What Makes Obama Attractive?

[U2democrat]

I personally see Hillary as a far greater gamble.

[deep]

and that is based on the clintons' track record

vs

obamas?

[U2democrat]

That's based on the division I see caused by her which would lead to disaster in the general election.

[deep]

so judging "track records" the clintons record is far superior

and obama
really does not have much of one, yet.


as for " division I see caused by her" I accept your perception
but I don't believe it

and also understand that within your college environment
it seems like an unstoppable ground swell for obama
a tidal wave that will propel all the way through November


well. based on watching many, many presidential elections very closely and analizing them

i fear your very common held belief is far from what will happen


and please bear in mind

I very much do not want huckabee, rudy or mitt appointing useless sacks, like alito to the supreme court.

I expect more vacancies on the court, and the liberals will be the next two to go.

[U2democrat]

Well I certainly hope you're right that if Hillary were to get the nom that she'd beat out the republicans, but I just don't feel like she could win.

When she turns off democrats as hardcore as myself, and fires up the Republicans, I get worried.

[yolland]

Originally posted by deep
as for " division I see caused by her" I accept your perception
but I don't believe it

and also understand that within your college environment
it seems like an unstoppable ground swell for obama
a tidal wave that will propel all the way through November


well. based on watching many, many presidential elections very closely and analizing them

i fear your very common held belief is far from what will happen


and please bear in mind

I very much do not want huckabee, rudy or mitt appointing useless sacks, like alito to the supreme court.

I expect more vacancies on the court, and the liberals will be the next two to go.

I'm beginning to have some doubts about all this myself. Or more correctly, some doubts as to whether some of these more over-the-top fantasies about Obama's presence and sincerity and optimism magically transforming Washington into rainbows,-puppies-'n'-kittens land if elected might not be a subconscious response to these equally over-the-top convictions that Hillary is the Spawn of Satan--to the point where we're seeing unmistakably lefty voters apparently managing to convince themselves that handing the White House to any Republican would be preferable to Hillary, which makes absolutely no sense given their own stances on the issues. I wonder if there's some kind of collective wishful amnesia afoot about what happened in 1992, when Bill Clinton, another candidate who indisputably 'had the magic' with crowds and benefited hugely from it, outraged Republicans by defeating the highly qualified but considerably less charming incumbent Bush Sr. Disenchantment with Bill Clinton certainly increased with time and the inevitable scandals and disappointments, and by the end plenty of Democrats were soured on him too, but from the beginning there was already this now-familiar hysterical screed about the vile, slimy, lyin'-SOB-good-ol'-boy from Arkansas and--not incidentally--his ballbuster-bitch-uppity-Yale-grad wife, emanating from the other side. It is naive, very naive, to assume this could not possibly happen to Obama.

I am NOT denying the reality of "baggage," the sometimes-testy dullness and lack of charm to Hillary's persona, the (realistically rather small, compared to the GOP candidates) differences between her, Obama and the other Dems on various issues, and the distastefulness of furthering family-dynasty political trends, much less all the many appealing qualities Obama looks to have. I am no "fan" of Hillary myself. But I do question whether some of these Obama supporters who appear to hate Hillary to the point of being ready to give up altogether if they can't have Barack, and have him Right Now!, might not have uncritically internalized some of the aforementioned propaganda screed without stopping to ask themselves how worthy that received judgment is, who really benefits when they don't ask themselves those questions, and what exactly she's done that is so singularly hateful and vile as to warrant that level of frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria.

[ntalwar]

Who will be President - two people?

[martha]

Originally posted by yolland
what exactly she's done that is so singularly hateful and vile as to warrant that level of frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria.

I wonder about this myself. I've never found her all that horrible. I kinda like a smart broad.

[martha]

Originally posted by ntalwar


Who will be President - two people?

Wtf does that mean?

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by martha


Wtf does that mean?

There's too much usage of "The Clintons" everywhere - as if they will be a ruling team. The country will reject a perceived co-presidency.

[martha]

Are you hoping so?

[financeguy]

Originally posted by ntalwar
There's too much usage of "The Clintons" everywhere - as if they will be a ruling team. The country will reject a perceived co-presidency.

Well, 'the country' didn't reject a dynastic Bourbonite regency, as with the Bushies. The Clinton-Rodhams are not related by blood, last time I checked.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by financeguy

The Clinton-Rodhams are not related by blood, last time I checked.

It'll be the first time a present and past commander-in-chief are in the White House at the same time though. There is at least a potential for conflict of interest if they disagree on some major decisions. (I'm sure Bill will be actively involved in decisions, as Presidents have huge egos.)

[deep]

Originally posted by ntalwar


Who will be President - two people?

In 2000, after the GOP power brokers fixed it for W to get the nomination by gutting McCain.

They realized they had a problem because W was such a light weight.

So Cheney was added to the ticket (by himself, not W, btw)

and the buzz word was "gravitas" "gravitas" "gravitas"

I had never heard that word in relationship to a VP before.

Al Gore certainly had stature when he was chosen as Clinton running mate.

GHW Bush certainly had stature when he was chosen as Reagan's VP.

But both Clinton and Reagan did not need a VP with "gravitas" because they were not considered lightweights.

When W ran in 2000 they almost ran Cheney more than W.

With W who is president? Two people?
I think it is more like 1 and 1/2.

The half being W.

If Hillary gets the nomination. There are several people she could pick for VP.

No one would be screaming she needs a VP with "gravitas".


Can you say the say for Obama?

or would he suffer from the same perception as W did in 2000?

Who would end up being the twofer candidate? Hillary or Obama?

[deep]

Originally posted by ntalwar


It'll be the first time a present and past commander-in-chief are in the White House at the same time though.

yon made these guys laugh

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by deep

With W who is president? Two people?
I think it is more like 1 and 1/2.

With Clinton/Clinton + VP, voters might feel they are electing 2 1/2 or 3 people - that might be too much to stomach - we'll see.

[deep]

you really seem to be all worked up about nothing

again, with Reagan, one person was President

with Bush 1, one person was President
(who even remembers Quayle)

with Clinton, one person was President
Gore did not upstage Clinton


Hillary is perceived as a competent, effective Senator, the fact that she is married to a popular, well-respected exPresident has not sidetracked or interfered with her work in the Senate

[martha]

Originally posted by ntalwar


With Clinton/Clinton + VP, voters might feel they are electing 2 1/2 or 3 people - that might be too much to stomach - we'll see.

If you keep saying it, maybe others will believe it as well.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by martha


If you keep saying it, maybe others will believe it as well.

[martha]

Originally posted by ntalwar

Well you keep harping on this subject, repeating it over and over. What other reason would you have?