All The Things Clinton Would Love to Say About Obama, but Can't...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    Interesting article from CBS, let's get serious now, people:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/13/politics/politico/main4011607.shtml
    Basically, Hillary is more than likely the better candidate for electability when the smoke clears and the press corp wakes up to coyote ugly the morning after. What's going to happen when the hispanics don't come over? What happens when Obama loses the Jewish vote? What happens when delicate democratic sensitivities give way to the liberal-eating Republican attack machine and the reality of the racial divide that's not going away? Hillary Clinton is the Democrats last best chance at taking back the White House in November, even if not enough Democrats realize it. Next shot won't likely come again anytime soon.

    A nice laundry list of bedeviling concerns for Alex to read to you.

    ~ CB
     
  2. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    i agree hillary is a better bet against McCain. the only evidence obama had that he is more electable is these polls that showed him ahead but those leads have been erased. and also obama has said that she is more electable


    http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6632
     
  3. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #3
    So my impression of the article is that Obama won't win because a majority of Americans are stupid and will hate him because he is a muslim that will take their guns away. Arguing over the stupidity of a population isn't really a great way to make predictions. The thing about stupid people is that they're stupid in ingenious ways.
     
  4. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #4
    And what will happen if the African American voters don't bother voting? or the GOP faithful who don't like McCain but would do anything to keep Clinton out of the White House get up to vote?

    It was widely known that the FL delegates were not going to be seated at the convention. How do we know he would have done this badly had he campaigned there, and voters would have known the delegates were going? How many more people would have voted if they had known it would count?

    This is the biggest fallacy of the primary system. Just because one candidate won the party's primary in a state or demographic does not mean that the state or demographic will be lost by the other candidate. It might also help if their opponent, when they finally drop out of the race, endorses, and works with the winner to court the demographics that they were stronger in.

    Just because more blue collar voted for Clinton does not mean that they won't vote republican, or not vote at all in the general election. Nor does it mean that they will not vote for Obama, if they are truly pissed at the GOP.


    Does anybody really understand the depth of hatred that the GOP base has for all things Clinton? What's going to happen if she energizes a lot of GOP voters who didn't necessarily like McCain and would have stayed home, but will do anything in their power to stop another Clinton from winning?

    If they would be so damaging in the general, why are they taboo now? If they will truly work and manage to hurt Obama without also damaging the opponent why can't the Clinton's bring up these issues now?
     
  5. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    African American voters would eagerly turn out for Clinton if Obama hadn't happened along and presented such an appealing and realistic candidate. Obama isn't the pied piper. If he doesn't win the nomination, he will very likely be her running mate. If he's not her running mate, he will STUMP for her very hard, saying many of the complimentary things he's already been saying, except that he will focus on how she is better than McBush, and how she has a distinguished record of public and humanitarian service that he characterized as "workhorse" before he got into the Senate.

    Just saying.
    It is probably something of wishful thinking that much of the Islamist aire right or wrongly hung about Obama will not translate into lost votes or non-turn-out in the Jewish community as a Democratic candidate. His use of the term "sacrosanct" when referring to Israeli security notwithstanding, his connections to Louis Farrakhan, Islam, and willingness to hold top-level talks with the leader of Iran can't all be sunshine and roses in that community.

    If nothing else, Obama's ties to Deval Patrick in Massachusetts is not doing a lot to help him. Patrick himself is meeting with stiff criticism and opposition in the state legislature and local press. Their message and strategist sharing in David Axelrod, long friendship, and common ethnicity had more than a little influence in Obama's inability to carry Massachusetts despite a veritable parade of high-level endorsements. As a candidate campaigning on togetherness, hope and change, Patrick's ineffectiveness at forming a powerful post-election administration is a glaring sore spot and a possible parallel worth watching.

    Obama might not so much have a problem running against McCain, as he has running against our long-standing divisions in this country and the ability of the Republican Party to benefit from inflaming those feelings in the most subtle ways. Neither Hillary or certainly not Obama can stand against McCain on experience and dedication to this country. On those two virtues alone, everything else smacks of liberal attempts at affirmative action whether its by gender or race. At least that's the context.

    ~ CB
     
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #6
    Well what's to prevent the Clinton's from Stumping for Obama very hard to keep the Latino vote? If the Clintons don't campaign hard for Obama if he wins they can kiss their party support good bye.

    Once again why can't Clinton drum up support if she loses?

    Hillary has just as many supporters who can be used against her Richard Scaife ring any bells?

    Of course using divisions in this country could work just as well against Clinton as it can against Obama. We've got a woman and a black man... both of which have people who won't support them because of their gender or race. What makes Obama that much less electable than Clinton? I live in TX. Clinton is a four letter word here. There are people who probably wouldn't bother to vote, since they don't like McCain, but will do anything within their power to keep Hillary out of the office. I'd prefer not to see that base energized.
     
  7. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #7
    There's a good point.
    Well. There's drumming up support, and then there is hardcore distrust and insurmountable concerns. One could pose the point that Obama has garnered more "cross-over" support amongst independants and Republicans, and so his "stumping" to carry-along voters for a Clinton candidancy might be less effective than vice-versa, but the polls have been showing otherwise. More Clinton supports support a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency amongst likely Democratic voters.
    That's not a very apt comparison. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a loose-lipped, spirited, black-liberation liberation minister Obama refuses to disown as he would a close family member... moreover, his mere existance in Obama's life has caused even the most pro-Obama to seek immediate perspective on the obviously politically unflattering reputation.

    Scaife is an enemy of the Clintons who can be clumped into the same category as so many other enemies of the Clintons. To call him a "Clinton supporter" (Hillary or otherwise) would probably cause him to choke on his black-forked tongue.
    Possibly. However, while "class" warfare still burns bright in India, the U.S. lists amongst the noteable superpowers that have yet to put a woman in charge of its highest levels of government (even in Islamic cultures). Only a matter of time before that happens.
    For blacks, while Obama represents a very unique circumstance in terms of his base of appeal and skills as a politician... he also embodies deep rooted challenges as well. As talented as he may be, he not only gets immediately hobbled with an ironic name... but a pastor and close spiritual advisor whose words in the past have been less than "delicate" towards white and Jewish America and a church with foundations that point to the "black power" movement and the radical separatist writings of James Cone. While Obama represents the best of African American culture, he has links to some of the most visceral and troubled aspects as well.

    One could point to Kerry and Gore and say that they were knee-capped with accusations of being unpatriotic and accusations of being "elitist", the same is already happening to Obama yet seem noticeably absent in criticisms of Clinton.
    Texas is a big place, and out of its two-step process, I have it on good authority that Clinton won the contest that most resembled general-election voting.

    ~ CB
     
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Hate to break it to you, but Obama has the Jewish vote. I'm Jewish, my family's Jewish, and I have a bunch of Jewish friends. Every Jew I know (which believe me, is a lot. My high school got the nickname Little Israel), except for my 2 racist grandparents, will be voting for Obama in November (and most of them supported him in the primaries too). Reform Jews, which make up a huge percentage of the Jewish population in the US, tend to be very liberal and always vote Democratic.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    How about what Obama would love to say about Clinton but can't:

    Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Hillary is.

    Hillary says she's the "working class" candidate even though she's worth over $100 million (compared to Obama's only 1.3 million).

    Clinton can't run a campaign for ****, so how can she run a country?

    If you "misspeak" (LIE) multiple times because you were tired, how are you going to answer the phone at 3am?

    And my personal favorite: You can't spell Hillary without L I A R.
     
  10. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #10
    Oh, that's just awful... will the wordplay ever stop? :) You have to admit though, if the road to the Whitehouse lies down Pennsylvania Avenue, you'd kind of like to carry the state its named after, wouldn't you? The brakes seem to have been hit on Obama's momentum in PA. He's got about 7 days to make his case to the undecided 8-10%.

    By the way, Time Magazine just released some poll numbers on the Clinton/Obama fallout voting.

    CLINTON supporters choice for
    President if Obama is nominee.

    OBAMA - 56%
    MCCAIN - 26%
    DON'T KNOW - 18%
    TOTAL 44% Aren't Ready for Obama

    OBAMA supporters choice for
    President if Clinton is nominee.

    OBAMA - 68%
    MCCAIN - 16%
    DON'T KNOW - 16%
    TOTAL 32% Aren't Ready for Clinton

    OUCH. An earlier Gallup poll had Clinton supporters going to McCain at 28% versus Obama's 19%. Tough numbers. Clinton supporters seem pretty adamant on their candidate. Considering Obama supporters (especially Independents) might have more ideological reasons to vote against Clinton (lobbyists/transparency), you'd have to imagine that Clinton's greater strength amongst the Democratic base also taps into voters who may dislike Obama simply as a person. Consistently, Democrats have been FAR less likely to "hold their nose" at the polls than Republicans, if they don't like the party candidate.

    ~ CB
     
  11. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    excuse me, when the clinton's entered (and when they left) the white house they had the LOWEST net worth of any president EVER and more credit card debt than you can shake a stick at
    all that cash is from books and speeches AFTER they left.
    being a former president is pretty lucrative ya know. and they paid $33 M of it in taxes.

    the clintons are not a couple of millionaire lawyers like the Barack and Michelle.
     
  12. Marble macrumors 6502a

    Marble

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #12
    Cleverboy, it sounds like all of these concerns are purely strategic ones. If McCain wins the general election, it's likely all will be lost, but that fear shouldn't distract us from Obama's geniality and professionalism so far this race (especially compared to the "if I can get away with it" attitude Clinton seems to eat and breathe). In the wake of the Bush years, the Democrats have the best opportunity to win they have had in a while. I think they should take advantage of their head start and take a "risk" (if it even is a risk) on a more ideal thinker and decision maker.

    And even from a strategic point of view, Obama has demonstrated a surprising ability to persuade. He has made up more votes than anyone thought he could since the first primaries. How can we judge him de facto without taking into consideration the power his rhetoric has over people, especially until-recently apathetic ones?
     
  13. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #13
    Wait, people still think Clinton's more likely to win in a race against McCain?


    Come on now.


    Obama will carry the "big states" Clinton keeps bragging about, mostly because their hardcore dem states...Obama's wins in small states are key, because dems have such a hard time there.


    If Clinton wins the dem's ticket, I'll still be pro-clinton, but the fire in my heart will be gone. She's her dark side in the primaries, and its one I don't like.
     
  14. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #14
    Maybe the second article will shed more light on Scaife. He's been working with the Clintons this cycle.

    And that wouldn't have had anything to do with Rush Limbaugh encouraging GOP voters to vote for Clinton. I know of at least 5 GOP faithful that think Hillary can't possibly win the general election and they are some of the more open minded people I've known here. I have to say if Hillary wins I will feel little sympathy for any of the GOP who voted for her in the primaries because "she can't win" at least if by some miracle she pulls the nomination I can look forward to that.
     
  15. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #15
    Purely.
    I'd vote for Obama a million times over if I thought it would add one extra vote in the general election. On that count, I'll vote my convictions. I tend not to want to be under any illusions about what I expect to happen though, even if the final result is a good one. I'd like to know what's in store after Democrats have their nominee. I'd like to know the kind of country I'm in. I sware, I've been slack-jawed and wide-eyed in shock for about 8 years now.
    I'd say I wish I knew what he was doing on the ground, but I already know firsthand (volunteered). I watched my own mother's opinion change overnight, even after I'd decided not to make any attempt to change her mind from her original choice.

    He's got the skillz. I just don't know if it will be enough. There's not a lot of time left, but I know people are tired of being scared.

    We'll see. Right now all the conservative talk show hosts/guests are hurting my head. Gore and Kerry amounted to the Tin Man and the Scarecrow. It would be interesting to see if we complete the set with the Cowardly Lion (Hillary) or whether we skip right to Obama, all decked out in his Ruby Shoes and hailing from Kansas... ready to show America there's no place like home.

    ~ CB
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    Yeah, but this is 2008, not 1992 where the Clinton's weren't worth much. The numbers were on CNN the other day.. Clinton's are worth over $100 million now.. Barack is $1.3 million.

    BTW, Bill Clinton was around $700k back in 1992.. adjusted for inflation that's pretty close to Obama's $1.3 million today.
     
  17. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #17
    The biggest problem with this article is this:

    For the last 8 years, while maintaing a public presence, she hasn't been the target of attacks. She ran for senate in a relatively safe state for any Democrat to run.

    Now they haven't even begun to air her dirty laundry, and they won't hesitate in the general. It worked when they used it 8 years ago and it wasn't even a Clinton running. Even when they were using it she wasn't the primary target of the attacks. The article hits every weakness on Obama but then ignores every weakness of Clinton's saying we know what we're getting and she's been through it before. We don't and she hasn't.
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    Lost me right there. Maybe before, but after Wright, and the recent manufactured controversy over something else he didn't actually say, among other things, I don't think that's the case anymore. McCain seems to be the teflon man, where he's done almost all of those same things, sometimes even worse, and nary a peep. You'd think this would be an easy win, but between McCain still being seen as a moderate, despite flipflopping and suddenly deciding to embrace more of the same (it's a shame, used to like the guy) and the 2 Dems going at each other like ravenous dogs, I guess this is how they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Plenty to dislike about both of them, but it's not like those legitimate reasons are what's going to bring them down.

    It would be a miracle for Clinton to win at this point, face it. It's going to be Obama unless Clinton blows out the rest of the primaries, which isn't going to happen, and probably also getting more supers, which also isn't going to happen. But if it does, it's going to piss off a lot more people than will be happy by it. So this is all probably a moot point. That and, is it me, or does the more Hillary go after Obama, the more support he gains. He makes fun of her hypocritically criticizing him, and people cheer. She tries to misconstrue something he says, straight out of the GOP handbook, and gets booed by her own supporters. Didn't used to dislike her as much before the race, but certainly see that ugly side more now. Didn't care for him much before, but he certainly does recover quickly, fighting back against the rhetoric. Something Gore and Kerry rarely did.

    I used to be a McCain supporter, as I said, but definitely not anymore, so I had accepted holding my nose while voting for Hillary. Then I figured I'd be voting for Obama by default. More against the GOP. Would be nice to vote for someone. Faults and all. He surrounds himself with a good cabinet, I might only have to criticize him a little, unlike with Hillary. Anyway my point being, I'm sorry, but come on now guys, even if you like Hillary, she probably isn't going to win the nom. And even if she does, there's a pretty good chance she won't win the Presidency. Even if Obama wins there's a chance for that. I don't get how anyone could be sure of their candidate's chance right now at all.
     
  19. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #19
    Well it's too bad for her Obama netted more delegates out of that state then, isn't it? ;)

    Try and twist it as you will but the fact remains: Obama won Texas.

    I'm sure I'm not the only liberal who'll be voting third party before I ever fill in a bubble next to Clinton's name on my ballot this November.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Good thing I vote for the candidate I deem best able to serve the office for which they're running and not for the one that the shifting polls say will be most electable.

    Obama's hasn't directly campaigned against McCain yet, there haven't been any debates, and we're still months away from the final decision time. So how can we say that any poll released now is anything more than a general indicator? I certainly wouldn't base my vote upon such a measure.
     

Share This Page