Other than McCain, you mean?
Regards,
Shodan
Huh? The averages show Obama beating McCain better than Hillary would.
But if I could go back to the Reagan thing for a minute, I really don’t get this even if he was recognizing Reagan’s communication skills (which Hillary has recognized herself) and his role in lifting the spirits of a post-Watergate/Vietnam/Stagflation America, why would that be off-putting? There’s nothing wrong with recognizing the positive qualities someone has, and everybody has some.
Um, better check the statement again. Obama fares better than Hillary against republicans.
The dumbest thing about this is that even Hillary has acknowledged positive qualities about Reagan. A NH endorsement said she listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents. It turns out she didn’t say that; but what she did say was that she (paraphrasing) “admired Reagan’s communication skills.”
Which is pretty much the same as what Obama said. Yeesh.
I agree. Obama should have said “And so what if I’m praising Reagan, Hillary? Not that I am, but that’s a petty thing to put me in the stockades over. It would behoove you to find something else to talk about. You know, before I start talking about Brokaw’s book that details your own love affair with Reagan.”
Depends on how you measure it. If you only look at what percentage voters they get, then it’s the same. But if you look at how much McCain gets, Obama comes out ahead. I would favor the latter analysis, since it provides the full detail. But the data could be spun to mean that they “fare” the same against McCain.
Nah. He did OK. It’s a tough road to respond forcefully without getting dirty. I think the Wal-Mart line was the latter, and most of his responses have been the former. Just needs to stick to it, is all.
It’s funny, now that my Barack is being gored, I feel like I am getting to see a side of the Clintons that I managed to ignore before :). Or maybe I was just not as engaged when Clinton made his first run, or he didn’t have nearly the clout so his jabs were shrugged off. They certainly seem to relish the fight.
If I were the Clintons, I would probably keep it up, while avoiding a tone of “Who does this guy think he is?”. They are straying dangerously close.
An interesting take on Bill’s role in her campaign:
Also puke-worthy was Hillary’s appearance yesterday, talking about how Obama came there ready to pick a fight and that he was getting desperate (not sure that was the exact word she used, but something like it). She had this smug look on her face like she’s above the fray and just can’t understand what all the fuss is about. Bleh!!
What if Hillary does indeed become the polarizing force that actually helps Obama amass a following of Obama Republicans along the lines of the Reagan Democrats. A lot of Republicans are disenchanted with their own party and despise her just enough that they would support Obama out of spite if nothing else.
My mistake, I misread the claim.
But it is the kind of equation you only get in politics and other forms of human behavior - A > B, and B > C. But C > A.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely not, John, I was only pointing out that Clinton was not the only candidate critical of Obama’s praise of Reagan. I know Edwards is a politician who wants to stay alive in this race, perhaps he even has other motives. I watched the video clip of Obama’s comment and understand what he was conveying about Reagan. I haven’t read the article Senator Clinton referred to in the SC/Black Caucus debate.
I think Obama is taking some heat and holding his own, but I also see the media hammering Clinton at every turn while exalting Obama. She seems to be getting it from the Republicans, the Democrats, and especially the media. I find most of the HRC press coverage to be extremely bias and downright unfair.
I respect and have faith in Obama’s ability to lead and will vote for him if he is nominated. I do question his experience and hope he can carry the election despite the ruthless Republican smear machine.
I heard Obamas speech about Reagan. It sounded like praise to me.
Making the monologue “about Reagan” is fundamentally misunderstanding it, in my view. It is about the zeitgeist, and siezing on a national mood change to make policy changes favorable to your views. He also mentions Kennedy and obliquely the “Contract with America”.
It’s a little bit dorm-room political science but I would not say it is about Reagan, except in the narrative created about it.
You’re right, depending on what you mean by praise. He was praising Reagan’s skill at crafting a message that appealed to voters given the previous decades, and his skill at shaping politics according to his vision. He praised him for bringing new ideas to the table. What he did not praise him for was the content of those ideas, or the nature of the direction he led us. In fact, in the same interview he explicitly said those ideas had proved themselves bankrupt.
A couple of points:
Rovian tactics are to suggest that one has fathered an African American child out of wedlock, to suggest that an opponent whose strength is his work with and on behalf of children is a pederast, to plant a listening device in one’s own office and then cry foul when it is “discovered”, to suggest that one’s opponent would take your bible or your guns from your hands or have the country running rampant with teh gay.
Interpreting vague comments one way versus another is not quite at the same level, now is it?
Obama clearly praised some aspect of the Republicans with his “party of ideas” and clearly praised Reagan as some kind of reaction to “excesses” of the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, the phrase “party of ideas” comes directly from the Republican talking points of recent years. It should be no surprise that he gets some flack from the left when he uses Republican talking points. Whether he meant to say that they were good ideas or not is kind of silly - why not say that they were full of bad ideas if that is the point you wanted to make?
Now, listen, I would vote for Obama over Clinton in the primary. However, all this melodramatic hand-wringing, hand-to-forehead falling to the fainting couch nonsense has to stop.
By the way, as I pointed out in the other thread on this topic, polling does not all suggest that Clinton loses to McCain in a general election.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012960.php
It suggests that Obama loses by a point, and that Clinton wins by four. If, of course, one wants to put any stock in such polls at this stage of things.
No one said all polling suggests that. But an average of the most reputable polls does suggest that.
As for the rest of your post, the Reagan distortions are not the only thing being complained about, just the most recent. The Clintons also distorted Obama’s record on Iraq, abortion, the PATRIOT Act…the list goes on. And that’s just the things that can be tied to the Clintons directly because it came from their mouths. But overall, I agree that there’s a difference between wilfull distortions of an opponent’s record and Karl Rove tactics, but it is undeniable that they are campaigning dirtier than Obama is. That’s the real point here.
Really? And what is that average? Which are the “most reputable” and why does the LA Times poll (apparently) not meet the standard of reputable?
Here’s the link to Polling Report’s page for the results relevant to this discussion. Truly, I didn’t take time to divine the average of the reputable ones, but knowing that you have this information in hand, I didn’t feel it necessary. On the other hand, just scrolling through, it looks like CNN’s most recent poll has Clinton beating McCain by 2 and Obama by only 1, whereas several polls have both Clinton and Obama losing to McCain.
Of course, one can only hope that Democrats will continue to demonize Clinton’s character further so as to assure the latter outcome.
Every time the claim was made in this thread, it was accompanied by a reference to the cite .
An incredibly ironic statement.
Responding back to the original OP, I would say the answer continues to be Yes.