• So 8 years (arguably 16) of national experience versus 3, you do not see as a huge disparity?

    That is almost 3x, or around 6x (which is what I give her) the amount of exposure to the types of national and international issues that will confront her than Obama has.  I see that as a tremendous disparity.

    As far as I'm concerned, Obama's experience in the Illinois legislature is great experience... for staying in the legislature.  If I was "Lord of the Democrats", that is exactly where I would keep him for the next 4 to 8 years.

  • Because she did not think that George W. Bush was bats*!t insane?  I will give her credit for that - Colin Powell and lots of other people were misled.  I opposed the war, but I don't necessarily oppose the idea of trusting the commander in chief to use the intelligence he / she sees to make the right call.  Of course, now I would oppose Bush doing ANYTHING.  But we did not realize that Bush was hell-bent on going to war with Iraq until well after the authorization vote.

  • Hehe - I voted for Clinton in Texas.  Hope that helps!

  • I don't think Obama's ad will be effective here.  Hehe - I am personally nauseated by all of the Obama ads I see here in the Houston market.  But, I think in this particular case, Hillary finally has hit on the over-arching message "Who do you trust?"  Obama points to specifics of why you can trust him more.  But so far in this campaign, the side having to resort to details is the losing side.  The question still lingers.... can we trust this guy?  He's an unknown.

    Sure, if you go to DailyKos or online boards, they are saying "I trust Obama to answer the phone".  But, that's not a scientific sample.  I think Hillary's ad plays better to Democratic fears of being "swift-boated" again by the powerful Republican machine in November.  And in Texas, Democrats do not underestimate the power of Republicans to fight back and destroy us.

  • >>Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama has more supporters.

    This is not really true.  They are statistically even against McCain right now, both drawing 50%, and Clinton fares better in some of the major battleground states like OH, PA, and FL that will be crucial to winning in November.  Not Wisconsin, not Idaho, not Mississippi - OH, PA, FL.

  • >> You never support the assertion, you just throw it out there as if it were a fact.

    See John Kerry circa 2004.  Hey, I will agree with you that Obama's position may be enough to win the primary.  But I think if we are going to look at which candidate truly represents the majority of Americans wishes on security and foreign policy, we are not looking for "radical change" from the status quo, we are looking for "incremental change".  End the Iraq war - we agree on - but how to do so, and to what extent we need to engage other enemy states,
    - is a big question.

    >>Your basic prescription seems to be that Dems should continue to surrender to the politics of fear and smear.  Obama is showing how to stand up to the politics of fear without being hyper-partisan.  Obama is the one who is attracting most of the indies and disaffected Repubs so I don't get your "centrist" comment at all.

    Hehe - I hardly think that electing a Clinton is a "return to the politics of fear".  Yes, Bill and Hillary Clinton - warmongers!  Hehe....

    >>Obama is the one who is attracting most of the indies and disaffected Repubs so I don't get your "centrist" comment at all.

    I am speaking about foreign policy issues.  Hillary is the centrist candidate who will best be able to neutralize McCain's position.  Obama is drawing Repubs and independents right now because of other things he may represent, like "turning the page on the past".  But I do not think that such naive optimism on foreign policy / security will win over independents and Republicans once the RNC / McCain take off the kid gloves and go after this guy with all they've got.  

  • I too am totally not excited about an Obama campaign.  He is another Jimmy Carter.

  • I live in Texas and I think Hillary's ad plays well here.  Even the Democrats here are sort of conservative.  I think this was a strategic ad to help shore up Texas.

  • I disagree that this is in any way a gift to Obama.

    This is going to shore up her support among "real people" - not college students and yuppies, but real people who actually have kids, can remember the times leading up to the Iraq war, etc.  

    Really people... Obama is the guy you want going against McCain?  Obama is going to get eaten for lunch.  And all the great domestic ideas we have are going to have to take a back seat to a warmonger because we nominated Che Guevara when the country was ready for a centrist.

    What Dems need to do is attempt to NEUTRALIZE the built-in Republican advantage on national security, and win on domestic issues and the economy.  Hillary does this.  Obama is attempting to win on national security - sorry but most people think "the surge" is at least ok, or maybe even working, and we should leave Iraq "with honor".  Hillary gets this.  Obama does not.  This is a losing battle for Obama.

  • No, Mississippi is an almost meaningless state.  If Clinton gets above 37% there and wins TX and OH, then Mississippi is a huge victory for her given its African American population.  

  • There are several reports in TX (I live in Houston) about a concerted Republican effort to vote for Obama to make sure that a Clinton is never again in the White House.  When you walk into the polling location, you have to state whether you are voting Democrat or Republican - one guy apparently said "Democrat... aren't we all today?" with a grin on his face.  Sneaky sneaky.

    Clinton needs a huge Hispanic turnout and possibly a Richardson endorsement to carry TX.  Also, she needs to close well - I think all of these things are quite possible.  She should focus on the economy, immigration, and opposition to the Texas Trans Corridor and Rick Perry here.

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago


    Please, all this about "challenging someone" in future elections based on their decision as a superdelegate is pretty absurd.

  • on a comment on Second Debate Thread over 6 years ago

    It is a larger question than that.  It is: "if a known bigot / racist supports you, are you willing to reject that support?"

    Obama has huge black support.  But should that support include Nation of Islam?  Well, he cannot reject them at the polling booth, but he can tell them to get lost.

    If, for instance, a KKK leader endorsed anyone, I should hope that their support would be soundly rejected, not tacitly accepted like the Republicans routinely do, and like I think Obama would like to be able to do with his Nation of Islam supporters - even though they are just as bad as the KKK.

    I am wary of Obama as a Jewish voter for his ties to his pastor, Farrakhan, and his statements like "Israel is one of our most important allies in the Middle East", not "the most important ally in the Middle East".  Also, by his willingness to negotiate with presumably anyone and everyone, which in the past has not always worked out so great for the Jewish people.  See Neville Chamberlain.

    I think it is pretty easy for the Jewish voter to see how naive Obama's policies sound - because we have dealt with the issues of peace in the Middle East, terrorism, and national self-defense for 60 years, against parties like Ahmadenijad who want to wipe Israel off the map.  Our world view is more "realist" than "idealist" for that reason.

    I think Obama is a really smart guy I am just worried that if he is really going to gloss over distinctions like this, and advocate such a weak foreign policy, maybe he is not cut-out for the big time.

    Otherwise, I am OK with Obama - I just think his policies are weaker than Hillary's on health care, trade, etc.

  • on a comment on Second Debate Thread over 6 years ago

    Denouncing the support to me means:
    "Hey, I don't like it, but I didn't say it, somebody else did.  That statement still stands.  I can't take away what the guy said, although I dislike it"

    Which is basically what Obama's longer answer was: "Look I can't tell the guy he can't like me".

    Rejecting the support to me means:
    "Hey, I don't want your support.  I refuse your support - go somewhere else.  Your support is no good to me.  You have no influence in my presidency or in my ideology."

    That is the difference.  I think Obama wanted to have to reject the support of Louis Farrakhan and his followers about as much as Hillary wants to break out her tax return for us, but I am glad he was forced to do so, if only half-heartedly, jokingly, and under the glare of the national media spotlight.

  • on a comment on Second Debate Thread over 6 years ago

    Well, I am a Jewish American, and I understand the difference between "denounce" and "reject", and I liked Clinton's answer MUCH, MUCH better.

    Obama said all chummy like "well, I can't tell someone who thinks I am a good guy to get lost".  Even if it is Louis Farrakhan.  

    Yes, you can tell them to get lost.  And that was exactly Hillary's point.  And I think it is a great point - and something that Obama looked very naive to me in that he, as a Law professor, did not seem to understand.  Give me a break - he understands the difference perfectly well.

    No, he didn't want to alienate anyone from his side, even if they are racist bigot supporters that have no place being his supporters.  They are "his" racist bigot supporters.  And I think he reluctantly said that he "rejects" them, for whatever that is worth, and only when forcefully prompted to do so by Senator Clinton.

    I hope he doesn't need such tutoring when it comes to Hamas, Iran, et al, even if they "think Obama is a great guy".

    FYI - Ohio is probably about 3% Jewish and Texas 1%.  Probably doesn't matter to appeal to them, but there are a lot of people out there who think we have no business with Farrakhan, myself included.


Advertise Blogads