From what I’ve heard, she was in on a lot of things. Technically, she wasn’t’ supposed to be in on those things. but there she was.
Obama supporters are not to my knowledge claiming he has executive experience and Hillary doesn’t. They are both fine senators. Obama just happens to have a little less dirt in his past to prevent him from being as sullied as Clinton is at this time. I’m not a fan of rabidly attacking anyone, but I am a fan of sticking by my guy. I think someone supporting Hillary - for the right reasons [sup]whatever they may be[/sup] - is simply doing so because of their own loyalties. I can’t fault someone for that. But asserting that she would be a better president than Obama because she spent 8 years as first lady is asinine - I know you foolsguinea are not doing that…I’m just saying.
A couple of months ago, I had no meaningful preference for one or the other. Either would have been fine, and I figured either would do a good job. However, the way they have run their respective campaigns has caused me to rethink this. Barack is incredibly well organized, and financially disciplined, and inspires loyalty among his followers. Hillary is neither of the first two, and the loyalty of her followers is of a somewhat different type. Based solely on the evidence of the last couple of months, I would argue that Barack has demonstrated significantly greater talent and skill in spearheading an organization. Of course, it’s a single-minded, single-purposed organization, which is quite different from the snarling multi-headed Hydra he’s seeking to administer, but the contrast between him and Hillary on this one item is really quite stark.
Shayna, more than 60 posts in and your thesis seems to be holding up. I would have thought people would have come up with more by now. I’m not Hillary’s strongest proponent, but I’ll give it a try.
First, you seem rather dismissive of Hillary’s legislative record, but even this anti-Clinton site, while arguing that her overall effectiveness has been exaggerated, describes a few of them as substantive:
From her Senate site:
As far as leadership skills, she served as president of her college’s Young Republicans organization (whoops), organized a student strike and worked with black students for changes in campus policies, cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and chaired the nonprofit Legal Services Corporation, the Arkansas Educational Association, the American Bar Associaton’s Commission on Women in the Profession, the Children’s Defense Fund, initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act, served on senate committees (Budget; Armed Services; Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Special Committee on Aging) and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (that’s all from a Wikipedia page, but it seems pretty well sourced).
Obama seems to get a lot of praise for the way he has run his campaign on the SDMB. He has had two of the most outstanding months of any candidate in a long, long time.
But, after losing big in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday, I got to thinking, what went wrong with his great campaign?
He had 12 wins in a row, had Hillary on the ropes, outspent her 2-1, but still couldn’t close the deal.
He had his foot on her throat going into New Hampshire and Ohio, but then he seemed to let up.
What up with that?
It’s not just a matter of winning versus losing; it’s the breadth and depth of his organization, and the efficiency with which it’s being run, compared to the more disorganized and internally fractious campaign of the Clinton camp.
You’re looking at it backwards.
First, he didn’t lose big in Texas. In fact, he didn’t “lose” in Texas at all. He didn’t get as much of the popular vote, but he’s going to end up with more pledged delegates after the caucuses are counted than Hillary. And actually, because the delegates are awarded proportionally, he won more delegates from the Primary portion of the vote alone; 89 to her 84! See here - subject to change as results come in.) So in the only measurement that counts, he WON Texas!
As for Ohio, he started out with a HUGE deficit to overcome. Polling data had Hillary’s lead at nearly 30% when this contest started, and he never did pull ahead of her. He lost that state by a margin of 10%, which was pretty much expected all along.
All in all, when all the delegates are counted up from the 4 contests on Tuesday, it will pretty much be a wash. I think Hillary may end up with 5-10 extra delegates. But don’t forget that California just netted him an additional 8, so in essence, Tuesday’s contests did her absolutely no good whatsoever, technically speaking.
In terms of organization, one doesn’t need to know the thermodynamics of propulsion to see Obama can run an incredibly efficient organization which inspires and blows away fundraising records out of the water. We know the disorganization of the Clinton campaign has been well covered in the news outlets, this alone should win over at least a few hillary supporters once Obama cinches the nod.
You’re better than that, pal. You’d even *know * better than that if you’d kept up with our discussions here. Nope, no good faith here, either. Too bad.
Is it time for today’s Two Minutes Hate yet? Time to call Clinton a “monster” some more?
It was the 3 am call.
I would also consider the fact that the senate had been controlled by Republicans for both Obama and Clinton’s careers.
I know a LOT of women who are supporting Clinton over Obama because of her ovaries. But its kind of hard to criticize that fact when 80% of the black vote goes to Obama. FYI, I support Obama