslide in 1994.

PS: I keep watching debates between Clinton and Obama and so far the only policy difference I have been able to detect between them is that she wants a universal health care program and he is a weaker on that.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

PS: I keep watching debates between Clinton and Obama and so far the only policy difference I have been able to detect between them is that she wants a universal health care program and he is a weaker on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The one thing that makes me like Hillary Clinton is that I figure that anyone who is soooo intensely hated by Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and all those other neo-fascist ditto-heads - must be good in my books.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
It's easy to criticize Clinton for his record in the 90s, but for 6 out of the eight years he was President he was stuck with a Republican congress that would have rejected anything and everything he would have tried to do that was remotely progressive. I'm not sure what more he could have done under those circumstances. In the 1993-94 period, Clinton actually tried to do a lot of good stuff and got rewarded with a GOP landslide in 1994.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
I recall one article I just read about whether she would lose gracefully - it compared her to the adulteress in Fatal Attraction. Hmmm... there's a very deliberately sexist analogy

---

That said, I think that Clinton or Obama does very little to affect the Democratic vote. Polling suggests that Clinton supporters will support an Obama ticket and Obama supporters will support a Clinton ticket. Hillary may draw out slightly fewer young voters.

The real difference is that Hillary may be the most effective way to galvanize a Republican base who are less than thrilled with their own candidate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

It's easy to criticize Clinton for his record in the 90s, but for 6 out of the eight years he was President he was stuck with a Republican congress that would have rejected anything and everything he would have tried to do that was remotely progressive. I'm not sure what more he could have done under those circumstances. In the 1993-94 period, Clinton actually tried to do a lot of good stuff and got rewarded with a GOP landslide in 1994.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

---

He was rewarded for that, in no small part, because he got NAFTA passed through the House over the objections of a majority of his own party. This betrayal turned off millions of Democratic-leaning blue collar workers, who proceeded not to show up at the polls in '94. And many of them then didn't need bothering show up at work because their jobs had been shipped to Mexico.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Bill Clinton was almost as effective as the Republican Congress at creating stumbling blocks for his agenda.

That said, I think that Clinton or Obama does very little to affect the Democratic vote. Polling suggests that Clinton supporters will support an Obama ticket and Obama supporters will support a Clinton ticket. Hillary may draw out slightly fewer young voters.

The real difference is that Hillary may be the most effective way to galvanize a Republican base who are less than thrilled with their own candidate.

The end result? The Democratic ticket wins roughly the same number of votes regardless of the candidate - but the Republican ticket also gets a bump if Hillary is the candidate.

---

Well that is true if you take the head-to-head polls 9 months in advance of the election as gospel. However, if you do that, then we might also be talking today of the excellent records of Dukakis and John Kerry as president (which, obviously, didn't happen).

You might add President Dole to that list, by the way - if you look at pre-nomination head to head polls.

April 1995
Clinton: 40%
Dole: 37%
Perot: 18%

August 1995
Clinton: 39
Dole: 35
Perot: 23

January 1996
Clinton: 43
Dole: 39
Perot: 16

March 1996
Clinton: 46
Dole: 36
Perot: 16

July 1996
Clinton: 50
Dole: 33
Perot: 12

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/011296.shtml#3way

Clinton can't really attack him on the issues because she generally shares his values - hence the inane false dichotomy between change and experience (which is interesting, because Clinton doesn't really have all that much experience, and Obama's platform probably represents less change than Clinton's, albeit marginally).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
I wasn't basing my comment on the current polls.

Doubtless conservative Republicans will work up a serious dislike of Obama. Somehow I doubt that they can work up the same loathing for him in six - eight months that they have built up for Hillary over sixteen years.

---

Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to hate black liberal (by American standards) lawyer, who worked as a community organizer, and to increase minority voter turnout!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
The real reason Clinton will almost certainly lose this race is the media, which seems to have largely bought into Obama's vacuous message, and given him a pass on the issues.

---

Actually, I think Clinton is almost guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination. The reason is the superdelegates to the Democratic convention. These are unelected current and ex Demorcatic party officios. They are not required to vote for any one candidate, though most do declare which candidate they are voting for prior to the convention.

At the moment, Obama has a very slim lead among pledged (elected) delegates. However, Clinton has a sizable lead among the superdelegates, and I don't see Obama coming out far enough ahead in pledged delegates to make up the difference.

Here's CNN's estimate of the number of delegates won so far in the Democratic primaries and caucuses:

Total delegates:

1,100 Clinton
1,039 Obama
26 Edwards

Pledged Delegates:

908 Obama
877 Clinton
26 Edwards

Superdelegates:

223 Clinton
131 Obama

CNN Election Centre Prmaries and Caucuses Results: Democrats

What an undemocratic system.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
PS: I keep watching debates between Clinton and Obama and so far the only policy difference I have been able to detect between them is that she wants a universal health care program and he is a weaker on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I predict that if Obama is the nominee, the Republican base will learn to loathe him very quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

---

when even Frank Rich starts coming down hard on a top Democrat, you know she is trouble ...

....in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.

The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself).

The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons.

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

(non-smoking) backroom boys may yet determine this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?hp

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
Obama now the front-runner? hard to figure the delegate counts:

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

---

quote:

---

Clinton has 1,100 delegates and Obama has 1,039, according to CNN calculations. Obama leads in pledged delegates -- 908 to 877 -- but Clinton’s superdelegates -- 223 to 131 -- give her the overall lead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:

Actually, I think Clinton is almost guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination. The reason is the superdelegates to the Democratic convention. These are unelected current and ex Demorcatic party officios. They are not required to vote for any one candidate, though most do declare which candidate they are voting for prior to the convention.

At the moment, Obama has a very slim lead among pledged (elected) delegates. However, Clinton has a sizable lead among the superdelegates, and I don't see Obama coming out far enough ahead in pledged delegates to make up the difference.

Here's CNN's estimate of the number of delegates won so far in the Democratic primaries and caucuses:

Total delegates:

1,100 Clinton
1,039 Obama
26 Edwards

Pledged Delegates:

908 Obama
877 Clinton
26 Edwards

Superdelegates:

223 Clinton
131 Obama

CNN Election Centre Prmaries and Caucuses Results: Democrats

What an undemocratic system.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

---

quote:

---

The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons.

---

Just out of curiosity, do you think that a Black person who votes for Obama because he's Black is racist?

Is a woman who votes for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman sexist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Just out of curiosity, do you think that a Black person who votes for Obama because he's Black is racist? Is a woman who votes for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman sexist?
Is a person who votes for McCain because he is a white male a sexist and a racist?

---

1) The optics of choosing a candidate who lost in the primary/caucus phase would be very bad and make the Democratic Party look, well, undemocratic and would risk a severe backlash.

I wanted to reply, before I saw his earlier post, about personal motto that "whoever Rush hates cant be bad"

You know, opportunism may seem like a great quality in politics, but only in short-term.
Tendency to throw principles out of the window at moments notice also kinda dissapoints people.

http://www.vote-usa.org/Default.aspx
http://www.aidemocracy.org/
http://www.declareyourself.com/home/home.html
http://tinyurl.com/2kxlp7
http://www.glassbooth.org

One can also watch Bill Moyers, PBS, each Friday evening because he has consistently had Kathleen Hall Jamieson as a guest. She deconstructs exceptionally well all of the political BS during the week. One can also go on the Moyers web site to listen to the programs.

C-SPAN is posting all of the candidate speeches and debates. Go to that web site to listen and view.

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

---

To hear the Clinton camp complain that opponents are being too tough reassures that me that it is true to say: What goes round, comes round.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Texas and Ohio on March 5. Lots of scattered primaries on the ay- but Obama is on track to win the bulk of them and soon be in the lead.

Clinton must win Texas, and maybe must-win for Ohio as well by that time. And she's going to need a ton of money to throw at Texas, money she does not and isn't getting right now.

quote:

---

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

---

so MLK is all good, while LBJ, who made a remarkable turnaround from a standard Southern political past and became the main politician who shepherded the Civil Rights Act through Congress, gets airbrushed out of the picture.

One is revered and the other, well -- who ???
go figure.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

But in the context, it's highly unlikely that was the case. It was during one of the periods of time when the Clintons are deliberately cutting Obama down to size- and I'll bet you this was a line queded up for delivery at the right moment.

That said, it's certainly fair game to a point for the Clintons to be cutting Obama down to size, and this to my mind is comfortably within the bounds of reasonable civility in a competitive race. Just not a very smart thing to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The next 3 weeks are going to be telling.

Texas and Ohio on March 5. Lots of scattered primaries on the ay- but Obama is on track to win the bulk of them and soon be in the lead.

Clinton must win Texas, and maybe must-win for Ohio as well by that time. And she's going to need a ton of money to throw at Texas, money she does not and isn't getting right now.

---

After tomorrow's Virginia and Maryland primaries, both expected to go to Obama, the key contests left are Wisconsin on February 19, the aforementioned Texas and Ohio on March4, Pennsylvania on April 22, and Indiana and North Carolina on May 6. If Obama wins Wisconsin, Clinton almost has to win both Ohio and Texas. All he'll have to do is win one of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylania to show his ability to win a large state.

quote:

---

(...)you know, Senator Obama has never had, I don't think, a single negative ad run against him. He's never been on the receiving end, even in this campaign. It's been incredibly civil by any modern standards," Clinton said. "Until you have been through this experience, you have no idea what it's like. And he hasn't been. He's never, ever had to face this. And I think that I am much better prepared and ready to, you know, withstand whatever comes my way."

"Are you saying he couldn't handle it?" Couric asked.

"I'm just saying that I've been there and I know how to handle it. And I think that one of the factors the Democrats should take into account as they make their decisions in these upcoming elections is who could be the best nominee to, you know, take us to victory in November," Clinton replied.

"Let me ask you about that, senator. Because in exit polls, most people thought you would make a better commander in chief. But, they said, Barack Obama would be better at unifying the country. Why are you so often seen as polarizing?" Couric asked.

"I think it's because I have been active on behalf of a lot of controversial causes like universal healthcare, like a woman's right to choose for many, many years. And that is who I am," Clinton said. "Unity for the sake of unity is not my goal. I want to unify the country around meeting big goals like dealing with our energy crisis. I want to call the country to action around global warming. I want to set some, you know, really big vision that young people can buy into. That's the best way to unify the country."

"Senator Obama told Steve Kroft that you represent the status quo, that you accept the rules of the game as it's played in Washington," Couric remarked.

"Yes, I've heard him say that. And I'm not quite sure ever what he means. It's clever. It's a sort of a clever point to make. But, of course the status quo is George Bush. The status quo are the Republicans. The status quo are the people like Senator McCain who want more of the same. I think I represent dramatic change. You know no one will ever accuse me as having the same policies as George W. Bush," Clinton replied.(...)

---

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The next 3 weeks are going to be telling.

Texas and Ohio on March 5. Lots of scattered primaries on the ay- but Obama is on track to win the bulk of them and soon be in the lead.

Clinton must win Texas, and maybe must-win for Ohio as well by that time. And she's going to need a ton of money to throw at Texas, money she does not and isn't getting right now.

So the Clintons might do anything. I don't expect it'll be a reprise of really raw Bill Unplugged. If they're going to go down that road at all, I think it'll ba more clever this time. but they've had a lot of time since the South Carolina blowback to plan the 'just in case'... So who knows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
What experience? She's been in the U.S. senate four years longer, but he's been a public official four years longer. Being the spouse of a president doesn't count as "experience," despite the Clinton party line.

---

Had she been a typical First Lady, I think your comment would be valid. But, HRC was not a “typical” First Lady. She spent eight years in the executive office and was intimately involved in all significant policy discussions and worked more closely with the President on policy matters than most Vice Presidents do. She undoubtedly learned much about how to work with Congress and the various departments of the Executive Branch. She has a very good idea of what she needs to do in order to get things done in the federal government (Obama has zero experience with that). Before B Clinton was president, HRC spent several years working with Governor Clinton running a state government. As a result, I think that HRC has a clear idea of what she wants to accomplish (and I think Obama does, too) but, in contract to Obama, HRC probably has a very clear plan on how to accomplish those goals (Obama will be flying by the seat of his pants).

In contrast, what experience does Obama have? He’s been a senator for two years and he’s smart. In a country of 300 million people, there are probably a million who are as smart as Obama. But, smarts alone are not a qualification for the presidency. I know a lot of people who are as smart as Obama...but, like Obama, they wouldn’t have a clue about how to run the executive branch of the federal government.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

That is a place where kids get shot on their doorsteps, whose citizens are not "eligible" for bank loans and where joblessness is 45%.

quote:

---

Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her reelection and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.

"We were lying about money," a source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."

In turn, Clinton didn't tell Solis Doyle that she was lending her own money to keep the campaign afloat. Solis Doyle found out third-hand. And when she asked Clinton about it, the senator told her she couldn't understand how the campaign had gotten to such a point.

---

http://tinyurl.com/2kyn49

quote:

---

Rival Barack Obama’s charisma accounts for some of his ability to roll over Clinton in caucuses that demand more time and devotion from voters than primaries do. But the Obama team also proved more adept at the organizing details required to get voters to the caucuses and help them know what to do once there.

. . . .

It is tough to tell whether outgoing Clinton campaign chairman Patti Solis Doyle was directly responsible for these mistakes, but someone screwed up. Clinton finds herself in such an uncertain place because her top staff prioritized television advertising and other wholesale techniques over painstaking get-out-the-vote efforts in the field.

As one veteran Democratic field operative said, “If the Clinton campaign had spent less on hotels for fancy staff and more on organizing in states like Kansas or Colorado, they could have won another 50-100 delegates and would now be out of the woods.”

---

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

As for this claim:

quote:

---

She spent eight years in the executive office and was intimately involved in all significant policy discussions and worked more closely with the President on policy matters than most Vice Presidents do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Obama was a political organizer for three years in the Altgeld Housing Project in Chicago.

That is a place where kids get shot on their doorsteps, whose citizens are not "eligible" for bank loans and where joblessness is 45%.

That is experience that cannot be matched by living in the White House or being a Senator.

---

quote:

---

"Unity for the sake of unity is not my goal. I want to unify the country around meeting big goals like dealing with our energy crisis. I want to call the country to action around global warming. I want to set some, you know, really big vision that young people can buy into. That's the best way to unify the country."

---

Clinton wants to set some, you know, really big vision that young people can buy into. Here's a content rich, hip youtube ad paid for by the Clinton campaign. I wonder how the young people will respond?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Obama was a political organizer for three years in the Altgeld Housing Project in Chicago.

That is a place where kids get shot on their doorsteps, whose citizens are not "eligible" for bank loans and where joblessness is 45%.

That is experience that cannot be matched by living in the White House or being a Senator.

---

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
oh geez, have you heard of the State's children health insurance program? yeah Clinton helped create that. Bullshit bias on here.If you don't know what she has done as a first lady, go check wikipedia, you might learn something.

---

Well, like I said, tell me what Obama has accomplished in government. Just one thing.

ETA: I think that making Obama president would be akin to taking a young, but really smart and poetically eloquent, MBA grad and making her President and CEO of Microsoft or General Motors.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

(...)you know, Senator Obama has never had, I don't think, a single negative ad run against him. He's never been on the receiving end, even in this campaign.

---

In the first place, the question is about attacks, not attack ads in particular. So to the actual question, I suppose Bill Unplugged doesn't count?

And it's a disingenuous answer even if we accept that its all just about negative ads or not. A direct mail piece that goes out to a huge portion of New Hampshire households, in a battle that Clinton has to win, with one very simple and very negative message, thats not a "negative ad?"

Let alone that it was worst type of negative attack: Swift Boating misrepresentation.

quote:

---

"Why are you so often seen as polarizing?" Couric asked.

Clinton: "I think it's because I have been active on behalf of a lot of controversial causes like universal healthcare, like a woman's right to choose for many, many years. And that is who I am," Clinton said.

---

This is the way she would like to characterise it of course. And it's perfectly legitimate for here to spin it in the best light for herself.

And it is a legitimate characterisation of how the ideologically driven right core voters see her- people who wouldn't vote for either Obama or Clinton.

But it does not accurately characterise how millions of swing voters see her. These are the people who will decide not just who is in the White house- which either Democrat is the odds on favourite to win. How many of them vote for Democrat Senate candidates will determine what that next President is able to do. How many of them do that in turn depends in large part on the image and bearing of the Presidential candidate.

And a big part of the Clinton image among swing voters who do NOT have negative issue focused views of her is: gutter fighter.

Many, many voters made allowances for how the clintons fought back for all those years. But at the same time that they do not blame them, they are tired of all that. And these swing voters who hold the balance not unreasonably draw dotted lines between "all that" and Washington gridlock.

quote:

---

Clinton has money, she raised 10 million since her supporters know that she landed 5 million dollar to her campaign. She got a bunch of new donors who are dedicated to her 100 percent.

---

But are they new donors, or is this brave words spin?

When the need is really great you can always call in your chips with the same donors again. On the US presidential race sacale- there's always another one time 10 million shot out there.

The proof will be in whether there is a renewed revenue flow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

It should be noted that while Obama was doing that, Clinton was serving on the board of directors of a little corporation known as Wal-mart.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wobama13.xml

Michelle Obama has a Walmart connection herself. She has made a fair bit of money from a Walmart supplier.

As for experience, the most important thing for a president is having favours and connections that can be called in. Clinton has that, and Obama doesn't. If he drops in the polls, he will be unable to bully congress into following his lead. The other issue is that Obama has hardly been in the senate - running for president comprised the majority of his national experience. He missed 40% of all votes in 2007, and chairs a subcommittee (on relations with Europe) that has never met once.

As for the horse-race question, I agree that the super-delegates will back Obama on winnability, and because he will probably have won the most delegates (though he may have won fewer votes).

Moreover, Obama's chances in Texas are better than people think. People think - oh Texas, it must have lots of hispanics that will vote for Clinton. The thing is that Texas hispanics are much more likely to vote Republican after Bush's overtures to them - in 2004 they went 50-50 (comprising about 26% of the electorate). 12% of voters in 2004 were black, and they were overwhelmingly members of the Democratic party.

If you work out the numbers of each that voted Democrats, the number of african Americans in Texas almost cancel out the number of Hispanics (and African Americans tend to support Obama more strongly than Hispanic voters do Clinton). Couple that with Obama's red state appeal (which I will grant has been overrated by his tendency to win caucuses with excited volunteers, rather than mass support), and you have a Clinton loss.

At the same time, I am not sure if Obama is as electable as people think... or hope. When you think in terms of a 270 electoral college strategy, you have to ask where the break-out states are for him. Sure he does well in red states, but most of those are no-win states for the Dems. Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico are perennial swing states, but Hispanic voters have demonstrated considerable resistance to Obama, while McCain's stance on immigration is far more liberal than his Republican peers. In fact, I would posit that an Obama candidacy could put California (Asian voters have also been resistant to Obama) in play for the Republicans (or at least make it close enough that they waste resources keeping it). I have seen recent head-to-head polls that would put Obama ahead of McCain in CA by a mere 6 points (Bush lost by 10 points, but basically didn't campaign there).

Ohio is another swing state, but one which is comprised largely of old-style blue collar Democrats, that, again, have tended not to support Obama. Moreover, John McCain's appeal in New Hampshire would likely tip the state to the GOP - losing a state that Kerry won in 2004.

Obama can probably win Iowa (which Bush won in '04), and perhaps make a real run at Virginia. Winning both would just barely give him a win.

quote:

---

Obama may be generally more popular at the moment, but he is clearly the riskier candidate (not a known commodity, and lacking in substance), and the less electorally EFFICIENT candidate.

---

That last statement is based on some pretty fanciful evidence. California for example.

Clinton is very familiar and looked on very favorably in California. Ditto for McCain. In California, much more than elsewhere, Obama is indeed less familiar to voters.

So it's no surprise at this point, that with all that context Obama is 'only' ahead of McCain by 6 points.

In an actual campaign it is such a certainty that Obama would blow even McCain out of the water, that he won't campaign there any more than Bush did.

Obama as candidate has risks, yes. Clinton doesn't? You're deluded if you think all the information is out there and accounted for just because Clinton is the more known quanity.

There aren't risks to the negative aura around the Clintons stacked, over the course of a long campaign, next to the genteel and squeaky clean McCain?

And your electoral 'efficiency' argument is a general house of cards- not just California- that somehow Obama is going to put into play blue states that will undermine his red state gains.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Moreover, insofar as he has a voting record, it is pretty much on the left - once he is forced to talk about the issues, I suspect many independents will be disillusioned. For instance, he opposes a partial birth abortion ban - that is a 70-30 kind of position in the US, not a "win independents" one.

Obama is the riskier candidate because he is less known. People's liking or dislike for McCain and Clinton is much more deeply rooted, and, moreover, substantive (in that it is at least partly informed by the record of either candidate). As for him being less known as the source of his problems in California, I beg to differ. Bush won California 51-47 among white voters, but lost among Asians and Hispanics 66-33. Obama's weakness in California is largely the result of his failure to make inroads among ethnic voters. If Asians and Hispanics voted 50-50 red/blue in 2008, California would be essentially tied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

But are they new donors, or is this brave words spin?

When the need is really great you can always call in your chips with the same donors again. On the US presidential race sacale- there's always another one time 10 million shot out there.

The proof will be in whether there is a renewed revenue flow.

[And apparently it's effectively impossible for these fish bowl campaigns to hide when they don't have the cash.]

---

Cut to the quick:

quote:

---

I could see Obama winning a 1964-esque sweep of the country, but not Hillary doing so. I could also see Obama on the losing end of that, while I could not see the same for Clinton.

---

That is the endpoint of all the numbers based crunching. IE, while I didn't and wouldn't say that, it's as valid as anything I'd arrive at... so lets skip the journey and consider the endpoint.

By a fair margin, the probability is it will be a Dem in the White House. The small chance the ideologue brain trusts and the legions of fanatic volunteers on the ground would pull it off for the Republicans vanished with McCain as candidate- they won't bother tryng.

That being the case, and the Dems needing something approaching a sweep to carry the Senate, go for the sweep possibility candidate.

Playing it safe with the finely parsed opportunity in front of them has not served the Dems well for at least a dozen years.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

http://www.slate.com/id/2184207/
Clinton's support among these key demographics also provides her with her electability argument as she tries to make the case that Obama is a modern-day George McGovern—the pet rock of the party's wealthy liberal wing. "How can we have a nominee who can't win the votes of working-class people?" says one Clinton strategist. It's a good question.

Clinton is banking on her loyal constituencies for her comeback day on March 4, where she hopes working-class whites in Ohio and Latinos in Texas will give her victories. An early test of whether blue collar voters are holding for Clinton might come in pockets of Wisconsin, which votes next week. The college towns will go for Obama, but much of the state resembles Ohio. These areas should back Clinton. If not, she's in trouble.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Michelle Obama has a Walmart connection herself. She has made a fair bit of money from a Walmart supplier.

---

Last time I checked, Michelle Obama wasn't on the ballot.

quote:

---

I have pointed out that his weakness with blue collar and hispanic voters mean that, even if he has a red state appeal, it only works in Iowa - and is thus electorally inefficient.

---

Weakness is a relative term. He's up against someone with a brand name in the Hispanic community. That doesn't mean Obama could not attract the lions share of Hispanic and blue collar voters in a general election. As for "electoral inefficiency," wining states like California and New York by 15 points instead of 10, while losing states like Virginia and Missouri is not electorally efficient.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

But when something like a link to Walmart comes up with Michelle Obama - ooh, suddenly it has absolutely NOTHING to do with her husband, they're completely separate, she really just has absolutely nothing to do with his candidacy for President! In fact, I'm sure that Barack Obama had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about his wife's ties to Walmart and certainly would never ever financially benefit from anything his wife does. I'm sure their finances are completely separate.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Michelle Obama has a Walmart connection herself. She has made a fair bit of money from a Walmart supplier.

---

Yes, because it would have been impossible to live on Michelle Obama's $270,000 salary from the hospital - she just HAD to have that $51,000 from the Walmart supplier! Why, they'd have been destitute without it! Surely their fellow impoverished Americans know how it is!

I agree, though, it IS a rather tenuous connection. There's a difference between sitting on WALMART'S board, and sitting on the board of a company whose sales to Walmart represent 16% of their total sales. It would be like criticizing someone here in Canada who works for a book publishing firm for accepting orders from Chapters-Indigo. So, I think the outrage is pretty manufactured.

I was just responding to the idea that "Michelle Obama's not on the ticket". Well, if she doesn't want to be treated like she's on the ticket, then she should stop playing the First Wifey game. Some woman's gotta do it eventually.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
In contrast, what experience does Obama have? He’s been a senator for two years and he’s smart. In a country of 300 million people, there are probably a million who are as smart as Obama. But, smarts alone are not a qualification for the presidency. I know a lot of people who are as smart as Obama...but, like Obama, they wouldn’t have a clue about how to run the executive branch of the federal government.

---

Many years ago they elected some guy as President with way less experience than Obama - In fact the only political experience he had was 2 years in the US House of Representatives a dozen years earlier. Kind of had a car sounding name - Ford? Mercury? No those don't sound right. But anyways almost 150 years later he still seems fairly popular.

Sen. Hillary Clinton should be forcing Americans to think more deeply about their views on gender and politics. However, current debates about her popularity prove we are still a society mired in gender stereotypes.

For years, social scientists have known that people perceive female leaders more negatively than male leaders. Even when female leaders behave exactly like male leaders in controlled experiments, audiences still respond to them less favorably. This disfavor manifests itself through non-verbal behavior such as frowning and shaking one's head while listening to a female leader speak. Both men and women are likely to display this behavior. While most Americans would be reluctant to admit it, perceptions of Hillary Clinton are strongly driven by stereotypes.

Consider the all-important question of her "likability." Why does she invoke such strong and polarized reactions from people? Dr. Alice Eagly at Northwestern University has shown that people discriminate against female leaders because qualities stereotypically associated with women (nurturance) conflict with stereotypically masculine qualities associated with effective leaders (assertiveness). Women who display masculine qualities often achieve success but lose out in popularity. Women leaders face a double bind that is difficult to overcome.
As Princeton University psychologist Dr. Susan Fiske and her colleagues have found, stereotypes about women tend to fall along two dimensions - warmth and competence. The two dimensions operate in teeter-totter fashion: When perceptions of a woman's warmth increase, her perceived competence decreases (and vice versa). The same is not true for men. If a man is a "family man," perceptions of his competence do not change; however, a woman is seen as less competent when she has a baby.
(...)
I also liked the following NYT blog entries:
All you Need is Hate and
A calumny a day will keep Hillary away
Regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, the coming months seem like an opportunity to see and oppose sexism and racism in action as Repugs, pundits and, to a much lesser extent, some Dems will play these cards to the hilt against candidates.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
There's a difference between sitting on WALMART'S board, and sitting on the board of a company whose sales to Walmart represent 16% of their total sales. It would be like criticizing someone here in Canada who works for a book publishing firm for accepting orders from Chapters-Indigo. So, I think the outrage is pretty manufactured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by viigan:
Obama will win, just to offer the Middle East some form of appeasement as they continue to bomb the hell out of them, because in my opinion, Obama represents no change, but a continuance of the present under a more charismatic guise. As would any of the candidates really. Elections are no longer about policies or issues, but a bone for us to gnaw on as all parties follow the same routes when in power, regardless of their running platform.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
While I tend to agree that political parties are no longer the instruments of change, I still think that electing Obama will start the US down the road to real change. To set out an agenda for real change you need a clear mandate from the people. Obama is running on a platform of change and his election would be by definition a mandate for change. Maybe not as much or as fast as some might want, but better than the status quo.

---

I like Obama, but he does not have the juice. I am not sure there is anyone out there who could take on the political establishement in Washington, and lead for real change. Sounds nice as a slogan. For one thing I don't think he has the organization. In the end, he will still be a Washington outsider, and they will tear him to shreds politically. If that doesn't work they will shoot him.

I doubt that though, because even if he is a nice guy, I think he will fold.

[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

"If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it's the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly very aspect of American life. For many men, it's the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football." (Bob Herbert, NYT)

---

UNCOVERING GENDER
Cable News' Locker-Room Mentality Really Stinks
By Sandra Kobrin - WeNews commentator - Feb. 13

(WOMENSENEWS)--Cable news has always been the Wild Wild West for journalists: mostly men report the news with a smile, a swagger and a wink.

They're the bad boy brothers to the straight-laced network news people, whipping out their virtual six-shooters, mouthing off with their flip and fiery words and wearing their rebel attitude like a badge of honor. It's a smelly locker room with the doors wide open.

Until lately.
(...)

For more information:
Media Matters, "A Mess at MSNBC"
Accuracy in Media, "MSNBC's Chris Matthews Still Abusing His Guests"
Bob Herbert, "Politics and Misogyny", NYT

[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

When Barack Obama beat Al Gore to the punch and jumped into the presidential race while the former vice president was still deciding what to do, it seemed that Hillary had virtually wrapped up the nomination. While Gore could have beaten Mrs. Clinton, it seemed unlikely that a senator with two years' service under his belt could do so.

But the mistakes and strategic errors of the Clinton campaign gave Obama an opening that he exploited masterfully. It is Obama's charisma that is winning this election, but it was Clinton's mistakes that opened the door.

[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

This is where my campaign is headed. We will carry a message of hope and renewal to every community in this country. We will tell every American, "The dream is for you." Tell forgotten children in failed schools, "The dream is for you." Tell families, from the barrios of LA to the Rio Grande Valley: "El sueno americano es para ti." Tell men and women in our decaying cities, "The dream is for you." Tell confused young people, starved of ideals, "The dream is for you."

As Americans, this is our creed and our calling. We stumble and splinter when we forget that goal. We unite and prosper when we remember it. No great calling is ever easy, and no work of man is ever perfect. But we can, in our imperfect way, rise now and again to the example of St. Francis, where there is hatred, sowing love; where there is darkness, shedding light; where there is despair, bringing hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
is Hillary now finished?

---

Saw a very interesting presentation on CNN last night involving an interactive map showing that neither candidate can, mathematically, achieve a winning number of delegates unless they win every upcoming state by a margin of 80% or something, which is not going to happen. One problem, I gather, is that discounting Florida and Michigan skews the numbers down. Which means that Clinton is not out unless she is persuaded to withdraw even before Obama has the necessary delegate numbers; or large numbers of superdelegates start committing to him now. Otherwise this may go right to the convention and lots of people are convinced the Clintons will play every trick in the book including an ugly battle over those two outlier states.

I assume, though, that the Democrats would try very hard to prevent a convention melt-down, but I've heard variants of "Never underestimate the ability of the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory", lately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
One thing that all the exit polls seem to agree on is that setting aside the African-American vote - Hillary Clinton does very well with lower income people, union members etc...while Obama does better with "yuppies" etc...

Why do people suppose that Obama seems not to be ablwe to attract the votes of poor people?

---

Well, that conventional wisdom seems to have been somewhat disrupted in the Potomac Primaries. Obama seems to be starting to reach those people. Ohio and Texas will be interesting in that regard.