Um... my point is: Bingo! Thank you for making this point. Hillary's going to try and fight McCain on his home ground -- national defense, homeland security, etc. And she'll get ass handed to her. Whoever wins the nomination needs to make McCain fight on OUR ground, because we know the American people actually want the things Progressives offer. The problem is that I haven't seen Hillary take that approach; rather, she's consistently voted right-of-the-aisle to protect her ability to play like she's more conservative than she really is, and that's a lousy position from which to control the debate.
Forget it. I don't need the traffic to my blog, but there's no sense trying to talk sense to people who don't want to listen. You're right, I'm a canned, robotlike Obama cultist who thinks Obama's the Messiah. Hillary's better, and I'm oh so sure she'll win against McCain. If she gets the nomination, and loses to McCain, I hope you don't lie to yourselves and forget that people told you so.
Sorry, but McCain's main advantage is his appeal to moderates and independents. Clinton is NOT winning with those folks -- whoever above said that she is isn't reading the exit polls. Obama is running very strongly with moderates and independents, so he's the one who can best "neutralize" McCain on McCain's strongest point. Once they split the moderates and independents, then the public's fundamental distaste for everything Bush has done should tilt the scale toward the Democrat.
Hillary, on the other hand, won't get even 10% of the independent vote. They'll flock to McCain. After all, 44% of the American people say they affirmatively dislike her -- and why would we want to start off with a disadvantage like that?
Bingo! Thank you for making this point. Hillary's going to try and fight McCain on his home ground -- national defense, homeland security, etc. And she'll get ass handed to her. Whoever wins the nomination needs to make McCain fight on OUR ground, because we know the American people actually want the things Progressives offer. The problem is that I haven't seen Hillary take that approach; rather, she's consistently voted right-of-the-aisle to protect her ability to play like she's more conservative than she really is, and that's a lousy position from which to control the debate.
You're not paying attention. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted with Lieberman on calling Iran a terrorism sponsor, helping Bush lay the groundwork for another war. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted for the bankruptcy bill. Clinton, NOT Obama, is a member of the centrist DLC. Clinton and Lieberman, NOT Obama, jumped to their feet and applauded enthusiastically when Bush talked about how well the surge is working in the State of the Union.
Obama just was ranked as the most liberal Senator; Hillary was 16th, and that's a big step leftward from where she was last year, as she's adjusted her stance to win the primary.
It's true that many Republicans are willing to cross the line and vote for Obama -- but that's not because he plays to the center, because if you look at his record, he doesn't. It's a little like Reagan in reverse: he didn't "run to the center", and no one has ever claimed he "wasn't conservative enough" (at least the way modern cons mis-define the term) -- he's the Republicans' MODEL conservative -- and yet enough Democratic voters flocked to him that the term "Reagan Democrats" was coined.
Obama's got a lot of Reagan's charm and hopefulness, and both polling date and his electoral results in states where independents can vote in the D primary consistently show that he's winning a lot of votes that, ever since Reagan, have gone Republican. And he's doing so based on force of personality, not by caving in. Clinton's the one that's been doing that ever since she got in office.
Finally, to the folks who called me a "bot" or suggested that I'm just miming someone else, go spend some time at my blog and then tell me I'm not digging into the issues. vichydems.blogspot.com
I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. HRC's list of political favors runs deep, she's got Bill's Rolodex and George Soros' financial support, and she's donated a ton of money to many superdelegates' own campaigns -- and they know they won't have access to her donor list, etc. if they don't put her over the top in August.
Plus, if Obama holds a narrow lead in promised delegates at the convention, the party will vote to admit Florida and Michigan to make it look as if Hillary won the popular vote fair and square. Then the supers will side with HRC, and pretend they were acting democratically.
What we need, SOON, is a movement to embarrass the supers into committing to (a) follow the popular vote instead of their prior endorsements, and (b) not to admit Florida and Michigan if doing so will tip the scales. Barring that, we're going to see a kind of repeat of the presidential race in 2000: a small group of elites overriding the popular will to appoint someone "winner" of a supposedly fair election. Superdelegates
I just don't buy it. Hillary has been voting in the Senate, and campaigning, using the now-standard DLC tactic of being "Republican lite." It hasn't worked for any Democrat since Bill Clinton, and it won't work for her.
McCain's had actual military experience and is a bona fide war hero. Hillary can't match that. For voters who care deeply about "ability to understand and connect with the troops", McCain will beat Clinton just as handily as he'll beat Obama, no matter how tough she tries to look. (And look at how much Kerry's war experience helped him vs. a Republican -- not at all!)
Ditto on her support of the bankruptcy bill; her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment laying the groundwork for a new war in Iran; her vote for the Iraq war resolution and her refusal to apologize for that vote; and on and on.
Republicans keep winning by moving TOWARDS their base, because voters -- even moderates and some Dems -- like people with solid values who stick to their guns. Clinton's a triangulator. Obama seems to stick to his principles. That's why poll after poll after poll shows that independents and moderates like Obama better than Hillary, and that Obama stands a much better chance of beating McCain in November. Electability
Do you want to tell your kid, "I helped hand a swing district to the Republicans, to teach the opposition party not to take us for granted"?
You're assuming that fighting back against so-called New Democrat or DLC candidates will hurt us electorally. The truth is that the centrist/DLCC approach has been LOSING us elections: we lost the Congress during Bill Clinton's first term and never really got it back. Why's that? Maybe because the DLC/DCCC strategy doesn't work, but they keep foisting it on us anyway?