So you guys are saying: 1. Republicans and Independents are more credible and reliable to decide Democrats candidate 2. Those republicans voted in Dem primary will certainly vote Obama in general election because a) you strongly believe so b)exit polls tell you so ? Sounds convincing.
It should be. And if Hillary gets the nod, I hope Obama isn't VP so we can make it an honest test for your lack of concern. And a for my money, it's more important for me to spend it on a candidate than save it for a bet. And if Obama's running, he'll get it. Otherwise, anyone who runs against Hillary.
I'll ask the same question I just asked Max in another thread, Cohen. Would you vote for Obama if Clinton were on the ticket as his VP? Impeach Bush.
Conservative groups in looking at their records of actual votes have said there isn't more than a whisker of a difference in their positions over the last 3 years (Obama is skewed left in this year's reports because of non-votes he hasn't been there for). Of course they are being painted as radical lefties, but both are center-left. Her chief argument is "experience", Obama is that he is less partisan and has better judgement (e.g., Iraq authorization). Policy differences are minute in their actual records and plans. I agree with most of what you said here. What has to be considered is the way Dem turnout has truanced Rep turnout--and that is a credit to both. I think Obama is less suspectible to McCain in the general (strong favorite)--because I think Obama is more competitive with independents and will less mobilize the far right, but I wouldn't for a second say if Hillary wins she wouldn't also be favored over McCain given turnout.
If the point is to win, then the strategy is to get someone that (a) brings out the base and (b) appeals to moderate/crossovers. That's the case in all elections. Given the anger at the right, getting out the base is not a problem. So you focus on (b). It's clear in primary after primary that Obama appeals to the middle - not because of policies, but because of leadership style. His whole argument about a "working majority" and building consensus is what appeals to middle-of-the-road voters. It's not a difficult argument to make - ever poll, every analysis shows it. Even Hillary would probably agree with this.
And to think I tried to bring some "levity" into the thread only to be accused of drunkenness and closet gayness. You guys all need to lighten up... And pick a candidate already! McCain '08! (The D&D cannot be civil for more than two minutes! Oh, and "Save Us From Mexico!")
I think there have been several polls over the last couple of years that showed a good part of the population has a 'strongly unfavorable' view of Hillary, and/or consider her to be polarizing. Sorry. Best I can muster.
I'm certainly aware of her built in negatives, Cohen, but I don't think they mean she couldn't win the election. McCain has a lot of built in negatives himself. 7+ years of the Bush Administration, the embracing of the Fundamentalist Right, his support of an unpopular war, belonging to a political party that has produced record deficits, record trade deficits, supported outsourcing jobs and, astonishingly, created record growth in government. (there's a lot more, but I'll leave it at that! ) I just think Senator Obama has a better chance of winning. In my opinion, either one would be fine as President, especially considering who they would be following... one of the worst in our history. And if people are going to vote against an Obama ticket simply because she is on it as VP, I don't think they were apt to vote for the ticket in November, anyway. Certainly, that's just my opinion. Some votes would be lost, but she would bring a lot of votes, as well. I'm only mentioning her as a VP possibility if this continued battle looks like it is going to run the Democratic Party off the proverbial cliff and the two strike a deal to stop the bleeding. Unless something happened to Obama, highly unlikely, Clinton would never be President. She's 60 now. In 8 years, she'd be 68. I don't think there is another Presidential run in her future if she runs as the VP. Impeach Bush.
Whereas I am supporting Obama, I can't agree with your conclusions. Of the three candidates left, McCain is by far the most qualified to be President. However, there is more to being President. We desperately need a President who can unite rather than divide the nation. I think Obama has a better chance at healing the divisiveness -- and that in itself trumps McCain's qualifications. On the other hand, if Hillary is able to subvert the democratic imperative, I shall return to being a Republican. I will do all that I can to help McCain, from raising money from neighbors and clients to working the precincts. If you believe Bush was a hurricane of national destruction, Hillary is a Category 5 poised to strike our land. IMO and in the opinion of many, many others, she is vindictive to the extreme, corrupt to the core, money-grubbing beyond belief, pernicious, power-crazed...have I made my feelings clear that she will be a national disaster or should I go on?
I share Deckard's opinion despite thumbs and some other expressing otherwise. Some of these "I'll vote for Obama but not if Hillary is VP" may be 100% sincere (I think others are just so afraid of another Clinton in the WH they are just saying it with no plans to vote for him regardless), but then I doubt come election time these folks would really have voted for him with another VP (e.g., Edwards) given that Obama/Clinton shared center-left positions are so similar (particularly with the far left paint is thrown on Obama from the right wing--it might stick to those inclined to be really concerned about it).
Those of us who will vote for Obama but not for Clinton are the ones who put a higher value on character, integrity & honesty for who we want running this country.
It is going to be hard for anyone to beat John McCain on those things. Heck, I don't care for him politically at all, but I'd rate him high in those things (as far as politicans go). McCain is going to have been taken out based on failed policies he plans to continue/status quo--not his character.
This isn't over anytime soon. Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania -- which was 4 last week -- is already up to 15. From that article: That's the scenario she needs to make a real appeal to superdelegates.
Except he was cleared of those charges by the leading Democrat investigating this. Here is a transcript of what it actually SAID. In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain's conduct: "Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral. "The Committee reaffirms its prior decision that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of disclosure or reimbursement pertaining to flights provided by American Continental Corporation while Senator McCain was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Committee did consider the effect of such on his state of mind and judgment in taking steps to assist Lincoln. "Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry." TRY AGAIN!
