Obama Clinton Race Chasm

[DJ_Enki]

Yo my dude, lots of interesting argument going on this thread, but how did this jewel by Enki get by without any scrutiny?




Oh, don't worry about that cognitive dissonance--I've observed wingnuts figuring out how to have their cake and eat it, too.

Obama's still a Muslim (who is going to institute Sharia law so that we can legalize gay marriage...they haven't figured out that bit of cognitive dissonance yet, but I'm sure it's in progress), but he's a particularly sneaky Muslim who pretends to be a Christian. TO WIT:

1) Rev. Wright is not a Christian. (There's a definite love of the No True Scotsman fallacy here.)

2) There's that Muslim doctrine that says Muslims are allowed to lie and say they aren't Muslim. (I know this will come as a complete shock, but wingers are intentionally distorting what that bit actually says.)

Therefore, OBAMA IS A STEALTH MUSLIM PRETENDING TO BE A CHRISTIAN!

Q to the E to the muthafuckin' D.

This is just typical far left/far right rhetoric.....exaggerations based on assumptions and half truths, blown out of proportion to make a point.

The users seldom realize that their stretching of the truth invalidates their point.

"Well I didn't actually hear anyone say this but I KNOW it's what they are thinking!".
I agree...but just for clarification's sake, I didn't exaggerate what they're saying. They seriously say that stuff--and they mean it. Right-wing blogs can be scary like that.

Also, for the record, I am against any sort of compulsory prayer or religious observance in public schools. If students want to pray while at school, they should be allowed to do so, but students should not be forced to conform to religious beliefs they do not hold themselves.

 

[Jonny_Paycheck]

But hey maybe Mark Penn planned that out for her. He's been doing a terrific job. I am glad Hillary runs such a tight ship, it's a testament to her experience and leadership.

*eyeroll*

I love this argument. "she's losing the campaign so how can we trust her to lead the country?!"
It's actually a huge concern.

First, Clinton's people were so out of touch with the country's mood they took months to figure out her claims of inevitability and experience might be trumped by "change".

Second, they blundered strategically from jump street through super tuesday and on until the OH/TX primaries where they finally realized "holy shit, we might lose".

Third, the campaign has been a financial nightmare, there are numerous unpaid debts (in the millions) and angry vendors, Clinton herself had to float 5mil to the campaign which I doubt she'll ever get back. There was an article a while back detailing some of the expenditures and in Iowa, perhaps the most crucial state to her current woes (Obama loses Iowa, the race would be over by now) they were spending tens of thousands of dollars on frivolous bullshit.

Fourth, she has control issues and has had to shake up her own staff several times (this happens in campaigns maybe once a cycle) including, most recently, having to ditch the HEAD of the campaign who was directly contradicting her stance on an important trade agreement for private benefit; also the architect of her failed campaign strategy.

So you can roll your eyes all you want - I wouldn't trust her to run the government if she can't even run an effective campaign organization. Despite her claims of great experience, very little of it is executive or even managerial.

 

[rootlesscosmo]

I roll my eyes because people pretend to know "how" she's running her campaign. you guys seem to have some serious insights into the inner workings of her organization to be able to say this. I for one have no idea how she's managing her campaign. and nothing you cite (staff reshuffles, money issues) to me represents some sort of massive failure. they are rather pretty standard challenges a candidate faces in running a hard campaign.

I do know she's getting beat by a guy with massive popular support and charisma she could never hope to match. though I'm not sure how Obama's popularity represents an indictment of her campaign management skills. I'd say she's actually doing great considering the odds she faces in Obama.

 

[keithvanhorn]

I'd say she's actually doing great considering the odds she faces in Obama.

ehhhhh, i disagree. this race was hers to lose. she would be winning right now if she acted presidential and diplomatic, as she did in the first several rounds of debates. for whatever reason though, she decided to go negative and that killed her image and her hopes for the white house.

the clinton legacy could be resurrected out of its pitfall if she gracefully bowed out NOW, for the sake of the party.

i'm not saying this as a hillary basher, but someone who thinks she would make a great president. however, its over for her, and mccain needs to lose. so the whole concept of her staying in the race so that her momentum might sway the super delegates is only appealing if the alternative candidate is a bum....but obama is a great candidate as well.

do you think she should stay in the race, and if so, why? and my question assumes the reality that from a statistical p.o.v., she's just not winning the electorate.

 

[rootlesscosmo]

I haven't been following the numbers very closely. If what you say is true -- that she can no longer win -- then of course she should drop out.

I was under the impression she still had a shot though.

 

[keithvanhorn]

my understanding is that its all but impossible for her to win, unless the following happens:

1) she can convince the super delegates (who don't have to commit until the dem convention) to make a dramatic exodus to her camp...based on the theory that she has "momentum" and a better shot of beating mccain due to the whole i won the blue states theory.

OR

2) a combination of convincing the super delegates and, in the states where the representatives don't have to cast the electoral delegates according to how the people voted...that they should abandon their state's real choice, and cast their electoral delegates for her.

its ugly.

 

[rootlesscosmo]

yeah that doesn't look good.

I am curious about this comment of yours:

she would be winning right now if she acted presidential and diplomatic, as she did in the first several rounds of debates. for whatever reason though, she decided to go negative and that killed her image and her hopes for the white house.

can you identify when it was she went negative exactly?

 

[luck]

I haven't been following the numbers very closely. If what you say is true -- that she can no longer win -- then of course she should drop out.

I was under the impression she still had a shot though.

Well, technically, she does.

 

[LaserWolf]

my understanding is that its all but impossible for her to win, unless the following happens:

1) she can convince the super delegates (who don't have to commit until the dem convention) to make a dramatic exodus to her camp...based on the theory that she has "momentum" and a better shot of beating mccain due to the whole i won the blue states theory.

OR

2) a combination of convincing the super delegates and, in the states where the representatives don't have to cast the electoral delegates according to how the people voted...that they should abandon their state's real choice, and cast their electoral delegates for her.

its ugly.

Err... This is also the formula for an Obama win, since neither will win enough pledged delegates to seal the deal.

Nobody should drop out before May 20th.

 

[keithvanhorn]

probably whenever we first heard "ready from day 1". i never understood the logic behind questioning obama's credentials. no doubt that is something mccain will do - the experience argument, but not only is it a weak argument for hillary to make, but considering obama's "likeability", she just set herself up as the bad guy.

 

[luck]

yeah that doesn't look good.

I am curious about this comment of yours:

she would be winning right now if she acted presidential and diplomatic, as she did in the first several rounds of debates. for whatever reason though, she decided to go negative and that killed her image and her hopes for the white house.

can you identify when it is she went negative exactly?
In the 2 weeks prior to the March 4th primaries (Ohio/Texas/etc.), Hillary had a decided swing.

 

[rootlesscosmo]

probably whenever we first heard "ready from day 1". i never understood the logic behind questioning obama's credentials. no doubt that is something mccain will do - the experience argument, but not only is it a weak argument for hillary to make, but considering obama's "likeability", she just set herself up as the bad guy.

I think Obama's "likeability" has totally skewed peoples' perceptions of Hillary and her allegedly "negative" campaign. To cite Hillary's "ready from day 1" claim as an example of negative campaigning is to totally redefine the term.

 

[luck]

probably whenever we first heard "ready from day 1". i never understood the logic behind questioning obama's credentials. no doubt that is something mccain will do - the experience argument, but not only is it a weak argument for hillary to make, but considering obama's "likeability", she just set herself up as the bad guy.

I think Obama's "likeability" has totally skewed peoples' perceptions of Hillary and her allegedly "negative" campaign. To cite Hillary's "ready from day 1" claim as an example of negative campaigning is to totally redefine the term.
I agree. "Ready From Day One" is more of an assertion of one's own capability. Considering that declaring yourself the best candidate intrinsically means declaring others second-best does not just constitute "the nasty way that politics is run today," but is logically the only way any vote-based competition is conducted. I'm referring more to her offensine push on Obama in the weeks up to the March 4th primaries.

 

[Rockadelic]

Hillary's #1 campaign problem = Bill.

 

[rootlesscosmo]

Bill hasn't been a huge asset but I don' think he's done much damage. Hillary's #1 campaign problem is Obama.

 

[luck]

Bill hasn't been a huge asset but I don' think he's done much damage. Hillary's #1 campaign problem is Obama.

Right. I think that her only chance is to hammer Obama on his recent gaffe in San Francisco - not by harping on the "bitter" comment - an emotion many Pennsylvanians legitimately feel - but on the religious/gun/racist half of the paragraph.

 

[Unherd]

I think that her only chance is to hammer Obama on his recent gaffe in San Francisco - not by harping on the "bitter" comment - an emotion many Pennsylvanians legitimately feel - but on the religious/gun/racist half of the paragraph.

See, maybe I'm overly optimistic about some American's ability to actually read a paragraph, but I think it was pretty clear that he was saying once you give up on government doing anything meaningful and positive, you're way more likely to become a single issue voter and go republican.

I think for Clinton to paint it as some sort of attack on small town values is disingenuous, again. Its seems pretty clear to me that he was simply talking about apathy, hope and change, same as always, but Clinton is looking for anything to make superdelegates think he's unelectable. No question the quote is poorly phrased, but I think elitist is a stretch.

Again, rootless, you may say thats how the game goes, but I genuinely think this is hurting the party's chances against McCain. The way this is being spun, I can see it pushing some swing voters to McCain once Hillary gives up the ghost...