I'm a big Obama supporter, but at this point I'll grudgingly hold my nose and vote for her in Nov if she steals the nomination. It actually hurt to type that. I'm so pissed at her. She has run an awful, gutter fight campaign. She has managed it very poorly. I didn't understand the whole "say anything to get elected" until I saw her. She's just a pathetic, pandering, opportunist politician. And her constant excuse is "this is how it's done." Uh, yeah, we know. And we're sick of how it's done. In years past I was impressed with McCain, especially when he stood up to the religious right, that said a ton to me. He was also against the tax cuts for the wealthy... at first. There is no question he is WAY more likeable and Hill. But he has shown to be a lot further away from me on the issues than she is. He'll keep fighting for 'victory' in Iraq. What the hell is that, anyway? The goalposts have moved so much I don't know anymore. Fiscally, he'll continue the failed deregulation/tax cuts/trickle-down policies that got us here. He pays lip-service to expanding alternative fuels/renewable energy but will drag his feet on any real action. If he wants to be re-elected in 2012, he'll have to continue pandering to the religious wingnuts and attempt to straddle the separating continents of his fractured party. Hill's stance on the issues is what I want to see. I just think she will be an inferior leader to Obama. She believes in the old top-down way of doing things, that power will continue to come from on high from the elite, as opposed to Obama's bottom-up worldview of grassroots action. She will polarize Washington and eventually the nation. With a Dem congress, she will be able to enable much legislation I want to see, but will do it in a way that will eventually create backlash. Her constant use of the word "figher" and "fight" in her stump speeches appeals to the Dem base that wants revenge on the republicans- but it promises only more cyclic back-and-forth as one side tears down the other. Obama can bring the changes I want to see while compromising and respecting his opponents, and not breeding hatred and backlash along the way. Between the likeable guy that doesn't share my issues, and the totally unlikeable woman who does, I'll vote for Hill. A lot of that is predicated on how she takes the nomination. If she wins the popular vote (and sways supers with that) or Barack has a massive meltdown and she wins pledged delegates, so be it. If she steals it at the convention, god damn her to hell. I will actively protest her whenever I can.
My favorite thing about that McCain-Bush picture is how happy McCain looks. Eyes closed, contented smile. Isn't that nice? I'd vote for Clinton in the general, but I wouldn't be thrilled about it. Won't be an issue, anyway.
No - the goal simply isn't to win - it's to lead. The idea is to win without sacrificing who you are and what you stand for. But the problem is that I don't fully agree with either party's agenda. I don't agree with the protectionism / anti-trade side of Dems, the capital gains issues, or the "blame big business" side of it. So there are issues on both sides that I disagree with. I tend to lean left, but not overwhelmingly so. My problem with the right is far more specific to Bush than to conservative philosophies in general.
I think the kinds of change we need in politics won't happen over night. I do believe they can happen, or at least progress can be made in that direction. I think those changes can happen with winning. Playing politics the old way hasn't helped the Dems in the last two presidential elections, and what a lot of voters said they liked about Bush(at least at first) was that he didn't run based on polls etc. When Obama looks like he's caving in for pure political reasons he's lost. He's thrown out his biggest advantage and draw to independent voters. In the political short term it may not have been great. In the long term, I still think he's done things correctly. The old way of doing politics is fading away, and the sooner the better. Obama's change concept has been popular, but it won't be wrinkle free. In the long run I think it will be good from a political and principled standpoint, that it was handled this way.
Thanks for the reply, FB. I understand where you're coming from and that you desire different leadership than we've had, certainly, from Bush (doesn't any sane person?), but I would have to disagree with the part I bolded. In 2000, Al Gore was running against a charlatan, a dishonest poser, and could have run a better campaign. What he didn't do was stoop to the level of Bush/Rove. In my opinion, he won the election, but here we are, almost 8 years later. In 2004, John Kerry ran a much worse campaign against a President ripe to be beaten. The Democratic Party's 2000 and 2004 campaign tactics were not remotely, in my opinion, in the same ball park as those used by Bush/Rove, when it comes to negative, tough, and dishonest campaigning. When you are saying the Democrats didn't do well in the last two elections running "the old way," I would have to disagree. In 2000, they won with Gore running a pretty gentile campaign, compared to what I've seen in the past, and lost due to the dishonesty of Bush/Rove, the Republican Party, and their supporters on the bench of the Supreme Court, where the Florida election should never have gone for a decision. Kerry also ran a pretty "mild" campaign compared to many I've seen. Sadly, he was an awful candidate. Far better than reelecting Bush, but not good enough to overcome his failings. No, I don't think the Clintons are in the same league as Bush/Rove when it comes to this primary campaign, despite comparisons I've seen here. If Barack Obama can't react effectively against the McCain campaign in November, and despite McCain's efforts at saying he won't run that way, did you happen to see how he "prevented" the Obama/Wright ad in North Carolina? It ran and, as far as I know, is still running. Do you think that is nothing less than the tip of the iceberg, compared to what we'll be seeing in the general? If you don't, you should consider it. Impeach Bush.
Deckard, McCain has no more control over the North Carolina Republicans who ran the ad than Obama has over MoveOn.Org. Sadly, regardless of how the candidates feel about it, poo will be flung, particularly by the extremophiles of both parties.
I cannot believe you made this post. It's dead-on. You get it regarding both Iraq and the Supreme Court (including abortion). Even if McCain is what the Dems make him out to be, his agenda and presidency will be dead on arrival because of congress and the American public.
Deckard, I l agree a lot with your post. Well it would be amazing if Obama can win as a gentle reasonable soul ala Gore while McCain campaigns as he has been taught when Bush_Rove demonized and destroyed him. I also hope that the gentle nice guy approach can win, but just see how the media just hones in forever on the "gotchas" and Rev Wright and I don't think you can blame that all on the Clinton Campaign.
I won't disagree with most of the reasons you listed as also being part of the reason the Dems lost the past two elections. I think if we only looked at both of the rationals we listed it would paint a more complete picture than looking at either of reasons in isolation. Gore was hurt when he appeared to try and change his wooden image. He listened to the criticisms and tried to adapt to what the criticisms and polls were saying. It made people not trust him. Kerry did the same thing. When he was portrayed as elitist, he had those horrible hunting pictures taken of him. He was trying to appear to be something he wasn't, and it played into the GOP's hands even though he was making an effort to appeal to their votes. Bush was a charlatan, and dishonest. But he didn't appear that way. His image was that of a guy who would stand his ground, and people thought that was presidential, and demonstrated leadership. I would like to clarify one thing about not stooping to Rove's low down way of politics and the cost it had. I think the heavier cost was that both Kerry and Gore tried to ignore those politics rather than answering back. They didn't need to answer back with similar invented or made up scandals, they needed to hit back, not necessarily with equally as negative stories, but to hit back just the same. Instead they either ignored it, or (tried to change)changed their image to show the stories weren't accurate, and the results were disasterous. So far Obama has done a pretty good job at responding quickly and effectively to issues thrown at him, but not by going negative. To change that tact midstream would be a huge weapon that his political opponents could use to try and paint him as untrustworthy.
Honestly, I should have left the quotes off of "prevented," thumbs, because I don't think McCain wants that kind of campaign. However, I have to say that the fact the ad is still running, and that the NC GOP basically said, "Up yours!" to McCain doesn't bode well for the general. We will see much more and far worse in the coming election, regardless who the Democratic nominee is. I think it will be Barack, but whoever it is will only, in my opinion, affect the kinds of ads from the GOP, not the tone. If John McCain can't stop the North Carolina party from running that ad, can you imagine what we'll be seeing in the general? Barack better get his hard hat on. He's going to need it and he's going to need to be tough. Impeach Bush.
On what basis do you think that McCain does not want the ad to run? Plausible deniability. IIRC the Bush-Rove campaigns were never upfront that they were supported the Swift Boat guys and the folks who trashed McCain with ptsd craziness and a black child and all the rest.
Thanks, glynch. As you'll see in my post to thumbs, I really think McCain wants to have a different campaign. What we'll get will be something else, entirely. And I'll add something I didn't say to thumbs, and should have. I'm disturbed by how John McCain has embraced the Far Right, how he has embraced the Christian Fundamentalists, how he's flattered some of the most extreme in that realm with his attention. I'm worried about it, and I'm sure you can guess why. For all his talk, will he really run a campaign that's above the Bush/Rove/Cheney gutter? I'd like to think so, but I have to admit I'm suspicious. We'll have to see. edit: just use this as a response to the next post of yours. Impeach Bush.
If Obama can't stop MoveOn.Org from running (similar) attack ads, can you imagine what we'll be seeing in the general? McCain better get his hard hat on. He's going to need it and he's going to need to be tough. It works both ways, Deckard. I wish there was a way to control it. McCain is shoring up his conservative "base," which is really not his base at all. That pandering, for want of a better word, is one of the reasons I am backing Obama. But that doesn't mean that I don't respect the man or his pragmatism. Obama is more fortunate in that he has the backing of his original liberal base but must try to reel in all the moderates of both parties while fending off the horror known as Hillary.
What evidence do you have that McCain *does* want that kind of ad to run? It seems the onus is not on disproving the negative. The problem here is that this is not limited to Rove. Hillary is just as bad here. Here's today's version: http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp Summarized, there is 527 run by former Clinton people who's purpose is supposedly getting single women to vote. They are now sending out letters to African American voters in North Carolina telling them they need a voter registration packet to vote. This is entirely illegal and untrue - it's an effort at voter suppression. They've done similar things in the past in other states across the country. How is that kind of stuff any different than the NC GOP doing it's own thing separate from McCain, for example, or Rovian 527s?
Just to extend on the above - I don't think Obama's perfect, by any stretch, in terms of this type of stuff. But I do think he's a huge upgrade over either Clinton or Bush. I believe McCain to be better as well. Of course in both cases, we'll see if that changes.
It's not that I love Obama so much that I could never vote for Hillary. It's that I have minimum standards for a politician who would like to receive my vote, and Hillary has crossed that line many times in this campaign and during her time in the Senate, in a way that I believe is absolutely reflective of her decision making process. Would she be better than McCain in terms of the Supreme Court? Definitely. Basically, should she get the nomination, I will have to decide if I am willing to vote for someone I do not believe deserves my vote in order to protect things like Roe V. Wade. It's tough. But I don't think I will have to make that choice. It has crap to do with her personality. I actually think her personality is fine. It's her ability to transcend some of the moral compromises that come with power the promise of power that reaaaaaally bother me (e.g. Her total lapse re: Iraq War in 2002).
Hillary's actions, if true, are despicable and are not any different from NC GOP doing its own thing. I guess I just don't think that this negative tactic stuff will stop until someone is defeated clearly for doing it. Clinton and McCain have been victims of these tactics before and have seen how they work. I am voting for Obama and I hope that the nice guy with the nice tactics wins this time. Anybody know when presidential politics became so personally negative? I don't remember Clinton-Bush for instance being so personally negative. Maybe it is just the length of the campaign. I don't know, but it is sickening. Hoepfully when the focus is on McCain-Obama there will be more focus on the issues since they disagree so much on the War, health care, taxes etc.
I totally agree with this - part of Obama's appeal to me is that he's everything opposite of Clinton except on the issues. I partly want him to win so that Hillary loses. If it were to be Hillary/McCain, some of that same stuff transfers over to McCain for me. I don't what the crap tactics to work - I know Hillary will use them; McCain (and Obama) may or may not. If McCain went down that path vs Hillary, I might just not vote. I agree - Clinton/Bush wasn't bad at all, and I don't think Clinton/Dole was either. Those two legitimately liked each other. I think it all went downhill with the Lewinsky stuff. It was the GOP's chance to bring down a popular Democrat. And then you add the Rovian politics from 2000 leading to a win, and it appeared to be the way to go. And the GOP Congress was ruthless when they came to power in terms of marginalizing the other side. I think Tom Delay (and Dick Armey) and his power hungriness was a big part of what led to this. So Dems adopted the same strategy when they got power back, and eventually it seems like both sides ended up truly hating each other. Totally agree - this has been my hope from Day #1 in wanting an Obama-McCain matchup. I'm less and less convinced it will be possible, but I'm hoping for the best!
as much as I would like to totally blame republicans you also have to take note of 24 hour media coverage with all the cable news networks and of course al gore's internet. 15 years ago no one would have ever known about obama's comments in san fran or maybe even hillary's bosnia comments and to be fair, mccain's sunni/shia screw ups. this has been repeated often but one of the best examples of how you can't get away with anything was when mike price's ( the got who was fired at alabama before he coached a game) story broke. sports illustrated did a piece on it, mike price goes to a strip club after getting plastered at a golf tournament in florida, takes home a d snyder look alike stripper and that story blew up on the SEC message boards in two days. you can't get away with anything if you're a public figure. big brother is watching all of us
