jerome, i agree that obama's chances in the GE are less favorable than clinton's, but i'm surprised that you don't think hillary would be a clear win.
based on demographics, the states' voting histories, and hillary's strengths, my estimate with her as the nominee in the GE is 327 electoral votes. even under a conservative estimate, excluding NV and FL, by my calculation she nets 295. unlike obama, she's likely to carry IA, OH, AR, and WV in the GE. and she'd also be competitive in LA, MO, TN, and KY. it's hard for me to imagine her losing. obama, meanwhile, i could imagine losing very easily.
the operative word is "considered," and you are wrong: based on comprehensive and sound comparisons of their voting records (sorry, national journal's sketchy methodology doesn't count), hillary's consistently rated as more progressive than obama. and i don't know a single constituent whose life has been materially bettered by obama or who can personally attest to his ability to bring about "change." not one. but i know many of those people when it comes to hillary. what does that tell you? it tells me that he's a sham.
i respect your decision, which is of course yours to make. but one thing i know i can't do is vote for obama. ever. obama has gone too far this season in trashing the clintons--gratuitously and self-servingly so--for me to forgive and forget. no matter how much i hate the GOP, i cannot, in good conscience, discard all principles of decency for political expedience. i refuse to "benefit" from this kind of treatment, as obama only seems all too happy to do.
and then consider that:
(1) on every policy i've ever agreed with him on, you name it--from gun control to legalizing marijuana to universal health care to abortion rights to iraq, etc., etc., etc.--he's always sold out in the end when it mattered, every single time;
(2) related to (1), nobody can ever point to even one on-the-record vote obama has ever taken where he took a meaningful stand for/against something that would cause him real political heat;
(3) at a time when we have a rare, once-in-a-generation kind of golden opportunity to shift the country leftward and to get some real progressive policy enacted, obama is pushing our party to the right: he's already sided with the insurance companies on health care; he uses GOP framing to criticize core dem values like social security--not to mention his economic advisor favors privatization; and his economic policies in general push to the right;
you're right; that was petty of me. i TR'd you out of frustration and anger, but i should have been more patient. needless to say, emotions are running high right now. i don't know how to retract my rating, so i uprated you.
look, i don't want to argue with you or any other hillary supporters. it saps enough of my energy to ward off attacks and bullying from obamabots (who often seem to appear in overwhelming swarms). and not only do i have to protest dems who sit by idly while a truly decent and dedicated Democrat and public servant like hillary clinton gets trashed and vilified, her reputation impugned--but worse yet, even after everything she's had to endure for the past year, now i have to fight efforts to aid and abet those trying to push her out of the race.
in any case, an honest and open discussion is a good place to start.
yes, and projecting onto others and making unfounded assumptions about the validity of their thoughts and opinions--while exalting your own judgment--is so mature. and now you dismiss me out of hand, without ever bothering to find out whether your self-congratulatory assumptions are justified. why, you're just a paragon of maturity and forbearance, aren't you?
did i say that i'm voting "FOR war and AGAINST civil liberties"? please don't impose your assumptions on me about how i arrived at my decision. unlike many others here, i'm not thinking only about the next 4 years--during which time i believe obama will fail to improve, and will indeed likely worsen, our position on these fronts in any case--but also about the Dem party's and its policy platform's long-term survival.
do you think you're helping the situation by censoring and pushing out of the discussion those Democrats who are making frank (albeit angry) observations in good faith?
you know, i could understand if you were referring to idle threats--like, for instance, how glibly obama's supporters have hurled the racist charge around and threatened race riots in denver. but all i'm doing is candidly and straightforwardly stating my perspective and my intent.
my own experience has been that ignoring a problem usually only makes it worse. whether or not you dismiss such discourse, sentiments like mine are growing.
you're entitled to your own opinion, as i am to mine. i think an obama presidency will ensure that democrats get shut out of the white house for another generation--and all for a guy who isn't even progressive and is selling us out on core dem values and principles to begin with. given that fact and my choice between 4 years of mccain now or 20 years of neocons later, the decision is not as simplistic as you think.
i'm not threatening or bullying anyone. it's not a threat; it's a promise. and since when is voicing one's reasoned decision deserving of a TR just because you don't agree with it? i have an incredibly long list of reasons for refusing to support obama. and as a registered Democrat who's voted for only Democrats ever since i've been able to vote, i owe nobody my vote--and certainly least of all to you, an "Independent."
go ahead, be self-righteous, and ignore the growing percentage of hillary supporters that disagree with you because you're so annoyed with them. by doing so, you paper over a problem that will blow up in everyone's face in november.
the women in the video at taylor's place speak for me. obama has already torn this party apart beyond belief, and we're thoroughly fed up.
and the more that the DNC, the media, obama's supporters, and onlookers enabling obama try to shut hillary's campaign and her supporters down; to trumpet meaningless endorsements to try to strong-arm her out of the race; to depress voter turnout and her support in upcoming primaries; to prematurely end the race by allowing and enabling obama's unilateral self-coronation; to intimidate or go code orange (threat mode) on us; to insinuate forcing or pressuring hillary into a VP spot when she's the stronger GE candidate--in short, forcibly shoving hillary out of the race--the angrier and harder our resentment against obama will grow.
i'm already not voting for obama. but the more that obama-enabling dems try the things above, the more of us you will push to vote for mccain.
please stop with the spin and the cherry-picking of polls. you keep trying to shove clinton into a VP position. she's not running for VP, so please stop projecting your wishes onto her. it insults, offends, and INFURIATES many of her supporters, so PLEASE STOP. obama has insulted and angered many of us beyond belief, so please do not anger us even more by pressuring her into making up for his shortcomings. let him fall on his own; his repulsive campaign has earned it.
heh. todd, no offense, but i think both you and poblano are projecting. she's not campaigning to be VP. she knows--as do i, as does the DNC, and as do many of the superdelegates who're currently withholding their endorsements--that obama will lose the general to mccain.
i'm also glad that hillary's not letting an utterly corrupt media--especially the likes of NBC, that propaganda arm for obama--dictate our party's nomination. an insightful comment by petey over at talkleft:
You misunderstand General Electric's reasons for running their "news" operation.
General Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC. Their "news" operation is a loss leader run entirely to disseminate propaganda designed to increase profits for the entire company.
In this case, General Electric's "news" operation is being run to help the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weaker in support of Social Security - Barack Obama.
General Electric has been on a multi-decade long jihad against government social insurance programs. This isn't personal for them, it's about their bottom line.
hmmmmmm.... most DEMS don't want obama, but the GOP and our thoroughly corrupt media do. gee, i wonder why hillary's still in the race? (hint: it's not because she wants the VP slot.)
the demise of the democratic party seems to be on our very doorsteps.
derridog over at noquarter, re: the media:
The question that bothers me is why they want her out so badly. This likely means that the corporations don't want the Clintons because they know how the government runs and historically have put the brakes on corporate greed. But the other question is: do they want Obama because McCain can knock him out easily or do they want Obama because he's their guy -they put him up to this because he's in their pockets and they want to take over the Democratic Party and knock all the progressives out of it and leave us with only easily ignored third parties.
I think the latter.
chancellor over at talkleft:
[A]s I see it, this year, the will of the voters is going to mean less than the power struggle going on within the Beltway Dems--aided and abetted by some in the blogosphere. The Mountain States are seen by these "new coalition" Dems as representing the best opportunity to counter the Southern Strategy of the Repubs.
As best I can tell, there are many in the Dem party who would like to write off the South entirely as an electoral strategy. This would mean being able to throw out the influence of the Carters, the Gores and the Clintons. Of course, they can't do this without replacement states to make up the votes. What they're hoping is that they can cobble together enough Libertarians in the Mountain States and the border states, such as Virginia and Missouri, to re-draw the electoral map. Obama is the candidate that they chose to draw these voters into the Dem fold.
The problem is that the big electoral votes are still in states where the voter demographics favor Clinton. IMO, the neo-Libertarians will do anything to stop Clinton in order to execute the first part of their strategy--including taking a loss in the GE, as long as they think they can pick up the congressional races. They're trying to prove a point here, IMO, whether or not it means winning back the White House. There's also a problem in that Libertarians are not Democrats, so we are seeing a fight not just for votes but for values. . . .
My guess is that they believe it's now or never, and that due to the state of the economy, the Iraq war/occupation and Bush's approval ratings, this is the time for the coup.
BTW, I do believe it is an attempt at an internal coup. IMO, the comments by Brazile were a slip-up in her anger--we weren't supposed to know that we were being told to go to the back of the bus and stay there, at least not until November. However, now that the plan is out there, you have people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller extolling the virtues of the new, neo-Libertarian party, formerly known as the Democrats. Maybe they think we'll change our minds once they tell us how wonderful everything is going to be under the new order. It's Animal Farm redux, best I can tell.
jerome, my fears of mob rule have now been fully realized. reading the comments here is overwhelming; i feel like there's no longer any place for me here as a clinton supporter. you can't even get a word in edgewise because the obama trolls have COMPLETELY overrun this place. as lambert puts it: "It's like the whole country is turning into a giant caucus, isn't it?"