Thank you, The Controvert. Your response was well thought out and reasonable, and although I dispute your contention that Obama will probably make critical mistakes…it’s the “critical” that I have a problem with…this Obama supporter appreciates that you actually answered the OP’s question.
Heck, were I American, I’d still be pro-Clinton. I’d’ve voted for her in my state’s primary.
I suggest you step out of this thread for a bit, Elvis. You’re not helping.
This really sucks. I wish I could hear or read some good news about Hillary so I wouldn’t have to have all these adverse feelings towards her. I look on the web, her website, blogs, gushy Clinton blogs, and the like and I see only the same things I see on the Obama circuit just with Hillary’s name instead of Obama’s in there. All of those sites gush over Hillary, but non of them say she is winning anything. They say she is experienced, they say she is more dependable, but they don’t back anything up with endorsements, wins, popular appeal or anything that says she is actually going tobe president. At least I dont think I’m closing my eyes to what I read.
I’m lucky, as are a lot of us here on the SDMB, to be supporting a man who is winning on many fronts.
If the tables were turned, and Obama was in Hillary’s shoes would we have a Fork the Obama thread? Or would we still see the vitriol for Hillary and hope for Obama? Personally I think we’d still have the vitriol.
To the Hillary supporters: Is there anything wrong with a likable candidate? The Controvert says:
This is something I fully allow myself to believe, and have for over a year.
Personally, I was excited to see someone stand up to Clinton, as I don’t think she should be where she is on legacy alone.
If Obama wins the presidency, he will have fought, and fought hard. I like that.
Thanks, DigitalC. Bryan, what do you see as unhelpful? All the vitriol you see here? What’s the scoreboard show? Yes, it is important to get rid of that shit (starting with pointing it out) in a campaign, especially an intraparty one, and most especially when it’s in support of a candidate whose campaign is based on claiming to be *above * it.
Phl, it’s a little disconcerting to see you describe your support of Obama as based essentially on his leading at the moment, and on the *hope * that he’ll turn out to be substantive if he gets elected.
As for anything being “wrong” with likeability, no, not as such, but it’s well down the list of job qualifications for a chief executive, isn’t it? We’re not picking a preacher or a drinking buddy here; we’re hiring somebody to run the government. Dubya is as likeable a person as they come, but would you call that evidence of his ability to be President?
Bottom line: Talkers don’t impress me; doers do. Candidates who claim or just suggest that their clean hands constitutes evidence that they’re a more highly-evolved life form, not just people who disdain to get their hands dirty, don’t impress me; candidates with battle scars do. Candidates who inspire their staffers and supporters to hatred of their opponents and their opponent’s supporters don’t impress me; those who show by their actions that they recognize that party and country and humanity are still more important do. Candidates who merely claim to be uniting leaders don’t impress me; candidates who try to get the voices of all the people to count in elections do. Candidates who promise to be out of an evil war in a certain time period but whose advisers admit they won’t be bound by it after the inauguration don’t impress me; those whose plans are more nuanced do. Candidates who talk about drastically changing NAFTA but admit in private it’s just for show don’t impress me; those who claim a more realistic view do. Candidates who talk about the importance of UHC but whose plans don’t include the U don’t impress me; those whose do include it do. Candidates who claim to be about being past race but whose supporters claim that someone who isn’t one might be racist don’t impress me; those who are running as themselves do.
Good-faith replies are, of course, welcome. Replies using words like “paranoid” and “delusional” are not, though they are expected nonetheless. And maybe the OP can drop in and explain his actual intentions, whaddaya say?
None of that was here until you jumped in with your oh-so-witty “just another bashfest…” comment.
I think everyone supporting their candidate of choice hopes they will turn out to be a good president. Unless, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt Hillary Clinton will be a substantive president, I bet we hold the same view of our respective candidates.
Sure, Dubya is likeable enough, but I put Obama oratory skills eons above his and that counts for ability points in my book, doesn’t mean he’ll be a great president because he can deliver a speech. What will make him a great president is his judgement in choosing the right people to help him run the country and the judgement when things go wrong dealing with them correctly, and maybe a little differently than the last 2 decades.
Highly evolved life form? Come on now, just because Obama is younger, has less battle scars makes him someone who can’t run a country? You believe that?
To my knowledge Obama doesn’t inspire his supporters to hatred of his opponants.
I’ve stated before and I’ll state it again, I don’t hate Hillary Clinton or her supporters. Those who have clouded the waters with their vapid denounciations of the opponant and their supporters live on both sides of the ticket Elvis. Not just Obama’s folks. No?
Scroll up to posts 2, 3, and 4.
I was addressing your implication that your support of Obama is based on his lead, not on his policies or personal qualities.
We heard all *that * stuff about Dubya in 2000, too. Yes, maybe this *will * be a little different. Maybe. Can we afford to believe it, though?
No, but it does mean that one has to depend more on hope than experience to support him anyway than it would for someone *with * them. As I said, he’s not the first to try that approach, not by far, and the record of above-it-all “clean hands” candidates once in office is not confidence-inspiring.
Then where *does * it come from? :dubious:
So this campaign isn’t really fundamentally any different after all. Glad we can agree on that.
I can, and a little more than half the democratic contingent do as well.
It isn’t confidence inspiring, I understand that. That is why I read and make inferences on what I read. I like researching candidates, because I don’t want anyone to come along and tell me I haven’t done my homework.
I think it comes from a multifaceted view of the opponant. These views are unfortunately inspired by the media. It’s sad but true. Obama’s branding is top knotch, and Clinton’s is decidedly old school. Marketing 101 - appeal to your audience. get them to learn more.
To me the more I learn about Hillary, the more I understand my reasoning to vote Barack. I won’t speak for others, I know either one of us do not like that.
No it’s not fundamentally different. But it is different, in that we have two contenders that are Historical candidates if either one get into the WH. So in that sense, it’s quite different.
Trivial jokery. The vitriol is in your imagination.
In the context of *this * forum, Bryan? :dubious: Now really.
In the context of this message board, somebody grossly over-reacted with hostility while accusing others of the same? SHOCKING!!!
:rolleyes:
It’s called poisoning the well. It’s his stock in trade. He drops a little bomb like that and accuses everyone else of not wanting to debate fairly. He also manages to hijack the thread and make it about himself. Best to simply ignore any posts he makes that are not on topic.
How is post #2 bashing? I’m tired of all the bashing too (and I’m an Obama guy), but I don’t see it in post #2.
Obviously we’re not going to get any substantive engagement here from the Obama supporters, other than phl, after all, are we? Not even from the OP.
Looks like I had it pegged from the beginning, huh? A pity. Predictable, of course, but a pity nonetheless.
Some interesting reading for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy.
Presumably the same place as “Obamabots”, “Obama kool-aid”, “Obamaniacs”, et al.
Why did I click the link Elvis 
??? I should have stayed away…but I was interested. Cannonfire. A hotspot for frothing Obama hate. To be fair, from the blog on that page:
I couldn’t in good conscious read things like that on a daily basis. But, like I’ve said before, I want to read the vitriol, I want to understand who is voting against Obama and why. So I can fully understand this democratic primary season I have devoted so much time to. I probably won’t be returning to that blog though. I did like the **Daffy Duck ** - Don’t Duck Don’t Dodge - bit about sticking to bashing Obama and not comparing the candidates… It’s good to keep people on task.
Well, this Hillary supporter has a life and was out from about 9 this morning to 8:30, but I’m here now.
I too have been disappointed somewhat by my candidate lately, but The Controvert said it well; the rhetoric is all well and good, but there is a certain coolness and calculation in Obama’s delivery that makes me wonder how deeply he holds some of his beliefs. Of course, I am impressed deeply by how far this young man has come in such a short time, and I like how he rallies people and all, but frankly I’m tired of being appealed to with vague, grand-sounding principles that are impossible to disagree with.
But since the OP asked about campaigns, it’s a pretty masterful one, although partly fed by a hatred of the incumbent I haven’t seen since Carter (which was milder). However, he was just another ambitious young speaker to me back in 2004 and I didn’t think of him as any different from the pack of candidates until mid-2007.
Not Obama now doesn’t mean to me Not Obama Ever. Given a few more years and more real-life time in the trenches, I’ll vote for him, as indeed I will if he ends up being the nominee this year. However, right now I think we need a policy wonk with connections who’ll inspire people by getting down in the trenches and policy wonking her way back to prosperity and a recovery of our image in the world. We need Hillary.
I carry no water for Obama. At this point, I think all three of the candidates left standing are undeserving of support.
However, it’s undeniable that Obama has run circles around Hillary’s campaign; for evidence, one need only look at a map of the US that counts delegates won in each state instead of the primary/caucus wins that the media covers and trumpets. I constructed one for myself, and was stunned at the result. The number of states that Hillary has won in delegate terms can be counted on the fingers of both hands, pretty much, which is pathetic, pretty much, given her early lead in name recognition and the idea that she was easily the most electable of all the candidates.
Now, far as that Cannonfire site, two points:
1 - The site says
This is a strange claim. I found that speech months ago by simply typing into Google “obama’s iraq war speech”. It’s on Wikisource. I tried that again after reading the above, and there it was.
2 - Which segues into our next point of contention. On a site linked to by Cannonfire, the blogger (blog is titled Stop Obama Now) says
Apparently, Ron Paul needed reminding, since he said this at the exact same time as Obama was making his antiwar speech (also available on Wikisource), during the House debate on the resolution in question:
That is the speech Obama should have been making, rather than just calling it a dumb war, but that’s a point for another debate. For this one, let’s just set the record straight, and make it clear that there was no question at the time just what was being voted for.
As for the rest of the claims on the Cannonfire site or its friends, well, they could be right, or they could be wrong. Someone who wants to carry the water for Obama can dispute the rest of it.