Agreed. A campaign targeting African American voters in order to suppress them would be reprehensible. And that's what made people so upset here. Apart from the, you know, targeting African Americans part, or the, hmm, suppressing votes part... but if we keep digging, there's sure to be an Outrage Pony somewhere!
Obama gave some money to superdelegates, so that is at least in the neighborhood of cash-for-votes. But how does voter registration compare to that? Why would a Clinton supporter call it "bribery"? The snark here is way too meta-level.
IMHO it'd be funnier to say, deadpan, that Obama's voter registration drive shows the heights of his disturbing elitism.
Even as a joke, I don't get it. Do you really think that Hillary Clinton supporters would have a problem with this? How can voter registration, even in a joking way, be equated to "bribery"? Good on him.
Is it me you're disagreeing with? I meant to say pretty much the same thing, that the Republican attack machine is in a constant state of readiness no matter the candidate. They savaged two candidates, Gore and Kerry, who were mostly known for their blandness. They'll savage Obama, and they'll savage Clinton. Picking Obama doesn't mitigate the force of the Republican attack machine.
So we actually agree. I'm sorry that wasn't more clear originally.
The Republican base will come out. If Republicans can get themselves whipped into a frenzy about a technocrat like Gore and a decorated veteran like Kerry, you can rest assured that they'll be good and lathered up to face either Obama or Clinton.
Saying that Obama has been "uncritical" is un-comprehensible. His WHOLE PITCH is that Hillary's experience makes her part of the problem; she's status quo, more of the same; she's part of The Old Way that he's arrived to transform into The New Way. He's been taking potshots at Bill Clinton since the beginning too. Critical. As he should be.
The gist of his speech was that Hillary was in her element in the debate format, alluding somewhat to his less than stellar debate performance, but that he is going to "brush it off"
Please. He was "alluding to his less than stellar debate performance"? No. Chance. He was saying that the moderators were throwing shit, Hillary liked it that way, and when you're hit with shit, you just gotta wipe the shit off.
Yes, I think she could have said that. She's being a bit coy -- "I'm talking about myself, not Senator Obama, unless you want to hear it that way."
I almost half expect it to be one of those brain-teasers: "I said one of us was ready. But that doesn't mean the other one of us isn't also ready! Gotcha!"
You know, like how you ask a person to think of two coins that add up to 15 cents and one of them isn't a nickel, and they get all confused, and you tell them the answer is "a dime and a nickel," and then they say "But you said one isn't a nickel," and then you say, "Right, the other one is!" :P
Moreover, every time he's asked, and often when he isn't, Obama says that HRC would be a great president, much better than McCain (though, he says, he thinks he would be better). When HRC is asked if Obama is qualified to be president, HRC typically says "that's for the voters to decide."
I haven't seen those quotes, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. I have seen Clinton praise Obama frequently and generously.
I would again just point out that she might think Obama would be a great president despite his (supposed) inexperience.
Everyone who's ever been in a position to hire someone knows that sometimes you pick the candidate whose resume shows less experience but more creativity, and sometimes you pick the one with more experience and less creativity.
Just to personalize, I know that I was hired at a nonprofit without having the experience they were looking for. Was I qualified to be a grant writer? The resume said, probably not. I'd never, you know, been one. But it was up to the people doing the hiring to decide. I wasn't qualified based on experience. But I guess I had other qualities they liked.
So the answer to "is he qualified for the job?" doesn't have to be exactly the same as "would he be good at the job?" I think Clinton would readily say that Obama would be a good president, whether or not he is "qualified" by the single measure of "experience." "Inexperienced" isn't the same as "beneath consideration."