Usually, Jerome's analysis is not this crappy. To make a claim about the general election, with zero evidence, analysis or even assertion about how Clinton and Obama match up with McCain in Ohio is an extremely weak and unconvincing argument.
But to answer your question, I don't know why I keep coming back to this site with it's strong pro-Hillary bias. The front pagers in their zeal to promote Hillary have gotten sloppy . And the diarists are down right insulting to any one who isn't a Hillary supporter. Perhaps it's time to move on to a site that isn't a Hillary propaganda machine.
particularly since every reporter knows that Obama has not been forthcoming, in any way, on his long association with Tony Rezko
You support a candidate for who refuses to release her tax returns and then you have the gall to criticize Obama for not being forth coming?
I used to dislike Hillary Clinton mostly for her cowardly conniving Iraq vote and then her stubborn refusal to says she regrets that vote. Her supporters are positively are pushing me to the point where I loathe her. The constant stream of bogus hypocritical attacks on Obama is just disgusting and it's making me ill that to think I'm a member of a political party where a huge chunk of members not only condone but enthusiastically support this kinda of gutter politics.
For "new", how about a candidate that doesn't run risky campaigns gambling on winning a few key states. Gore and Kerry both did this and lost. So we're 0 for 2 of this strategy.
Hillary Clinton is running that exact kind of strategy in the primaries and then attempts to down play her poor showings with "small states don't count" arguments.
Best case in th GE, Hillary Clinton will be one Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell away from losing the election since she'll need every state she contests to win. She absolutely will not put more states in play because she won't even try to do so.
So my "shiny new toy" is a candidate who doesn't cling to the failed electoral strategies of past.
Why would I trust Senator Clinton? She still thinks her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was the right vote. That's not a 'meme' it's a fact. I don't trust any Democrat who still thinks that voting for resolution is a good vote.
Her stance on that vote doesn't matter to you which is your prerogative. It matters to me. Your initial argument was that Obama voters do not have one substantive reason to support him. His position against invading vs Clinton's pro Iraq invasion position is a substantive reason so you've been proven wrong there.
And I really don't care that it was just "authorization" because I knew what Bush was going to do with it. Any leader who couldn't figure that out is not smart enough to run for city council much less President.
You can dismissively think that people who don't trust Clinton have bought into a 'meme' but you won't persuade anyone.
If Obama is just as poll-tested and pre-packaged as Clinton...then why again is he a better choice?
If Obama's inspirational speeches are just the product of poll-testing and pre-packaging, why can't Hillary Clinton give some inspirational poll-tested pre-packaged speeches of her own?
Leaders need to convince people to follow them. It doesn't matter how good their ideas are if they can not persuade people to get behind them. Hillary Clinton has shown herself to have little ability to inspire or persuade.
She has shown herself to an expert at trying to win by changing rules after the fact (MI,FL delegates) and exploiting the existing rules (super delegate campaigning). I don't think this approach will accomplish much for Clinton as president. She's not going to be consistently over maneuver Congressional Republicans without getting the public behind her.
Obama has shown the ability to inspire and get people behind him so I think he can accomplish more. You may discount this proven ability as pretty prose from speech writers but to think it does not make a difference means you are not living in the real world.
He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton has no commitment as to when the she'd have combat troops out of Iraq. She could start in 60 days and plan to finish at the same time as McCain: 100 years from now. Considering Clinton still thinks going into to Iraq was a good vote in the Senate on her part, I seriously doubt she'd be in a hurry to complete pull out.
So far, not one of them can ID one concrete thing in support of their candidate.
Maybe your friends are idiots which would probably mean you are too.
For me, one reason I support Obama is that he has committed to leaving Iraq. Clinton has not committed to leaving and I suspect if she's in the oval office there will still be 10,000s of troops in Iraq 4 years for now.