Hillary/McCain supporters: What do you think of Obama's performance so far?

Disclaimer: I am pro-Obama but I’ll admit that Either Clinton or McCain might do a better job if they are elected. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Some might think of his performance as a prez candidate started when he started raising funds, Others may argue that it really started 4 years ago after his DNC speech or even years before that, when he first became involved in politics or when he took public office.

Any starting date is fine with me. Since everyone has different criteria for performance and different conclusions, I’ll let ya’ll decide how to best go about it.

Of course, I’m particularly interested on how it compares to those of Hillary and McCain, but I’d also like it contrasted with Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s (I didn’t live in the U.S back then).

Your thoughts?

Ok, the lack of answers doesn’t tell me much. Are there any Hillary/McCain supporters left on this board???

There are. They’re just sleeping in. It takes a lot of energy to fight the good fight when your champion keeps whittling away at the reasons to do so. :slight_smile:

Either that or they’re all in church praying for divine intervention to save their candidate.

Just another bashfest …

My GOD, do you even realize how much you sound like a circa 2004 Bush supporter on here? “Just another bashfest boo hoo hoo”…I’m trying like HELL to remember that we’re going to need you and your fellow Clinton supporters in the fall, but you all make it REALLY difficult.

You might think a bit harder before making posts like the ones above, then.

Do you seriously see any good-faith interest in discussing the quality of Obama’s campaign performance here? The OP himself went straight to the hate in Post #2, and you’ve built on it yourself.

If you should ever decide you want to discuss this topic responsibly, I’ll be happy to join you. But that obviously isn’t going to happen any time soon.

Agreed. It was made in haste and frustration and isn’t constructive. I apologize.

The second post was made almost 10 hours after the OP was posted, to no replies at all. It’s not like he posted the OP and then immediately posted Post #2. There was a time gap of 9 hours and 40 minutes in which no one answered him. The question he asked in #2 is understandable.

Can you define “responsibly”?

The question he asked in #2, only 10 hours later, confirms his *true * intentions. The follow-on posts, none of which existed until those intentions were confirmed, demonstrate the lack of interest among the Obama supporters / Hillary haters (synonymous almost without exception here) in anything but bashing. The #2 post effectively gave you all “permission” to do what you love best, not address the topic at its *stated * meaning.
“Responsibly” ? If you have to ask …

Well, lesson learned. Trying to be reasonable to some Clinton supporters is futile. The OP was not addressed to Obama supporters, and we honored that stated intention for a phenomenally long time for a current political thread on this message board. Ten hours is more than enough time for an actual Clinton (or McCain, for that matter) supporter to step up and give their opinion. That none of you did spotlights either your own paranoia about how your candidate is being treated, or a general malaise as the inevitability of her defeat draws nearer.

Did it ever occur to you that “Hillary Haters” have good reason to dislike her, above and beyond her utter lack of electability given how much she’s HATED by the Republican rank and file? Is it possible that her dirty campaigning, her condescension, her touting of the Republican candidate, the retention of union-buster and lobbying whore Mark Penn as her chief strategist, the Rovian techniques that her campaign has used against Obama and the distaste for a strengthening of the propriety of a dynastic presidency (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton…) all have more to do with our dislike of the idea of her as the Democratic candidate than anything personal or sexist?

On the other hand, I’ve never really heard anything substantive from a Clinton supporter against Obama. Experience? He has more actual elective experience than she does. Electability? It is to laugh…any voter who wouldn’t vote for a black man also wouldn’t vote for a woman. What else do you have? From my perspective, opposition to Obama has all the substance of the fever-dreams rising from Hillaryis44.com.

Oh, add in the progressives’ understandable disgust with the Democratic Leadership Council’s Republican-lite philosophy of government and the general belief that this election is going to be a fight to rid the party of the influence of those who are whoring to business with all the restraint and propriety of a bordello drawing room. Progressives are tired of the DLC philosophy that, between 1992 and 2006, lost our party majorities left and right. The Clintons have never had coattails, and the party is about more than the president. If Obama is the nominee, we will see substantial and necessary increases in our margins in the House and Senate. If Clinton is the nominee, historically we will not.

I’m actually curious what Hillary supporters think of my candidate, too. Would you mind playing as if the thread was started in good faith, and help us get a real discussion started?

I check SDMB fairly often and I didn’t see this thread until now. Ten hours is not a large amount of time in GD, especially when most of that is in the dead of night.

I support Hillary and would’ve posted my views, but it’d be rather foolish on this board. SDMB skews *heavily *Obama, just look at the thread titles. “Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking”? I am doubtful there is any sincere interest in hearing about Hillary. I think most people on this board would like to look past the large number of voters who have given Hillary about the same number of delegates as Obama.

Please stay in your corner and keep repeating your rationale (she has no experience other than being “only” the *wife *of a President, haha!). You’ll be much happier that way.

Ok, I’ve had time to calm down, and Mosier’s post does help. If we start over, here’s a few thoughts on Obama, from a Hillary fan.

First, I was disappointed a few months ago when I went to Obama’s web site. Nothing too substantial there. This has changed and he has good info as of late. Would’ve pulled for him more if he had his act together from the start, as that is a sign of good planning and organization.

Second, I see Obama as a talker. He is positioned well, since he is half-black / half-white. In politics, you want to share as many things in common with as many voters as possible. That’s why centrists work out so great, they grab as much of the pie as possible. Unfortunately, we see a lot of false centrists. Bush and Clinton made plays for the center, but Bush is clearly nowhere near the center in actuality and in action.

As such, it is difficult for me to trust Obama’s talk. If he turns out to be “all talk”, then he has mad skills at making you believe he is right for the office. That could be illusory, just like the previous President.

If he isn’t all talk and has the chops to back up what he says, then he will make a great President and I sincerely hope that happens. More likely, he will make a few mistakes along the way. I do think he is more likely to make critical mistakes that show inexperience, especially in the first few years, so that’s why I like Hillary a little more.

I can look past Hillary’s supposed “warts” because I really do not care one whit if she is robotic, bitchy, uncharismatic, says the wrong thing to the press, “mishears or misspeaks” a word, or isn’t as physically attractive as a young black (and white) man. I do like that she was part of something extremely rare and quite impressive if you take the time to think about it: an administration that took a monstrous deficit and turned it into a surplus. Especially when you look at how quickly that surplus evaporated under another person’s care.

Another point is proven. Not the one you think, though.

Read in combination with Post #2, yes, it was.

More proof.

Pity for that assertion that the polls do not support it. As in, actual data, you might have heard of the concept.

Bashfest, as I said. Yawwwnnn …

I know you’ve been reading this forum for quite a while, so it can’t be that you haven’t come across any. Rather, it would appear to be this instead: No criticism of him can possibly be substantive, by definition.

Well, I guess I should have listened to that thing about talking to walls…I give up. Be delusional all the way to Denver if you want, though I don’t think this is going to go all the way there.

ElvisL1ves, I almost wish Hillary was winning the nomination just so you could stop playing victim for, I don’t know, a second. The woman’s not totally indefensible, but your constant attempt to dodge and any all debate beyond “Hillary bashing YAWNING OVER HERE GUYS” ironically seems to be stating the contrary.

I had a nice long post written in response to Mosier, but after previewing the most recent posts, I think I’ll send it privately to him and The Controvert. There is no other good faith in sight.

There’s an old saying in legal circles: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

You’re pounding the table, ElvisL1ves

There’s an old saying in politics: Don’t mud-wrestle.
Nope, no good faith on your part either, is there?

I actually think Elvisl1ves is right, at least concerning this thread. Obama suporter here, also Hillary hater.