The Obama Hype

[Phlosphr]

[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]

She can say whatever she wishes, the DNC is highly unlikely to let the votes back in. Some pundidts want to believe they will, but they are not going to simply change the rules because HRC wants them to, I think most of us know that.

Tomorrows debate should be interesting - I see a violent HRC emerging in the last few days, who wants to take a bet she unleashes before Barack does during a national debate … on T.V.

Anyone catch the live coverage of Bill Clinton today…he didn’t look so hot - I think the channel was fox I don’t remember.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
You guys are suckers for an image and a good story.
[/QUOTE]

Oh come on now. Why are high ranking democrats and some republicans jumping ship from Hillary to endorse Obama? Why are the monster Labor unions endorsing him? Why did the SEIU and Teamsters Endorse him? All just a bunch of suckers?

Why didn’t they endorse Hillary?

[Phlosphr]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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.

[/QUOTE]

This is very true, and indeed it’s what has many Americans up at night scratching their heads wondering who to cast their ever more precious votes for.

[Harborwolf]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Yeah, it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. Those crazy Clintons…
[/quote]
Thought about making that joke myself. Didn’t, but thought about it. Just so we’s all on the same same, here’s a link. And I quote

…“I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that,” she told Smith.

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 ™.

This part I don’t understand. How is Hillary any more of a victim than any other candidate weeded out in the primary cycle. Are Thompson, Romney, Guiliani victims of all of the McCain hype? If Hillary Clinton loses, it’s because Obama ran a better campaign than she did and the voters chose him.

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.

Sure, like Born again Bush vs. Tempermental McCain and his little brown baby. Let’s not pretend that voting on image is simply a trait of the democrats. If anything it’s a flaw inherent in the democratic process. Politics is a boring topic and stories sell. That’s just the nature of the beast.

[DSeid]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

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.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, we get back to what we feel a President needs to do. I can only speak for me of course, but I would posit that a good Senator does not necessarily make a great President. It’s a different skill set.

I’ve said it before, but a great President needs an optimistic vision for what America can be, the ability to articulate that vision, and the managerial skills to hire excellent people who share that vision to advise him/her and to execute that vision. The rest follows.

Biden is a smart man with a great resume. But he rambles and ends up saying stupid things. Good Senator but he’d not be a good President. Dodd … also less than inspirational and boy, his ties to the financial services industry would’ve killed him if his run hadn’t been stillborn to start with. Richardson inspires like a bowl of oatmeal and with as much spine. So on.

Carter was a good example of how not to be a good President. On many issues he was actually right. If we had listened to him back then we’d not be in many of the messes we are in today. But being right isn’t enough if you cannot inspire people to follow. In that regard he was a dud and failed as a president. Obama has the chance to be right enough (I don’t agree with all of his positions) and inspirational enough and a half.

He may end up disappointing some but he will not be a bad President and he has the possibility of being a truly great one, a transformational one. That possibility is hard to turn down.

[Little_Nemo]

Barack Obama seems like a pretty good candidate and I could easily see myself voting for him. But I certainly agree he’s way overhyped and it’s going to end up hurting him.

Anytime a bunch of voters start treated their favorite candidate like he’s the Chosen One it always ends up in tears. Nobody can actually perform to that level of expectation. So half of his supporters will decide he failed them by being merely human and will hate him for his “betrayal”. And the other half will end up drinking his kool-aid and denying he’s anything less than perfect.

Don’t get too emotional over an election; it’s just business. You looking for the best applicant to hire for a difficult job. Don’t act like you’re looking for a soulmate to propose marriage to.

[Shayna]

[QUOTE=DSeid]

I’ve said it before, but a great President needs an optimistic vision for what America can be, the ability to articulate that vision, and the managerial skills to hire excellent people who share that vision to advise him/her and to execute that vision. The rest follows.
[/QUOTE]
Why Hillary Stumbled
by Richard Reeves

. . .

The president’s job is not to run the country; it is to lead the nation.

In that business, words are more important than deeds.

. . .

Ready to govern on Day One? Does Sen. Clinton think the Office of Management and Budget is the heart of the Republic? Does she believe there is something lacking in her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, because he is eloquent and inspirational, because he can move people, because his words can persuade and prepare them to do what must be done? Does she know why no one remembers whether Lincoln balanced the budget?

. . .

Choosing a president is the great, most important, most dangerous responsibility in the world. It’s a gamble on character, not so much the character of a candidate but the character of the American people. In her struggle to stay in this year’s Democratic race by stopping Obama in Texas and Ohio, Clinton is right about one big thing: No one knows enough about the man to know if he will be a good president, much less a great one.

Obama does not know himself. Nor does Clinton know about herself. The job is sui generis . The presidency is not about qualifications or experience; it is about judgment. Beyond being wise and lucky in making appointments, much of any presidency is essentially reactive. The job is dealing with crises unpredictable and unanticipated: attacks, strikes, bombings, market crashes, revolutions, plagues of nature.

The best a voter can hope for is a man or woman who can find the right words to explain such things and persuade us all to follow the dictates of our better angels

I don’t agree with this entirely, but there is at least some validity to it.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Knorf]
re: Florida delegates.
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?

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.
[/QUOTE]

Re the SuperDelegates and their votes not being “the will of the people”: So you support Obama changing the rules mid-game so they favor him? The same rules he agreed to abide by several months ago? You think for even a tenth-second moment in time that Obama wants the vote to be purely be by elected delegates for reasons of principle and not because he’s angling for a win? I mean, that’s what you Obama-ites are suggesting, right? That the SuperDelegates must abide by the popular vote, even though the rules as agreed to said they were free to vote as they wish? That not doing so is “dismissing the will of the voters”? :dubious:

Look, the SuperDelegates are as much the “will of the people” as the voters in Fla. If the SuperDelegates voting Hillary is “dismissing the will of the voters” then not counting the votes of the 4th largest state is “dismissing the will of the voters”. Either the People count or the System counts, you can’t have it both ways.

Anyway, in the current system, the smaller states gets a few more votes proportionally that their population would call for. And, Obama has won mostly small states, thus giving him and edge. Is that against “the will of the people”?

Tell you what, after Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, I’ll bet if we count all the votes, Hillary will have won a plurality of the total net popular votes. Of course, if she loses in those states, she’s toast.

Shayna: “That was a decision made by the DNC, long before the primaries, and agreed to by your candidate, as well.” I’ll bet you a nickel my candidate didn’t agree, as **he **currently isn’t running and has 0 delegates.

I only slightly favour Hillary over Obama and that mostly due to the attitude of his backers (as evinced here). I wanted Gore. Still do. Still think he has a chance.

[Mosier]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I wanted Gore. Still do. Still think he has a chance.
[/QUOTE]

Yikes. I hate to be the one to tell you this. You should probably sit down…

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Yikes. I hate to be the one to tell you this. You should probably sit down…
[/QUOTE]

Yes? You’re going to tell me that the Democratic Con will be hopelessly deadlocked and they will turn to the one man who can unite the two sides? Hint, he just won a Nobel Prize, and would have won the 2000 election if the GoP hadn’t cheated like mad.

[Phlosphr]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
<snip>

I only slightly favour Hillary over Obama and that mostly due to the attitude of his backers (as evinced here). I wanted Gore. Still do. Still think he has a chance.
[/QUOTE]

Forget what the man stands for, you don’t like the attitude of his backers so you are not going to back him. There aren’t enough rolleyes for that remark.

As one of his backers, I can tell you, most of us are certainly not in La La Land and are ready for a new fresh face in the white house. Perhaps it’s her mocking sense of humor or her good looks that get people to back her so fervently.

[Pashnish_Ewing]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
So you support Obama changing the rules mid-game so they favor him? The same rules he agreed to abide by several months ago? You think for even a tenth-second moment in time that Obama wants the vote to be purely be by elected delegates for reasons of principle and not because he’s angling for a win? I mean, that’s what you Obama-ites are suggesting, right? That the SuperDelegates must abide by the popular vote, even though the rules as agreed to said they were free to vote as they wish? That not doing so is “dismissing the will of the voters”? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

While this is certainly a Clinton talking point (and endlessly parroted by the pundits), is there any truth that Obama does not want the superdelegates to have the personal choice to vote for either candidate? I’ve seen clips of Obama saying what he thinks the Supers SHOULD do, but not that they be required to follow the popular vote. To me, this doesn not compare to the MI/FL situation at all.

It’s possible I missed a quote from Obama that suggets otherwise. Can anyone dig one up?

Pash

[An_Arky]

[QUOTE=Jolly Roger]
Seriously. The remark that Obama blew 1.6 mil on his home instead of giving it to the poor was so stupid it almost made my web browser shut down.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If you don’t live in trailer-land, 1.6 mil for a house isn’t really filthy stinking rich territory, it’s doctor-lawyer-etc. territory, and Obama is certainly beyond that territory through his own efforts and success, so he’s actually living sort of low on the hog.

[tnetennba]

I think the contempt for Obama supporters just shows the effectiveness of Hillary and McCain in containing his popularity by Ussing and Theming. Once the casual observers caught wind that there was a “them,” they knew they didn’t want anything of it and started hyperbolizing it and casting about for anecdotal evidence to support it. I frankly find something creepy and cultish about that behavior.

[An_Arky]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Re the SuperDelegates and their votes not being “the will of the people”: So you support Obama changing the rules mid-game so they favor him? The same rules he agreed to abide by several months ago? You think for even a tenth-second moment in time that Obama wants the vote to be purely be by elected delegates for reasons of principle and not because he’s angling for a win? I mean, that’s what you Obama-ites are suggesting, right? That the SuperDelegates must abide by the popular vote, even though the rules as agreed to said they were free to vote as they wish? That not doing so is “dismissing the will of the voters”? :dubious:

Look, the SuperDelegates are as much the “will of the people” as the voters in Fla. If the SuperDelegates voting Hillary is “dismissing the will of the voters” then not counting the votes of the 4th largest state is “dismissing the will of the voters”. Either the People count or the System counts, you can’t have it both ways.
snip
[/QUOTE]

Nobody’s saying that the superdelegates can’t vote as they please. However, many of them are elected officials, and if they are perceived as not doing the will of the people, they are just as free to try to justify that next time they’re up for reelection.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
He won’t allow them back in.
[/QUOTE]

Where did he get the authority to make that decision?

Or do you just mean that he says they shouldn’t be let back in? If that’s his position, it’s one I can respect (though I disagree–I think they should be allowed to hold a new primary). For procedural consistency is essential to (all institutions, much less) democracy.

-FrL-

[Phlosphr]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
Where did he get the authority to make that decision?

Or do you just mean that he says they shouldn’t be let back in? If that’s his position, it’s one I can respect (though I disagree–I think they should be allowed to hold a new primary). For procedural consistency is essential to (all institutions, much less) democracy.

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

He doesn’t have the authority…It’s Clintonites making up more information against Barack. It’s getting old, and if you look at the most recent national polls, more and more people agree, it’s getting old.

[An_Arky]

Oh yeah, the Democratic Party told MI and FL exactly what would happen if they moved their primaries up. MI and FL decided that it was a bluff, and called it. Guess what…they lost. If people in MI and FL wanted their votes to count, they shouldn’t have tried to circumvent the process in the first place. I have nil sympathy for people who fuck up after being informed of the consequences beforehand.

The thing is, if relevance is what they crave, they could’ve saved their powder for the general election. They’re both very important swing states and will have a significant impact on the outcome. But no, they had to stupidly shoot their wads on the Democratic primaries. It’s completely and totally their own dumbassed fault, period. Tough shit.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=An Arky]
If people in MI and FL wanted their votes to count, they shouldn’t have tried to circumvent the process in the first place. I have nil sympathy for people who fuck up after being informed of the consequences beforehand.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say “the people” of these two states tried to circumvent anything. It was the Democratic Party committees that did that.

-FrL-

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
I wouldn’t say “the people” of these two states tried to circumvent anything. It was the Democratic Party committees that did that.
[/QUOTE]

It was the state legislatures. They were the ones who set the primary dates.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
It was the state legislatures. They were the ones who set the primary dates.
[/QUOTE]

Er uh, yeah, that’s what I meant to say.

-FrL-

iwasjusttestingyou