If Obama loses, it's because he won't have ran his campaign well and because he didn't manage the counterpunch against the inevitable Republican negative campaign tactics. And if you listen to his SC victory speech, he DOES swing back when someone's taken a cheap shot at him. He does so in a relatively dignified manner, but it's a swing back, done in a fashion that is quite atypical. And yet so far he may have been connecting with the counterpunches.

He seems rather resolute on the 'only counterpunch' strategy when it comes to cheap shots. Does he rail against the effectiveness of Republican plans? Yeah, he does. That's what the opposition party does. But I think he's doing so in a fashion that's well done and doesn't come across as sleazy or cheap.

Hillary's associates from the Clinton days are used to trench warfare and know how to go about it, but the Dems are not happy to see that sort of thing being used, and I suspect that it's going to be a critical factor in the next week. If the Clintons take their licks and clean up their act, they're going to be at a slight but predictable disadvantage, hoping that the party network contacts they have will be enough to pull them through. If they go negative again, well, that may turn a whole bunch of Democratic party people against the Clintons for good.

I trust the Clintons to run a passable campaign, though Hillary's personal charisma is always going to be facing off against her high negatives and the latent hostility towards known, familiar quantities. Familiarity breeds contempt, and there's a whole lot of contempt out there for the Clintons among the GOP and a bunch of independents.

I would rather take a chance on a really great candidate with wide appeal and unrivaled potential against a candidate who will guarantee four more years of ugly, knuckle-dragging conflict.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Her filth has turned me off so much I'd be very tempted to sit out the election if she got the nod. She makes me SICK. And a LOT of people I spoke to at the caucus said the same, or that they would rather vote McCain.

And Republicans LOATHE her. More than any other Dem candidate, I think. I think that's why they are being so NICE to her, they know the Republican turnout would be HUGE if she won the dem nod.

I think my father alone would drive to neighbors to pick them up and take them to vote against her, I swear.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I just hope that Huckabee doesn't win because the Democrats run Hillary or Obama. I mean... ew.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Huckabee is Not My Style. No, not at all.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Got a good solution to that, actually -- the winner has to make the loser his/her running mate. I mean, I picked Obama because when he speaks he really gets to me, but in the end I think they'd both make good Presidents. I could really dig an Obama administration with HC playing the Dick Cheney role. The First Black Man/Woman Vice President certainly cannot be made a posterchild for unelectability.

--m4

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I can hope. But I don't know that they'd work well together. If I won, and I was Obama, Hillary would be the last person I'd choose because I'd be terrified that she'd be continually undercutting me. And I don't know that Obama would properly cover Hillary's weaknesses.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Does "genderist" mean something different than "sexist"?

(Reply) (Thread)

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

In a way I agree, but what I saw in the last couple of weeks was that here in SC at least was that race and gender were factors bigger than experience and personality. I know more than a few people who would have voted for a white Obama, and instead of the black one, went for Edwards.

With Hilary, you're probably right. Some other woman might be able to do it right now. But there's something so circular about her situation.She wouldn't be running if it weren't for her connection with Bill, and yet Bill now is her biggest liability. So a woman like Hilary is right now the only kind who can get that far. Nancy Pelosi's situation might suggest otherwise, but she had to win a public election only in a very unusual part of the country, and then finagle a political situation. So a woman coming through the same route most men do (first Governor or Senate just on their own power, then running for nomination) isn't happening. And that's the evidence that a woman, any woman, still can't win in the US. She can't even play yet, without coattails.

Not to say I voted for Billary--you're too right about the quantity and quality of her baggage.

(Reply) (Thread)

It wasn't just Bill's coattails. She's only senator because Moynihan handed it to her on a silver platter. Given the political climate at the time in NYS, Moynihan could have said GIVE KIBBLES MY JOB WHEN I RETIRE and I would currently be NYS's rep.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm an Obama supporter. I like the guy, I've seen him speak. Still, haven't he and Hillary got, more or less, the same basic lack of credentials?

Obama was a state senator, then a US senator, now he is taking a shot at the White House because it seems like the next interesting thing to do.

Hillary was a state First Lady, then a US First Lady, then a US Senator. She thinks she wins the "experience" debate, running for the White House on a resume like this!

What makes Hillary seem so "nakedly ambitious" as you put it? I get the same feeling from her, too, but I can't put my finger on it. I'm half terrified it's because she's a woman and I'm stuffing her into the "bitch" trap women fall into when they're entering a male-dominated field.

I was saddened by the results of a study I read recently (I wish I could find it again) that demonstrated that work done by a woman was automatically rated lower than work done by a man. In the case of the study, different people were shown identical creations and then told either a man or a woman was the creator. The people who were told the work was done by a woman automatically judged it more critically and gave it less credit. Women do this to other women. Women do this to themselves by believing their work is not as valuable as the work of the man next to them, even if the work is equivalent. It's not just men who are forcing women to work harder and perform to higher standards just to get the same raises and promotions. It's something ingrained into us.

I'm worried that I'm rating her too low.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I haven't heard her identified as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in quite some time. Does that seem significant to you?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm just scared of Huckabee. I'd rather vote for anyone besides him. *Shudder* So many people I know think he's "not that bad" because he seems like a nice guy personality-wise, but reading about all the stuff he wants to do... It's scary.

I'd much prefer to vote for Obama, but I'd vote for Hilary if she got the nomination and didn't do anything too terribly stupid to fuck it up.

(Reply) (Thread)

Huckabee is an amusing candidates in many ways. His two biggest strengths are also his biggest weaknesses because of how they play against each other. (Some) Republicans like Huckabee because he's religious. But then they don't like him because he's waaaaay too big government. (Some) Democrats might well like Huckabee's big government ideas, but they don't like him because he's too religious. I don't think there's any way he'll be the Republican nominee, I hope he isn't a veep candidate. But it terrifies me to think of how incredibly bitterly divisive and hateful the campaign will be if it's Huckabee vs. Obama.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Dear Ferrett,

Please do not use "Hillary" and "nakedly" in the same sentence again, as long as Sen. Clinton remains in public life.

Yours,
-- dingo

P.S. -- I agree with your post overall. Do you think it's also a fair statement that even if those who would never vote for a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] and those who would vote for a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] just for the sake of having a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] president aren't of comparable number, it's pretty likely that most who would never are Republicans who would also never vote for a Democrat, and most who would blindly are Democrats who would also never vote for a Republican, so it would still manage to be negligible? (Full Disclosure: I'm a Republican)

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm going to ask this odd question that keeps running through my mind: Obama's parents are mixed: one white, one black. Yet we call him a "black man". Isn't he equally a "white man"? Why does our society still feel the need to call a man with one drop of "black" blood as black, when equally you could say that one drop of white blood made him "white"?

Just something to think about.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I wonder the same thing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm an Obama supporter but mainly it is a generational thing. I am tired of baby boomer fights in politics. It seems to me that lots of the partisan fighting in politics is about how boomers spent their youth in the 1960s and the politics of resentment. The ones who stayed square resent the ones who tuned in, turned on, and dropped out and vice-versa. It's the beehive and the crew cut vs. guys with longhair and women who did not get married right after college.

However I do not think that nominating Obama or Hillary equals automatic defeat. Maybe I am sheilded because I live in the Democratic stronghold that is New York City but I think we are well beyond the days of presidential candidates being handed McGovern and Mondale styled defeats. No Republican candidate is the heir to Reagan and I think that the GOP candidates only hurt themselves by pretending to be so. Bush just narrowly defeated Kerry. The Democrats can at least count on all the states they won in 2004 easily. Plus we are about to enter the worst economic climate this country as seen since the Great Depression and are stuck in an increasingly unpopular war. This things never help the party in control of the White House see the elections of 1920, 1932, 1952, 1976, 1980, and 1992.

Let's say the polls are accurate. Right now I have seen polls that have McCain beating Clinton 46 percent to 44 percent and Clinton beating Romney 52 percent to 36 percent. 2 points is easy to change and her lead over Romney is staggering. The GOP field is a god forsaken mess. The Evangelical contenders have proven to be lazy like Thompson or so-far one hit wonders like Huckabee who would have severly less funds than any Democratic candidate. Ron Paul only appeals to a looney fringe. "America's Mayor" Giuliani is a joke. I think the GOP is more dispirited than anything else and they just might stay at home. Meanwhile Democratic primaries and caucuses have been having record turnouts.

(Reply) (Thread)

and Gore shouldn't have put himself into a place where he could get mugged by the Supreme Court in Florida in 2000 (coming off the heels of Clinton in an era of peace and prosperity, his not winning in a landslide was a catastrophe).

Bear in mind that, while he did get more votes overall, the only reason Bush got close in FL was because FL's Secretary of State and Supervisor of Elections was also the head of his campaign in FL, and she illegally threw over 55,000 people off the voter rolls. Details can be found in this music video if you don't feel like reading Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Anyway, my point (yes, I have one) is that the Supreme Court couldn't have mugged Gore if Katharine Harris hadn't hit him over the back of the head with a sock full of quarters first.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

You know what? If the fucking election is 55,000 people close and you're running as the successor to a President with a positive poll rating and we're in a huge economic swing and you have peace and prosperity for most folks...

THEN YOU FUCKED IT UP.

That shouldn't have been 55,000 votes close. That shouldn't have been Florida close. That should have been a sweep so large that it pushed Bush away - hell, Rove was shocked that it happened - and instead, Gore mismanaged his campaign to the point where the equivalent of a bully wanting your milk money could topple him over.

He's the Vice President. He got mugged. No shame in that, except in this case Gore had the Secret Service protecting him and he still got jacked. Oops.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not at all convinced that a Republican will win the next election, given how fed up even staunch Republicans are with the current administration.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Not to mention how unenthusiastic they are over the current crop of candidates. Too many people getting too excited over Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, that the primaries have already left many feeling defeated and uninspired.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Honestly, I think a woman or a black man will be President, not because America has gotten over any racism or sexism, but because so many Americans hate Dubya.

Realistically speaking, if anyone thought it was a tight race, Edwards would be doing a lot better and Obama would be a Veep. But the Republicans have such a terrible field that all Super Tuesday is probably going to do is make the infighting and hostility that much worse. The only candidate with a real shot is McCain, and I think the national party leadership will commit seppuku rather than back him at this point.

(Reply) (Thread)

I agree with all this.

I would like to point out, however, that Kevin Federline is too young to run for president. You need to be 35, and he is... I'm not sure how old, but not over 30.

Although 5 years from now I still wouldn't want to vote for him.

I would love to see a woman as president, but I'm not convinced that Hillary would make a good president. So I tried to think, well, what woman would I like to see as president? And I can think of literally 3 well-known women in positions of political power in the US (Hillary, Condi, and Nancy Pelosi), and that pisses me off.

(Reply) (Thread)

Either one of California's senators would piss me off less than Hillary. Of course, Boxer and Feinstein are Jews. I'm also fond of Mikulski, but she's too old and also a lesbian. (But then again so what, so's Condi.)

Too bad, because all three of them are more groundbreaking than Hillary.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Um. Edwards is a North Carolinian. Our old Senator.

Also, I would rather vote for McCain than Hilary, but an Obama/Edwards ticket will make my heart sing.

(Reply) (Thread)

My bad. You north-south states blur together.

Why can't you Voltron it up and just become Carolina?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Hell, ask any loser of a Presidential campaign, because until now every last one of them has been a white guy.

Victoria Woodhull? Belva Lockwood? Margaret Chase Smith?
Shirley Chisholm? Jesse Jackson? Lenora Fulani?

(Reply) (Thread)

I know what you mean. But I was referring to an officially nominated ticket, and the Democrats haven't picked Jesse Jackson or Shirley Chisholm as their nominee.

I thought I made that clear, but if not, I apologize.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm actually glad that we have a black man and a white woman both running so that neither can lose to a white man. To me, it weakens the arguments of whoever is going to complain at the loss - we've had an unprecedented race and no matter what happens there will be at least one candidate who isn't a white male who has a good shot for the presidency. That's awesome.

(Reply) (Thread)

Just want to put in here that anyone considering Romney because of his "experience" should talk to somebody from Mass. first. He was the butt of many jokes regarding his continual absences, out on the campaign trail for the next step to President. He did nothing of any import here, and left the actual running of the state to his Lt.Governor for much of the time.

(Reply) (Thread)

If I were a Paulian, the biggest offense I'd take is that he took second billing to Kevin Federline in a political discussion.

(Reply) (Thread)

As a Paulian, that is the biggest offense. Especially since polish is the only thing I think Paul lacks.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Not that I think that Edwards stands a chance, and not that I think that he would be a good candidate, but I honestly believe that it's important that he stays in the race.

Edwards, in my mind, is the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" candidate. He's the one remotely viable candidate that admitted that he was wrong on his vote about the war (::gives Hillary the evil eye::) and it gives voice to those of us who want to see a good portion of this administration hanging off of sticks.

A vote for Edwards helps to push the party in that direction, and since the Illinois nomination is a foregone conclusion I can gladly cast my vote on ideological issues.

He's got my vote. Stay in the race!

(Reply) (Thread)

Assuming that is true, how does it matter? The very philosophical focus of Obama's campaign is to stop America's guts from hating each other. And Hillary is hardly the kind of politician that gets moved by a concern for justice and morals.

Now, if you absolutely don't care about which one of them gets the nomination, then by all means try that. But if you do have a preference, then you can help by voting for your actual pick. Yes, even in Illinois - the percentages determine how many delegates each candidate gets.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not going to read through the 84 other comments, so likely I'm echoing somebody else here when I say that I think you're a little too pessimistic about the Democrat's chances in the general election. Democratic turnout has been steadily growing at the primaries (the PRIMARIES!) while Republican turnout has been consistently low and decreasing. I think the Democrats are, by and large, ready to be done with Republican rule from the White House, and I think Republicans are, by and large, not all that excited about any of their candidates. If Huckabee wins, he loses the vote of most actual conservatives. If Romney wins, he loses the vote of Christian conservatives. McCain is the only one who might draw from both pools, but I don't think his appeal is going to be strong enough among the right wing of the party to pull out a win in the general election. Plus, he looks bad on stage.

(And I'm surprised that Edwards hasn't already dropped out. Last night is a clear sign that the best he can hope for in this race is a distant third.)

(Reply) (Thread)

What part of Hillary being ambitious are you uncomfortable with? I ask because it seems to me that anyone looking to run for president has to have a fair amount of ambition, so an ambitious personality in politics must be fairly normal.

(Reply) (Thread)

One upside is that if Hillary is the odd Democrat out (pleaseohpleaseohplease), she's probably the most polarizing Democrat since...ummm...ever? She's the Yankees/Patriots of politics. I think she may draw more ire than Bush II, who seems to be more incompetant than anything. As I said explained to someone when they said to me "You just don't like her because she's a woman", "No, I hate her because he's a bitch." She's been making enemies since she was just some random Arkansas lawyer.

For the most part, unless you're some ignorant hick who thinks because he's got a funny name then those chain emails about how he's part of THA EEEEVIL MOOSLAM CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW U-S-OF-A!!!, you don't hate the guy. You may feel he's inexperianced or his platform isn't sufficiently defined, but the venom and anger just isn't there.

Hillary loses and it will eventually drown in the sea of hate for her. Obama loses and there's not as much of an excuse.

On the other hand, if Obama loses because of inexperiance (either for the Democratic nomination or when it comes crunch time in November), I'd be curious to see if he goes again in 2012 when he has more of the experiance people complain he lacks.

All the polish in the world couldn't catapult Kevin Federline or Ron Paul into office.

FWIW, I'm curious to see how Ron Paul scores in the Florida primaries on Tuesday. The number of signs & stickers for him I have seen in my county blows away everyone else in either party.

(Reply) (Thread)

I know that in the past, someone purported to do a "scientific study" showing that Americans were too racially biased for a black candidate to successfully run for President. The "methodology"? They asked people "would you vote for a black candidate for President?" and interpreted any delay in answering as the time the people were taking to censor their racial biases.

It couldn't have anything to do with people wanting to stop and consider an obviously loaded question about race carefully, of course... that hypothesis couldn't possibly explain the evidence...

(Reply) (Thread)

I can't wait until the US joins some other Western nations in a world where when candidates are running, particularly inside their own parties, the discussion focuses around their policies and track records FIRST, and their gender and ethnicity and race SECOND.

(Reply) (Thread)

Tell me about it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)