"Though I'm pretty skeptical that Obama and his campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine..."

First, there is little basis for this assertion.

Second, we only remember Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot.

Obama's far more electable than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. This I believe.

"Though I'm pretty skeptical that Obama and his campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine..."

Agreed Jerome and you speak the truth.

I remember some politician's bitter remark on election night 1960 when Nixon was leading. "It was a Democratic year and they had to run a Catholic."

Democratic years are the time to run a Catholic, or an African-American, or a Latino, or a woman (just not THAT woman).

How can Obama beat the Republican machine, look at how poorly he's fared against the Clinton machine.  I guess we are stupid, we just don't see that we need to practice fear of racism to continue racism.

What in the world makes you guys think Obama cannot win one on one?  And you think Clinton can?

Not another bullshit "electability" argument...

There are no real facts which support your assertion that Obama would unable to beat the Republican machine.

Obama has fantastic approval ratings among all voters and has shown a draw for Republicans who want change.

Most importantly, Clinton has been attacking him and he has demonstrated the ability to hit back without looking vicious.

He is exactly the candidate we need to win the general election.

The fun part about this election is that I suspect we will get to test Jerome's skepticism about Obama's chances.  He's gonna win the nomination folks and then he's going to beat the tar out of whoever the GOP nominee is.  

Frankly, I think one of Obama's best lines covers how he will strike back at the Republican slime machine.  Hit back fast, repeatedly, and TRUTHFULLY.  I also believe that slime is likely to be the least effective against someone that people tend to like and respect.  I expect Obama to have much more "slime teflon" than Clinton (who more than 50% are already wary of, or worse) or the 2007-08 version of John Edwards.

Is it just about race?  In that sense, I see Obama as uniquely transcendent (sp?) - much like Oprah (oddly enough).  Obama doesn't come across as an "Uncle Tom" to African Americans or as "the other" to white folks.  I'm not certain whether America is ready for "a" black candidate for President.  But I do think it is ready for "this" one.

If Huckabee gets it, I think it will guarantee that a lot of the GOP's corporate elite will bail, making a Bloomburg candidacy more likely(not that he needs the money). I think he will do it if its clear that he won't throw the election to the GOP and these intial polls seem to indicate that he wouldn't.

I'm sick of all these race-based anti-Obama comments.

"I'm not voting for Obama because he's black. No, you see, I'm not racist, but I'm afraid the rest of the country is. And nominating a woman's a little iffy, too."

And honestly, Jerome, if Obama can beat the Clinton machine and come out smelling like roses, why do you think he'd fare worse in the general election? Or do you think that any Democrat would lose a one-on-one race in 2008?

He's winning in every national head to head poll against Republicans when all most of those people know about him is he's black.  Every state where they get to know him and hear him he goes up and Clinton goes down.  He has raised more money than any candidate, has more people donating money, and has more people volunteering.  Colin Powell showed that the right Black man, the one with crossover appeal who does not come off as threatening to the other side, has the potential to win the election.  But we must fear, fear, fear.  We hear it.  It is all about fear. We put up these white, male, centrists who lose again and again but we must fear.  That road is rapidly aging.

The GOP will have no better attack lines than Clinton.  Naive and irresponsible didn't work the first time and will sound trite if used by the GOP. Romney, a one term unsuccessful governor, can hardly claim he is more experienced than Obama, and Huckabee has no foreign policy experience.  

But the most important point is that even GOP strategist say this is a change election.  Every GOP candidate is running for Bush's third term, something republicans don't even want.  And Obama, all polls show, represents change.

And it certainly matters who the GOP nominee is.  Mark McKinnon, former Bush media strategist and now with McCain, said last week that the GOP nominee will be either the winner of Iowa or NH, at this point that means Huckabee or Romney.  Huckabee will run strong in the south, but has really little chance anywhere else.  Romney would lose probably 40 states.  Republicans really dislike him and independents hate him.  Giuliani might be the toughest, but the scandal with his mistress is too much even for NYers.  

And for those to whom polls matter most, Obama leads all republicans in lilly-white Iowa, by greater percentages than Clinton and Edwards.  So the one place in the US where all the candidates are well-known, Obama wins.    

Finally, the race card.  While it is strickly opposition to anyone not white for some (which voters are unlikely to support any Dem nominee) it is more about what black means.  But regardless of what it means in other contexts, Obama is different.  First, because he is biracial and multi-cultural.  Second, he is in my estimation the smartest person running for president.  Third, and this is purely superficial, he is handsome.  That is to say, Obama is not "scary," he's intellectual and charming.

your premise is just ridiculous.  Maybe a little of it has to do with the difference in the total numbers of white women in the country vs. the total number of african-americans.  or the traditional difference in the level of opportunity for white women vs. african-americans...

If Hillary supporters can claim any criticism of her as sexism then this is certainly racism...

I don't buy the unelectablility line either.  Right now, I would guess "generic Dem" has a structural advantage in all of Kerry's states plus OH, CO, NM, and IA for sure, and possibly even states like VA, KY, and FL.  That's just based on the current political mood and the 06 election.  It would take a candidate that is actively despised by a large segment of people to blow that lead.  I don't think that Obama is that person.  If anything, Clinton is that person, but I don't believe that even she wouldbe at a disadvantage against any GOP nominee, especially given that the GOP doesn't have anyone that all of their currently fracturing factions are excited about.

Nominate Huckabee and you have a pro-business Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy.  Nominate Giuliani and you've got a Bible banger 3rd party candidacy.  Nominate McCain and you've got a "kill all Mexicans" 3rd party candidacy.  They are really coming apart at the seams.

Jerome, I'm waiting for the anti-Obama punch line...

Yes, because Hillary's campaign has shown such strength so far. I wonder what Rudy wrote in kindergarden?

And Edwards? I love the guy, but his campaign has been nothing short of pathetic. He can't raise money, can't get any media hits, etc, etc.

Jerome,

In the past few weeks, the number of pro-Clinton and anti-Obama posts have been ... well, gobsmackingly silly. The Arkansas poll was the most comical of them.

My response? I'm not going rant, you can do what you like on your blog. I'm simply to follow mydd.com anymore. You probably don't care.

I'm pretty skeptical that you can say anything even remotely objective about Obama. In Iowa Obama is up ablut 20 points over the GOP candidates and that's the state where everyone knows the candidates the way we all will come next November.

I'm an Obama supporter, but to be fair I think all Jerome is saying is that Barack hasn't been very aggressive against Hillary. It's a legitimate concern that he'd be vulnerable to race-baiting and swift-boating. I don't agree with this calculation (I think Obama would probably do a little better than Hillary), but it's not craziness or racism.

This diary is just another of Jerome's anti-Obama diaries. Thats all it is... .Now why Jerome, who was a pretty respected blogger,has decided to go in this direction is something we don't know. Its odd though... When Obama is being blasted by so called progressives its very weird (many of these progressives are now trying to stop Obama by writing that because he is black he can't win! Now this is a very strange brand of progressivism; "The country are racists and will not vote for a black man so we must not either!")...Maybe its because he is not willing to suck up to them and be "their" candidate. He is trying to appeal to a broader swatch of America. This is precisely why he is electable. Where he to pander to MyDD/DailyKos then I don't think he would be very electable. But we've heard these electability arguments before. Howard Dean was not electable but Kerry would take it in a walk - we were told- because Kerry was innoculated against attacks due to his service... We know what a load of crap that turned out to be much like we know this diary is a load of crap.

People ought to vote for whom they like not for whom they think "others" might like.  

If Obama wins the primary, I want to see him pick a VP who will help win a crucial state -- someone from Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, etc.  I'd say the same for the others too.

CT and NJ know who Bloomberg is, and these numbers are signs of Bloomberg's regional appeal.  But how would these change in Arkansas or Mississippi?  Would Missouri Republicans vote for Bloomberg?  And what of conservative Democrats in the South?  Would they abandon the Party for Bloomberg?

These are the questions we should be asking.  And no, I am not impressed with the Obama campaign's relentless battery of Jerome Armstrong.

...that Clinton and her campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine.

After all, her husband never won a majority of the vote.

Bloomberg will take more from the Democrats, NOT Republicans. Once the country finds out he is an ultra liberal New Yorker who is anti-war, his votes will come from Democrats. Ron Paul will also take a good chunk of Democrats because of what he preaches.

There is strong skepticism not only from white democrats,
but an ever higher doubts among Black voters.

The internals coming out of South Carolina don't support this at all.

There is no chance that Barry Obama could win the presidency?

There is no chance that he could win any swing state?

Really?

that's what the greatest number of pur presidents were.

oh...wait...I forgot...Hillary convinced Mark Warner not to run for president.

Jerome, This is a clear-cut case of constipated thinking.

The same kind that said Kerry was best in 2004.

The same kind that said the 50 State Strategy was a waste of time.

The same kind that keeps Democrats from leading.

Obama will win the nomination.

He will win the general election in a LANDSLIDE.

Man, I am really starting to get upset about Jerome's unreasonable sniping of Obama. Just because they call you the blogfather doesn't mean you have to act like the mafia. Obama got big without the netroots and that is the real reason Jerome is being a dick about his rise. The big name bloggers like to fashion themselves kingmakers and don't appreciate when candidates make it without first kissing the ring. Get over yourself Jerome, it is getting pretty lame.

Imagine how you'll feel when/if Obama wins the nomination and/or the election? In the inimitable words of Chris Rock, "Do you want to look back and say, why did I support that white [guy]?"

Outside of the tri-state area and maybe southern NE, where would someone like Bloomberg have any support? I doubt many even moderate Ds are looking for someone outside the party, and all the major R candidates are pretty moderate (election related conversions not withstanding). I feel like the real third party constituency with nationwide appeal is the Lou Dobbs, nativist, anti-immigration, anti-trade coalition that Perot strung together. People compare Bloomberg to Perot, but they have almost nothing in common.

I've posted this before - but why do people keep saying Obama's race will hold him back and ignore Clinton's gender? Every poll I've seen shows people are twice as likely not to vote for a woman as for a black candidate.

I think both of them can win, but there's something disingenuous about hearing the race argument from people who support Clinton.

If you didn't know the magazine this was in, would you think it conservative?  The idea that whites do not find Obama appealing is dead wrong.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu blic/Articles/000/000/014/463haksg.asp

This kind of politicaly saavy analysis would have us throw away our natural advantage on the Iraq War by nominating someone who either voted for the War or even worse, co-sponsored it.  This professional analysis thinks saying you made a mistake which cost people their lives is a sellable concept.  This analysis would have us lose voters to a 3rd party campaign by either Bloomberg or Paul who would be more correct on the War than our candidate.   Is there any better proof than this that the same old textbook politics just won't do?

Obama could not win a general election.  He could not carry one Southern State.  

you know, i feel there's a lot of artfully-veiled low-level racism floating around this topic and it really bothers me coming from a group that considers itself "progressive."  keeping someone at arm's length just because you're afraid of what others may think of your association with them is a pretty cowardly position-- personally or politically.  

(also, a convenient way to disguise your own prejudices....)  

one more thing...bloomberg is NOT running!!

as a nyc resident, we've been hearing this story floating around the media for ages!  he has said without equivocation that he is not going to run.  (the only people still not convinced seem to be gray's papaya...)

personally, i feel that he probably was planning on it for some time, but decided to sit out when he realized that he might just be a spoiler for the dem.  

however, in the freak occurrence that he does decide to run, the enormous difference he has with other potential 3rd party candidates is that he is fucking LOADED.  He basically bought his first term, and i don't think he would have any problem dumping hundreds of millions of his own cash into a pres. run.

The USA can elect almost anybody; as long as they are gazillionaires or have access to gazillions.

My God, it even elected George W Bush in 2004.

And then there was Reagan and Nixon and poor old HW, even US Grant.

So it could elect Obama; particularly if he gets Tiger Woods to go along side Oprah.