# The Obama Hype **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667 "2008-02-22T02:40:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/121 "2008-02-25T03:23:29Z")
I think it’s totally unfair to go after Obama for being a community organizer. If you’re going to start getting in the heads of candidates in an attempt to assign the worst motivation to everything they do, where does it stop? Maybe John McCain joined the military because he thought it would help him become president. I think this is a bad debate path to do down. And anyway, if Obama was that careful about his future credibility, why would he have done drugs, and then admit to it in a book? I think it’s only fair to let his record speak for itself. And everything I’ve read about it says that the guy is who he says he is - someone who came from the wrong side of the tracks, went down a bad path for a while, then got himself straight and used his experience to better himself and work for his community and country. Personally, I like the fact that he’s willing to admit to drug use and a rough past. I consider that a point in his favor - not just the honesty of it, but the experience. I came from a similar background and class, and I think it was valuable to me. So good for him. None of this “I didn’t inhale” nonsense. In any event, I hope we can reallly get past the personal attacks and bad faith. Both candidates this time around are of good character and are admirable people. I would hope that this will translate into a debate about the issues and the nature of government, and not a constant litany of accusations and character assassinations. However, I expect the media to focus on the character stuff, probably on both sides. The modern media is not capable of having a discussion about the real issues. They’d rather engage in tabloid journalism. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/122 "2008-02-25T03:29:14Z")
The same thing happened with Mario Cuomo, as you might recall. One great convention speech and suddenly he was The Anointed One, not just another big-state governor. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Which provides much less of a “self serving” perception than moving residence to a state just to run for office, as attested to by the “carpet-bagger” charge leveled against Clinton. A “charge” which can also be used as evidence of her ability to gain the support and trust of a large electorate in \*less \* than a lifetime. 😃 It always puzzles me how her wins for Senate somehow mean she just wanted it and just took it (why, that brazen hussy!), as if the voters of NY weren’t actually doing their own thinking and making their own decisions. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/123 "2008-02-25T03:34:53Z")
[QUOTE=solkoe] I will add that I have the same feeling. He’s seems big on hype and short on substance. Then again, I looking forward to a US run by the moderate not the extreme. 1. Wait till November - He’s not a lock for president. 2. Wait till 2 years from now - I smell Jimmy Carter. [/QUOTE] Hell, he’s not even a lock for the nomination. If a lot of the Super-delegates turn to Hillary, it’s end up brokered and brokered isn’t good for Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/124 "2008-02-25T03:44:51Z")
> [@Paper Pusher](#): > > > [@Sam Stone](#): > > > > There may be other good reasons to vote for Obama. I’ve heard some conservatives make good arguments for why it’s not a bad idea for Obama to be president. But centrism and a new era of bipartisanship isn’t one of them. > > What arguments?? Here’s what John O’Sullivan said over at [National Review](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGQ4ZTg1YWJiN2QwYzQwMzcwNDcyOTFiYjgwNmU4ZWY=): From the article: > [@](#): > > At the same time the McCainiacs are right to point out that it is hard to justify conservative abstentions or even votes against the GOP if the risk-benefit ratio falls heavily on the risk side. That would undeniably be the case if Hillary Clinton were the Democrat nominee since, both because of her virtues and her faults, Hillary promises a bitter partisan campaign and a techno-bureaucrat left-liberal administration with no benefit to conservatives that might temper these dangers. > > That argument does not apply quite so effectively to an Obama candidacy — and for an interesting reason. In addition to conservative parties and conservative principles, there is a third consideration: what might be called “the conservative interest.” A political event is in the conservative interest if it strengthens and stabilizes the country. At times that greater strength may be to the disadvantage of the conservative party or come at some (temporary) cost in conservative principles. But when the smoke of battle clears, conservatives will see, sometimes with surprise, that the nation is better for the change from a conservative standpoint. > > A British example: in 1923 when there was a three-way split in parliament with no single party having enough votes to rule alone, George V asked the Labour Party to form its first government with the argument (I quote from memory) “Labour must have its turn.” > > … > > What does the conservative interest indicate on this occasion? It seems possible and even likely that a victory by Barack Obama would be the climax of this long policy of fully integrating black and minority America into the nation and putting the querulous politics of race behind us. As I have argued elsewhere, the mere fact of a President Obama would strengthen and stabilize America just as a Polish pope undermined Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. Black and minority America would be fully integrated into the nation as the British working class was fully integrated into the British political nation by George V. Americans would feel better about themselves and the world would feel very differently about America. The conservative interest, as defined above, would therefore smile upon a vote for Obama. > > Notice that this analysis does not depend upon the actual policies pursued by Obama. It is the fact of an Obama presidency that would be a long step towards national cohesion. That fact is enhanced by Obama’s rhetoric of one nation. But what if Obama’s actual policies weaken this cohesion? Since he seems to favor more or less open immigration, multiculturalism, bilingual education, racial preferences, and other policies that emphasize and reward ethnic division, he might well obstruct and delay the overcoming of race that his presidency symbolizes and contradict the rhetoric of one nation used by Obama to such good effect with voters of all races. Obama’s proposed policies therefore open a line of attack for Republicans to exploit. Unfortunately for the GOP, John McCain takes almost exactly the same position on these “National Question” issues as Obama — without having the Democrat’s symbolic or rhetorical appeal. > > If the National Question is to be the main deciding factor, then the conservative would point to a vote for Obama. Any Republican argument for supporting McCain over Obama has to rest on all the other policies where they differ — taxes, national security, the economy, health, etc. Here, of course, McCain enjoys an overwhelming advantage with potential conservative voters. > > From this long-winded and roundabout argument — far longer and more roundabout than I intended — I draw three conclusions. First, McCainiacs and anti-McCainiacs should hold off on the insults and jointly seek to influence the McCain campaign to match Obama’s symbolic appeal of national unity with practical policies designed to achieve such unity. That would involve above all the Senator’s proposing very different policies on immigration, multiculturalism, and the rest. Such influence should be quietly private, unaccompanied by threats, and strategic — i.e., it should point out that McCain has a potential vote-winning argument here. But it should be attempted. Whether or not that fails, conservatives should devote most of their time, money, and effort into electing Republicans who support such policies and into making them a strong reason for voting GOP in congressional races. A Congress composed of Republicans and Democrats who had told their voters they would oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” or its equivalents on multiculturalism and other national questions would be a restraint on whoever is elected president. > > And if it should turn out to be Obama, Republicans will take cautious comfort from the possibility that his presidency will advance the wider conservative interest in a less fractured America. For that would be a permanent gain for conservatism under any president. I suspect a lot of this thinking comes more from an antipathy towards McCain than anything else - National Review is completely off its rocker in hatred of McCain for some reason. But still… It’s a reasonable argument to some extent. There are plenty of counter-arguments, but I’ll just let it stand for now. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/125 "2008-02-25T03:49:28Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Hell, he’s not even a lock for the nomination. If a lot of the Super-delegates turn to Hillary, it’s end up brokered and brokered isn’t good for Obama. [/QUOTE] At this point, he is all but a lock for the nom, barring something catastrophic. The supers are moving towrads him in doves now and considering that Hillary would have to win something like 70% of all the remaining pledged delegates to pull even with him, he’s going to get the bulk of the superdelegates. I think the ship has sailed for Hillary having a chance to strongarm the nomination from Obama at the Convention if Obama has a substantial lead in pledged delegates. Barring some kind of unforseen bombshell, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee without much of a convention fight (if any at all). And if Obama gets the nom, the polls show him trouncing John McCain. By any objective standard, he’s clearly the most popular candidate in the race on either side, right now and has to be considered the presumptive favorite in November. I almost hesitate to say that for fear of jinxing it. God knows what kind of garbage is going to get thrown at him during the General (probably not from McCain himself, who’s not that kind of a scumbag, but from 527 ads). ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/126 "2008-02-25T08:17:34Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] A “charge” which can also be used as evidence of her ability to gain the support and trust of a large electorate in \*less \* than a lifetime. 😃 [/QUOTE] Well…sure, one might look at the “carpet-bagging” charge that way. But I was addressing the “self serving” aspect of Obama’s Senate position (compared to Clinton’s). It seems clear to me that one obvious “next step” after being at the state level is the jump to the federal level (either Senate or House). Another might be a run for governor of that state. Isn’t that an expected path to that level of office? Tangential, but I think it needs to be said: What’s the “next step”, politically speaking, after being the First Lady? Well…I guess the pool of one actual example we have indicates – move to NY and run for the Senate. Back in 2000, I admit, I viewed it as…I don’t know, maybe self-serving is an apt term. Now, however, I just see it as _unprecedented_ – and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/127 "2008-02-25T15:15:47Z")
I’ve had the same change of heart, because by most accounts she has turned out to be a good Senator. The people of New York elected her with their eyes open and they seem overwhelmingly satisfied with her service. If they end up with Senator Clinton for several more terms that will be a not-bad consolation prize for the trust they showed at the beginning. I am sensitive to the idea of Obama hype. Being here in Illlinois, I was aware of him (slightly) before the convention speech due to the breathless, risque details of the other participants in the battle for that senate seat. But the idea that he somehow planned this whole thing step-by-step ignores the fact that an overwhelmingly popular Republican senatorial candidate was undermined by the details of his divorce from his TV-star wife, and his replacement was (“incredibly”, as Obama says in his book) Alan Keyes- a certified moonbat who had never lived in the state. Obama has had quite the string of luck. If he planned it, his plan was certainly overtaken by events. Most of the time getting to the Presidency is a long, hard slog. So anyway, I tend to agree that he’s not being examined as closely as Hillary, and that part of that is that there isn’t all that much to examine- he is fairly boring in his personal life, and his close associates seem to like him and avoid breaking bad on him, and he has done most of his own muckraking in his own words. It’s not fair, and a media bias exists. He is a slightly better story than Hillary CLinton, and he has the advantage of not being old news. I think if you sincerely asked media figures individually, they would want Obama and Clinton to run in separate races- the stories are both so great that it’s a shame that they’re blowing it all on one primary. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/128 "2008-02-26T00:21:22Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] It seems clear to me that one obvious “next step” after being at the state level is the jump to the federal level (either Senate or House). Another might be a run for governor of that state. Isn’t that an expected path to that level of office? [/quote] It’s \*common \* enough, sure. The jump from state legislature (low seniority) to Senate in a large state is audacious, though - generally Congress or a state executive office would be the next step for most ambitious candidates. (Oooh, did I just call Obama politically ambitious? Better put on my asbestos suit). > [@](#): > > What’s the “next step”, politically speaking, after being the First Lady? This is the first time in our history when the answer could be something other than “Choose some nice but fairly inconsequential volunteer cause, like UNICEF or roadside flower planting, like a nice one of the Ladies Who Lunch would do back at the country club”. What Clinton is doing \*is \* unprecedented, as you say, it’s only newly possible, it’s groundbreaking, and it is just not appropriate to compare her to, say, Barbara Bush. If she falls short in this attempt, it still will be easier for the \*next \* woman to run for the top office. It only would remain to be seen how seriously the haters would go after her too, or if they’re satisfied to get their yahyahs out on Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/129 "2008-02-26T01:27:51Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] If she falls short in this attempt, it still will be easier for the \*next \* woman to run for the top office. It only would remain to be seen how seriously the haters would go after her too, or if they’re satisfied to get their yahyahs out on Clinton. [/QUOTE] Do you think this has more to do with who Hillary Clinton is as a woman, or who she is in general? Meaning do you think the haters are mostly misogynists in our population or something else? The misogynists are a lot harder to get rid of in a population, than say someone who just hates HRC because she’s HRC - Or Condi, or Pelosi or etc…etc… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/130 "2008-02-26T01:39:06Z")
I think it’s mixed (and how could it not be?) - there is certainly a large segment of the population that is, shall we say, “predisposed” to think the worst of anybody named Clinton. That makes the impression that she’s essentially a stalking horse for her husband, who would really be the one in charge, hard to dispel. And I don’t think she’s trying to, either, since after all there is an even larger segment of the population who thought he did a fine job and would not at all mind having him back, and that for her even to address the topic would give it legitimacy. I don’t for a moment doubt that for some there is some misogyny involved too, or perhaps a simple prejudice against having women in positions of power, or simple fear of a change of that magnitude. You know as well as I (and I do appreciate and admire it in you, too) that the intense emotions involved in choosing to support another candidate can require some, well, validation by applying similarly intense emotion to the other candidate as well. Looking for reasons to despise one help support the decision to fall in love with the other. But, since you ask, I do think the hate comes mostly from her being Mrs. Bill Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/131 "2008-02-26T01:47:46Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] At this point, he is all but a lock for the nom, barring something catastrophic. The supers are moving towrads him in doves now and considering that Hillary would have to win something like 70% of all the remaining pledged delegates to pull even with him, he’s going to get the bulk of the superdelegates. . [/QUOTE] Dude, look at these numbers: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic\_delegate\_count.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) Obama does have 1374 to Hillary’s 1275, almost 100 votes. Sounds like a commanding lead? Look at the next line- there are 795 Superdelegates, 181 to Obama, 241 to Clinton. But what’s missing? Yep- **373 unaccounted for Superdelegates.** If 1/4 of those turn to Hillary, she’s in the lead. Now sure, Obama is far and away the more charismatic speaker- but those SuperDelegates are going to be won by wheeling and dealin, and there ain’t nothing better than a Clinton for that. And, I know I’ll now hear cries of “but that won’t be Democratic! It will disenfranchise the people!” :rolleyes: Dudes- Obama’s side has happliy disenfranchised the _entire fucking state of Florida_, the 4th most populous state in the Union. So until he agrees that their “people” will be counted, I don’t want to hear any whines about “un-democratic”. Hillary and Obama are \*both \*Politicians, and they are _both_ playing this game to win, not to be nice. OTOH, it’s a win-win,they are both good candidates, and I’ll vote for either. Hell, even McCain isn’t so bad. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/132 "2008-02-26T01:51:13Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] And, I know I’ll now hear cries of “but that won’t be Democratic! It will disenfranchise the people!” :rolleyes: Dudes- Obama’s side has happliy disenfranchised the _entire fucking state of Florida_, the 4th most populous state in the Union. So until he agrees that their “people” will be counted, I don’t want to hear any whines about “un-democratic”. Hillary and Obama are \*both \*Politicians, and they are _both_ playing this game to win, not to be nice. . [/QUOTE] Obama had nothing to do with the events that led to the discounting of the results of the Florida primary. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/133 "2008-02-26T02:02:15Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Dude, look at these numbers: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic\_delegate\_count.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) Obama does have 1374 to Hillary’s 1275, almost 100 votes. Sounds like a commanding lead? [/quote] Could be. Hillary has only really blown out Barrack in two(?) states. The rest have all been close. With none of these primaries being winner take all, Obama merely has to keep things close to keep the lead. Heck, he can finish with more delegates even if he loses the popular vote due to districting. > [@](#): > > Look at the next line- there are 795 Superdelegates, 181 to Obama, 241 to Clinton. But what’s missing? Yep- **373 unaccounted for Superdelegates.** If 1/4 of those turn to Hillary, she’s in the lead. > > Now sure, Obama is far and away the more charismatic speaker- but those SuperDelegates are going to be won by wheeling and dealin, and there ain’t nothing better than a Clinton for that. Again, maybe. While Hillary may be better at wheeling and dealing, the job of the superdelegates is right out in the open now. If it looks like the party higher ups are dismissing the will of the voters, they could lose a lot of Obama supporters and they’re likely aware of that. Hillary has to take a clear lead into any superdelegate negotiations or they’ll break for Obama just to play it safe. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/134 "2008-02-26T02:13:32Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Obama had nothing to do with the events that led to the discounting of the results of the Florida primary. -FrL- [/QUOTE] He won’t _allow them back in._ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/135 "2008-02-26T02:14:51Z")
[QUOTE=Harborwolf] If it looks like the party higher ups are dismissing the will of the voters, they could lose a lot of Obama supporters and they’re likely aware of that. [/QUOTE] Obama’s camp is “dismissing the will of the voters” by not letting the voters in Florida have their say, so what’s the diff? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/136 "2008-02-26T02:17:40Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Dudes- Obama’s side has happliy disenfranchised the _entire fucking state of Florida_, the 4th most populous state in the Union. [/quote] Dude – no we haven’t! That was a decision made by the DNC, _long_ before the primaries, _and agreed to by your candidate, as well_. I know you know this, so why are you misrepresenting the chain of events and who’s responsible? > [@DrDeth](#): > > So until he agrees that their “people” will be counted, I don’t want to hear any whines about “un-democratic”. Dude – why on earth should Obama agree to allow delegates to be counted from a primary that wasn’t even campaigned for? There was no honest or fair contest there at all, just some names on a ballot. Many, many people stayed home, having been told their votes weren’t counting anyway, so why bother. I can assure you, the _last_ thing Barack Obama would have wanted was to not be allowed to campaign in Florida and not get to have their delegates count, **win or lose**. But he, nor his campaign, made the rules, he’s just abiding by them. So lose the vitriol, okay? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/137 "2008-02-26T02:17:31Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] He won’t _allow them back in._ [/QUOTE] Neither will the DNC. Not sure why they should either. The states knew the rules and went against them. Thusly, punishment was handed out. If they want to hold another primary/caucus, by all means. They’ll be crazy important now and Obama and Hillary will both give the nation’s wang a big sloppy. Same with Michigan. To say that just Obama is behind Florida (and Michigan) not counting is untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/138 "2008-02-26T02:21:06Z")
re: Florida delegates. [QUOTE=DrDeth] He won’t _allow them back in._ [/QUOTE] So you support Hillary changing the rules mid-game so they favor her? The same rules she agreed to abide by several months ago? You think for even a tenth-second moment in time that Hillary wants them back in for reasons of principle and not because she’s angling for some extra delegates in a state where she didn’t have to participate in a real contest? :rolleyes: is the best I can offer such credulity. Obama is not at all in charge of letting them back it or not, by the way. It’s the DNC that’s in charge of allowing them back in. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/139 "2008-02-26T02:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] Dude – no we haven’t! That was a decision made by the DNC, _long_ before the primaries, _and agreed to by your candidate, as well_. [/QUOTE] IIRC, Hillary is now claiming that she only agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan but never actually agreed that they shouldn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667/140 "2008-02-26T02:32:50Z")
[QUOTE=Harborwolf] IIRC, Hillary is now claiming that she only agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan but never actually agreed that they shouldn’t count. [/QUOTE] Yeah, it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. Those crazy Clintons… I’m joking. I actually think Hillary is a bit of a victim of all this Obama hype. By all accounts, she’s been a good Senator for her state, and a good Senator for the country. I actually warmed quite a bit to Hillary over the past four years as I watched how hard she worked. At times, she’s looked like the grownup against the Democratic field. The vitriol that’s now being aimed at her by former supporters who have joined the Obama bandwagon is a thing to behold. It’s almost like half the Democratic party rented the Republican Attack Machine ™. What I can never figure out is why Democrats keep rejecting serious leaders like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who have run for office and been rejected. You guys are suckers for an image and a good story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obama-hype/438667.md?page=8)