Eat it Hillary!

The BBQ Pit
61

No she doesn’t. As I’ve already pointed-out in the GD thread on this issue, stats can be manipulated to prove almost anything.

For instance those numbers she posted tell me that Billary actually lost BIG time. As in over 70% of the total vote. In addition to that, and I repeat myself here as well, should Edwards drop from the race I very much doubt his supporters would turn towards Billary in any significant way. Seems to me they are looking for change as well and she simply ain’t it.

Thus anyway you look at it, last night, Obama, WON BIG TIME.

62

Nah, the college kids are just hot for political theatre this season, and caucuses make for theatre in a way that plain old primaries never can. Obama may have a slight edge over Hillary, but he’ll have to prove it in a less circuslike atmosphere.

63

Yeah, it could be any of those. My point is that it’s coming, whatever it is. [broad brush]The Democrat will catch hell for something or other. The Republican won’t.[/broad brush]

64

She also came in third amongst the female segment of voters and lost big with the independents – which only happen to double in NH, And then you have a revitalized, large pool of black voters in SC, where she was priorly ahead with same. Just don’t see where she’s going to get the votes to catch O.B. at the moment.

Which is a great thing IMO of course. I simply dislike the woman a lot due her blatant pandering and hawkish over-compensation. Never mind the fact that is is the leading fund-raiser in the all-powerful “Defense” Industry. Talk about a conflict of interests…

65

I am a young Black man, yellow dog Dem, and I don’t understand why people are reading so much into this.

I like Obama - he seems like a great guy, smart, and so on… he went to my alma mater and I know people who know him from his Law Review days… but I don’t think his track record and experience is enough at a time like this. I have to also admit that the inclusion of Oprah in his campaign turned me off a great deal. I would be a huge Obama '16 guy, after two terms of serving as VP. The comparisons to Clinton in '92 are a little off, I think. It was a pretty amazing opportunity for Clinton - he picked the exact right time to run, when the Dem heavyweights were sitting out '92, and the Gulf War looked as if it was tied up neatly. If Al Gore or Cuomo made a move back then, and Ross Perot not captured the nation’s imagination, it might have been a different story.

I currently support Hillary, and like others have said, if the winner ultimately ends up being Edwards, Obama, or her, they’ll have my vote. But I think Hillary has the connections to make this nation respected in the world again. I wouldn’t mind seeing Bill Richardson, Bill Clinton, and Madeline Albright back on the scene repairing our reputation in the world and fighting the good fight on domestic issues. I think Obama would have a learning curve - and geopolitically it’s not a great time to have that issue.

I don’t know why the Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton situation bothers people so much. It’s politics. You don’t go far nationally without very strong connections and networks. Unlike the Bushes, though, I have no doubt Hillary would be a highly placed, highly successful political operative all by herself. GWB was born into a role, nothing more to it. And why should someone mask their desire to lead? We all know there are very base motivations behind every candidate’s desire to be President. It sounds like some people want someone who’s better able to hide their raw ambition… it’s not about personality, it’s about competence and effectiveness.

Obama is a political neophyte and I’m not convinced he could break the balls of folks in Congress. I imagine his rep is one of being a nice guy… nice guys don’t get shit done in Washington. Hillary is light years ahead of him there, and I have no doubt she knows where bodies are buried. She’d win her fair share of standoffs.

Bottom line, it’s way too early to make anything of what happened last night. I don’t think Huckabee will be the GOP front runner in a few months time; nor do I think Obama will hold that mantle for the Dems.

66

He might come off as a “nice guy” in parts of his speeches but he also gives the sense that he is carried by the strength of his convictions. Very much doubt he’d “heel” if pushed by some/any of the Big Wigs.

As some have said he reminds Americans of JFK, I don’t need to go that far back to find what I think is a better comparison, Spain’s own Zapatero, a.k.a “Bambi” who beyond his mild manners and youth has yet to lose an election at any level. And he’s pushed most of his agenda (including such ‘daring’ things as Gay Marriage in so-called deeply Catholic Spain) through a veritable minefield field of old-establishment political Bulldogs.

67

I need to withdraw my statement about the environment though, I found and read his detailed report and he appears equal to Obama, Clinton & Richardson in this area. It was only his summary on the linked web site that was below average.

68

Maybe the Obama=JFK comparisons are legit. However, it’s a different day and age. JFK wouldn’t be the JFK we know and revere if he ran in 2008. He might have ended up being more like Gary Hart.

69

JFK wasn’t the JFK we revere.

70

I’m a fiscal arch-conservative and social quasi-libertarian, who would still vote for Obama above all other Democratic or Republican candidates. My second choice would be…well…I’m not sure. Giuliani, maybe. Even though Obama is on the other side of the fence on several key issues (such as gun control) than I am, and even though he is playing the “God” card, I’d still vote for him. He’s not an “ideal” candidate, but I think he’s the best of a difficult field. And if someone like me would vote for Obama, think about what that says.
(Clinton is my second-to-last choice, just slightly ahead of Edwards. Blech.)

71

Just to be clear here, is it JFK or RFK that Obama is reminding everyone of?

My guess is that it’s JFK…though apart from a healthy, youthful and likable charisma, Obama doesn’t really have that much in common with JFK (the only Democrat president of my lifetime that I’ve admired, btw). This isn’t a slam against Obama, it’s just that they come from completely different worlds and I see no comparison beyond this rather superficial one.

72

Oh I think she learned something alright, I think she learned how to bend what she thinks to the direction of the polls. Further, I think that she will greatly disappoint many, MANY dems with the amount of military action she’ll take, especially in her second term, should she last that long. I agree though that Oprah would be a bad choice, but she’s definately in line for a cabinet position, and frankly, we could do worse.

Being First Lady is not leadership experience. She hadn’t, up until her stint in NY (because her home state of IL 1. wouldn’t have her and 2. isn’t liberal enough) had a lick of leadership experience, and by my estimation still doesn’t. Another Clinton in the WH means four to eight more years of the same crap we dealt with when Bill was there. She’s clearly power hungry, there’s no other reason to stick it out that long with a philandering twit like him unless there’s some reward at the end.

73

Well, no, I don’t believe anybody has used a gun to try to kill George Bush, but there has been at least one assassination attempt, when he was making a speech in Tbilisi, Georgia.

No, among women she was second.
Folks, keep in mind that Obama did not have a terribly commanding lead, and Edwards and Clinton were virtually tied for second. Looking at previous years’ results on Wiki, this has never really happened before. In '88, Gephardt, Simon, and Dukakis were only a few percent apart, but even then there was a clear ranking of first, second, and third. Moreover, the top three managed to get all but 3 percent of the vote, which is similarly unusual.

74

I think it’s the possibility of Obama that excites people, like the possibility of Camelot excited people about JFK. RFK is the great lost hope of American politics. I think he was a true visionary and the world would be a radically different place if he had even had the opportunity to win the Dem nomination in 1968.

Right now Obama is the golden boy, yes. And he did cocaine. That’s the sum of the negatives on the guy. I don’t doubt for a second that the machine, once running, would pile up tons of dirt on him. And not “he cheated on his wife!!1!11!” dirt. He’s a guy who went to law school, probably knows a lot of people… no doubt one of them is dirty, has an axe to grind, caught him in a moment when he wasn’t at his best. I just don’t see him maintaining that high ground much longer, or at a higher level than he is now.

What could the GOP slime squad come up with against HRC? They’ve blown their load over the past 16 years. The fact that she polls as high as she does with all of that out there should make it obvious that she’s the GOP’s nightmare opponent. Every negative story would be met with one of two responses:

“Yeah, we already knew that.”

“Geez, why don’t you guys stop picking on her?”

75

There aren’t direct links between them, no, but the superficial thing goes farther than you think with many, many voters. If the speeches make you feel good, and sound like they’re coming from the heart, are inspiring without being syrupy and motivational without being jingoistic, you have the very thing that catapulted JFK to greatness, and will do the same thing for Mr. Obama if the momentum holds. The trick to that though, I think, is to believe what you’re saying with all your heart.

76

I can’t think of a better way to contrast HRC with Obama than this post.

But you’re right, he comes across very well. So well in fact, that if I were to somehow vote for one of the Democrat candidates he would be the one. However, I’d be holding my breath due to his inexperience and how little I really know of how he operates. I’d be hoping he wouldn’t foul things up royally because he didn’t really know what he was doing. Carter seemed wonderful to many people in the beginning and we all know how that turned out.

It’s funny. He strikes me as being the opposite of Rudy Giuliani. I don’t really care much for Giuliani as a person but I’ll probably vote for him because he’s shown he’s tough and can function very effectively with complex difficulties in the aftermath of catastrophe. With Obama, I like what I see of him as a person, but I probably wouldn’t vote for him because he doesn’t seem to me to have the experience or gravitas needed to deal effectively with the issues he’ll likely face as president.

77

Well, beyond 'luc’s rather salient point (had he finished his Term/s I doubt he’d be such an icon now.), that is exactly why I said José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is a better comparison for a host of reasons which I only began to list. I’ll just add one more item now: they’re basically contemporaries as well, which makes the comparison that much more apt. Think of it in terms of choosing between sports’ greats now and then. Can’t be done.

Might want to click on that link and come to your own conclusions.

78

You may be mistaken on that point. Remember with what grace and fortitude she acted during the Bill/Monica debacle?

If I were in the US, I’d be voting for her. Americans do have a tendency, at least that’s what I perceive, to pick candidates based on charisma or good-ol’-boyishness. Look at where that got you.

Obama’s ok, but I hope he gets more experience. I don’t quite trust his capabilities at this point. He’s charming, likeable, younger: does that make him President material? Kennedy was all that, and he brought the world closer to nuclear warfare than any other president. His main qualities as a president lay in his speeches, his family, and the fact that he died young, before he could fuck things up even more.

79

When an NPR interviewer (local) asked Hillary for an example of accomplishment, she responded by talking about a bill she sponsored to get health benefits for 20% of the National Guard that wasn’t previously covered. She said it took three years of hard work, but she got it done.

That made me wonder. How hard should it be in a time of war to get medical care for a small percentage of the Guard? Shouldn’t that be a gimme? Why did it take three years? Is she difficult to work with? Were people opposing her because she was Hillary, and they didn’t want to give her any ammunition for her campaign?

Maybe she’s done other things that were more significant, but this was the one she used as an example of her effectiveness in the Senate.

I can see a President Hillary having a difficult time making any changes, unless there’s a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate, all through her term. The people she needs to work with don’t like her, and don’t want to make her look good. Just MHO.

80

No way would Obama select HRC as VP if the choice were possible. Even Richardson would be dicey I think. Pity that it be, I think that he would need a white southern male to fill out the ticket to push him over the hump in the south.

does anyone happen to know of any white southern males who recently have come in second in the Iowa caucus?