[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
Only he’s endorsed HRC.
[/QUOTE]
If Obama wins the nomination, would that matter?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
If Obama wins the nomination, would that matter?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think it would, depending on how strong an endorsement it would be. For those who are superdelegates, there’s the argument that their endorsements are politics and once the nominee is decided upon, they’ll come into the fold. Generally I would expect noncombatants like Clark to pretty much live or die with their choice.
Seems to me that most VPs on the Dem side are either strong candidates for the nom who didn’t get the nod, supporters of the nominee, or those who have stayed neutral. Mondale, Ferraro, Bentsen, Gore, Lieberman all fit that mold.
I saw Clark on Real Time a while back, I think. He was pretty enthusiastic about Hillary. I’m sure TPTB in charge of selecting a BO VP candidate (if he wins the nom) will remember that. Just like I’m sure John Kerry has pretty much excluded himself from a HRC cabinet post…
42 posts and nobody has mentioned how candidates stand on the issues yet. Maybe they should stop campaigning on issues at all, nobody here, on a “smart” message board even seems to care.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
42 posts and nobody has mentioned how candidates stand on the issues yet. Maybe they should stop campaigning on issues at all, nobody here, on a “smart” message board even seems to care.
[/QUOTE]
There are other threads for that. If you think there are policy differences between Obama and HRC that will make a difference in the general, you should argue that instead of uselessly complaining.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Even among racists, maybe.
As I often do, I turned to an elderly lady I know in north Georgia for her thoughts on the campaign. This lady is a solid Democrat, who sees the Republicans as the party of the rich. She is also a racist, not afraid to let fly with an offensive epithet.
I asked her today how she planned to vote in the primary. Said she, “I like that black fella. What’s his name?”
[/QUOTE]
Oh Great, they think he’s Sidney Poitier.
[QUOTE=Anduril]
I think both Hillary and Obama would have a good chance of beating any Republican comer. Remember that the turnout has increased on the Democratic side no matter who’s running, so it’s pretty much a wash if we’re comparing the two of them on turnout.
Hillary has the disadvantage of possibly energizing the Republican base but that’s something that might also happen with an Obama run. At least we already know what to expect. With Obama, we don’t know what’s coming. He really hasn’t been vetted to the extent that Hillary was. Also, from an experience standpoint, McCain can lord it over Obama to an extent that he wouldn’t be able to do with Hillary. It’s really hard to say because it is too early.
I don’t put to much stock on head to head polls right now. The whole dynamic changes when it’s one-on-one and the election really begins. So we’re really basing this on our impression. And right now, it looks like Obama has the slight advantage being the new guy and relatively immaculate from Republican muck.
[/QUOTE]
I generally agree with you that the Democratic candidate this year wins but I don’t think Hillary (or Obama for that matter) has any preceivable “experience” advantage over a newborn baby when compared to someone like McCain.
I think the consensus, which I am part of, is that Obama and McCain stand the best chance. And as far as the “best POTUS” question, I’d answer with the same two names. If it winds up in the main election with Obama vs. McCain, I’ll sit easy (though still voting for Obama; not literally sitting lol).
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Obama is the only electable Democrat running. I’m not convinced that Hillary would able to beat even the lowest tier Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Even if McCain (as it looks like it will be him) runs a clean campaign… can you imagine all the rumors that will start and run and be supported by the Clinton-hate. There’s a LOT of water under that bridge. Enough to drown a candidate.
Side note/rant: I know Democrats tend to care more about the down-trodden and put-upon, BUT I get sick and tired of the Dem race being a 'I’M-A-VICTIM" contest. In the national election that doesn’t play and is damned un-presidential.
In short, it’s weak.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
<snip>Side note/rant: I know Democrats tend to care more about the down-trodden and put-upon, BUT I get sick and tired of the Dem race being a 'I’M-A-VICTIM" contest. In the national election that doesn’t play and is damned un-presidential.
In short, it’s weak.
[/QUOTE]
Hell yeah!! One thing is for sure, this year will be a monumentous one as I believe it’ll be Obama or McCain sitting behind that desk, and either way I’m psyched to see who would do what and when in terms of getting their [sup]tiny[/sup] punch lists taken care of. 
Politically, I could tolerate either Clinton or Obama, but Obama is magic.
I keep thinking back to his 2004 Senate race. Yeah, his opponent was Alan Keyes. But, if you drove through southern Illinois, you kept seeing Obama signs in front of farm houses, Obama bumper stickers on pickup trucks, Obama buttons on coveralls.
By any political wisdom, those people should have either stayed home, or voted for a third party candidate. Instead, Obama got 3.6 million votes. By contrast, Kerry got 2.9 million and Bush got 2.3 million in Illinois.
Hell, in Peoria County, about as Republican area as there was in 2004, the incumbent Republican congressman got 53,000 votes. Bush and Kerry got about 41,000 each. Obama got 55,000.
Obama makes things happen.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
If Hillary v McCain, many Democrats will stay home or cross over.
[/QUOTE]
A lot of republicans would stay home too. Every one I’ve talked to is horrified by the real prospect of Clinton Vs. McCain. Some of them think democrats in states who won’t get delegates have registered republican to vote for McCain since he’s the next best thing to a democrat, but that’s a bit too conspiracy theory for me. Wouldn’t those states have record republican turnouts, in that case? I hope Obama turns out to be more electable than Clinton, since I’d sooner vote for him than McCain.
I think Obama is the more electable of the two. I don’t see Clinton winning a single state more than Kerry did. I think if she gets the nomination, the electoral map will look exactly like it did on election night 2004 with the same results.
To be honest, I think McCain stands a really good chance of beating either Clinton, or Obama. He’s a moderate, white, christian man. Any democrat that feels the slightest bit uncomfortable about voting for a woman, or biracial man could easily justify voting for McCain due to his moderate beliefs. Honestly, race and gender will play a signifficant role against McCain.
You have to remember that right now the kid gloves are on. If Obama gets the nomination you can expect to hear all sorts of sordid details about his minister, whom he claimed to be a mentor, and how he honored Farrakhan. Any family members from Kenya will be put under a magnifying lens. They’ll paint Obama as possibly millitant, concerned more with Africa then America. “Hey, I heard he swore some black guy pledge.” McCain won’t even have to sully his hands, the Fox News Channel and conservative radio show hosts will be happy to smear on the shit for him.
Hillary… just look around, half the liberals on this board won’t even vote for her. Plus, there’ll be plenty of small minds that don’t want no woman runnin’ things.
What states do you think Clinton or Obama would be able to pick up? I’m thinking it’ll be those same blue states the last guy managed to get, which isn’t enough.
Oh well, better McCain than Romney.
[QUOTE=casieispretty]
Honestly, race and gender will play a signifficant role against McCain.
[/QUOTE]
Age may play a role, too. McCain will be 72.
Sure would be nice to have a youthful Democratic candidate, the better to draw a distinction.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Age may play a role, too. McCain will be 72.
Sure would be nice to have a youthful Democratic candidate, the better to draw a distinction.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it would only really matter if young people voted, which they never will. Besides, Reagan got elected when he was old, and then re-elected when he was old and senile.
[QUOTE=casieispretty]
Yeah, but it would only really matter if young people voted, which they never will.
[/QUOTE]
Compared to 2004, the youth vote has tripled in the Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida primaries, and more than doubled in New Hampshire.
I doubt you’ll ever get them to turn out in the same numbers as say, little old ladies, but if you give them somebody to be excited about they’ll turn out in large enough numbers to have a definite influence.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I support Obama, so it doesn’t really help my interests to argue that he’s more conservative than Hillary during the primary, but I really don’t get the basis of this statement.
On what policies is Obama more liberal than Hillary?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s a good analysis from The Nation:
A recent CNN poll shows Clinton beating McCain by 50% to 47% – within the 3% margin of error – but Obama beating McCain by 52% to 44%. A Time poll shows similar results.
Any breakdown by state, though? You remember, the kind of votes that actually matter?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Any breakdown by state, though? You remember, the kind of votes that actually matter?
[/QUOTE]
You mean all the traditionally “red” ones that Obama is trouncing Hillary in?