I am optomistic about November, but I do not think we should delude ourselves into believing that Senator Obama can not be attacked unfairly with lies comparable to the ones that Senator Kerry faced in 2004. Sure, Obama has the media on his side, this time- John Kerry did not in 2004. Back then, they were still carrying Bush's water. But, it is never good to underestimate the enemy. I also strongly disagree with your comments that Senator Kerry was a flawed candidate in 2004. Senator Kerry fought long and hard with little help from the Democrat party and with a general election calandar that worked against him money and time wise. Yet, he came closer than any other candidate in our history to unseating a war time president. Frankly, I am tired of this BS flung at Senator Kerry whenever there are comparisons between 2004 and 2008. Truth is, Senator Obama has learned from what Senator Kerry had to deal with in 2004 and Kerry has been a strong defender of Obama.
I would suggest you make your postive Obama points without trashing another good Democrat who should be President- Senator Kerry.
Why You Should Be Optimistic About November
After having lost the last two presidential elections and with Hillary Clinton still on the stump arguing that the near presumptive nominee is simply unelectable, it's no wonder that Democrats are starting to feel worried about November, peeking toward the future from behind the hand covering their eyes. But there are countless reasons to be optimistic about the fall election, many of which will begin to materialize soon enough.
With the nomination fight coming rapidly to a close, it is all but assured that Democrats will avoid the worst-case scenario they dreaded, a bitter convention fight that rips the party limb from limb. It is also clear that months of fear about superdelegates overturning the will of the people was unfounded. Already, Obama has overtaken the superdelegate lead, with an avalanche of support expected after he clinches the pledged delegate victory on May 20th. Obama will now have far more time than expected to prepare his general election bid, defining John McCain more sharply, and healing the wounds that a bitter primary fight has left in the party.
There are many who are concerned that, given some recent exit polling data, a number of Hillary's supporters would consider voting for McCain over Obama, a decision based less on policy and more on revenge. But for women, Hillary's strongest core of supporters, McCain is proving to be an unacceptable alternative. Ardently pro-life, McCain has recently given the indication that, despite his previous statements to the contrary, he will be unwilling to change the Republican Party platform with regard to abortion. He will refuse to include the exception for victims of rape and incest that he claims to have supported. And recently, while campaigning in New Orleans, McCain came out against equal pay for women, citing the likelihood of increased lawsuits as his reason. Of course, one would expect an increase in lawsuits given the shocking number of women being paid less than their male counterparts. But if solving the problem includes using the justice system, McCain would rather we ignore it. How utterly presidential.
The recent trends in polling also bode poorly for McCain. Saturday's Los Angeles Times poll revealed that Bush's approval ratings have fallen below those of Nixon on his final day in office. And according to the Times, "among the 78% of voters who said they believe the economy has slid into a recession, 52% would vote for Obama, compared with 32% for McCain." Obama also beats McCain by a twenty point margin among voters under 45 and loses by only six among voters 65 and older. McCain, who has spent much of his senate career assaulting Social Security and Medicare at every opportunity, is likely to see those numbers fall once voters are made aware.
Even with some of Obama's biggest weaknesses, there are reasons to be optimistic. Reverend Wright undoubtedly damaged Obama, tarnishing his luster in the eyes of many voters. But the vast majority of voters do not appear to have changed their minds based on Reverend Wright, a fact which many attribute to Obama's response to the situation. And for the media, the Wright story is already growing stale. In our 24-hour news culture, a story can only stay in what Chris Matthews describes as "the ring of fire" for so long. Eventually, the media tires of the story; attempts to rehash almost always fail. When was the last time we heard about Hillary's Bosnia flap? Or Vicki Iseman? Once a story has been exhausted, it can rarely maintain itself in the campaign narrative.
As Obama's fortunes appear to brighten, McCain's seem to be diminishing by the minute. At 71 years old, gaffes and misstatements can easily be construed as evidence of age, and can bring up questions of capacity to lead. In recent weeks, to his dismay, McCain has become a literal gaffe-machine. On at least four occasions, he has publicly mistaken Sunni and Shiite. And at a recent town hall, he made remarks that indicated his belief that the wars we have fought in the Middle East -- and those he may lead us into in the future -- have been largely about oil.
Even when he isn't committing verbal faux pas, his campaign picks up the slack. The man who decries lobbyists, claiming never to have used his position to do favors, has found himself surrounded by lobbyists on his campaign, some of whom actually conduct business aboard the Straight Talk Express. The New York Times reported that McCain used his influence to structure a land deal for one of his major contributors, who in turn saw more than $20 million in profit. The Washington Post reported on other similar land deals orchestrated by the Senator. And, as if the cake needed any more icing, today a second member of the McCain campaign resigned after it was revealed that he had lobbied on behalf of the same Burmese government that is denying aid to its citizens in the wake of a cyclone, a decision that could result in more than one million deaths.
McCain has revealed that his strategy for going after Obama is a combination of Hillary Clinton's Obama strategy and Karl Rove's John Kerry strategy. He is looking to paint Obama as inexperienced and unready, as well as ultra-liberal and elitist. That the Clinton machine, a much more well-oiled and funded operation than McCain's, failed so miserably on their end ought to give McCain pause. And with absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Obama is as flawed a candidate as Kerry, or that his campaign is as strategically wayward as the Kerry campaign, one wonders what McCain could be thinking. Obama has shown himself to be incredibly strong on the defensive, and his team has clearly learned from the failures of those who came before.
Still, as good as things look today, they should only get better. These last three months have easily been the best that McCain will see for the duration of the election cycle. With the Democratic race the exclusive focus of the media, McCain's time in the shadows allowed him to redefine himself; his favorability shot up by double-digits while his likely opponent was facing a two front war. With such advantageous circumstances however, McCain never closed in beyond the margin of error.
In the meantime, Barack Obama has amassed a database of 1.5 million donors and is expected to have as many as 1 million volunteers on election day, roughly one volunteer for every fifty voters Obama will need to secure the White House. The long primary process has been a party building exercise in nearly every state in the union, resulting in 3.5 million more Democratic voters. Hispanic Democrats now outnumber Hispanic Republicans in Florida. Pennsylvania has over four million registered Democrats. And for the first time in Nevada's history, Democrats outnumber Republicans.
It's a long road between May and November. There are going to be more than one hundred news cycles between now and the Democratic Convention. And given that Barack Obama's previous convention speech made him the subsequent nominee of his party, one can only imagine the kind of bump he'll get coming out of August this time around. There is plenty to be optimistic about; barring something unforeseeable, Barack Obama is well on his way to the Oval Office.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a clinton supporter and a woman and after the coronation of obama and the ganster mentality of his followers and after promising politics of change then running one of the most divisive campaign ever, even the audacity to accuse bill and hillary clinton of being racist then never any scrutiny by the so called progressive blogs, and allowing non stop praise to obama.........there is not a chance that I will support obama in november.....his has divided our party and destroyed the clintons who were the only qualified candidiate in this election and instead of talking about issues while the world is falling apart he took the democrats most proud issue and the clintons most proud issue that would be race......and he broke it to pieces......so no way will I vote for him....
The truth is that Obama *defended* the Clintons when they were accused of using race as an issue:
http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the issue of race, Obama also said key differences in outlook and experience define the two campaigns.
"I actually don't think that the comment that Sen. Clinton made about Dr. King was a racial comment," he said, referring to a recent flareup in which she noted that President Lyndon Johnson had pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress, a comment that some African American leaders took as downplaying contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King.
"I think it was illustrative of how she thinks change happens," he said. "She was arguing that Lyndon Johnson, his skill set was what was critical to getting the Civil Rights Act done - as opposed to a movement on the streets. And that indicates a difference in emphasis on how change occurs. But I don't think the comments were racial."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't know "The Clintons" were running for president. On my ballot it said "Hillary" Clinton. Not that I harbor any ill will against her husband, but that was then, this is now. Obama's not the one who "divided our party." THE CLINTONS did that. I had every intention of voting for Hillary until she started acting like the world owed her the White House and he started race baiting, something I never dreamed would happen in my life, but I know what I heard. In early March I started to reconsider and when I cast my vote in PA, it was for Obama. You can't accuse me of having a "gangster mentality" when I didn't even make up my mind until eight weeks ago and I was influenced solely by my own observations. And I certainly do not have "non-stop praise" for Obama. He has his flaws, as does every candidate. He just exhibited fewer of them in this primary.
I appreciate President and Senator Clintons' contributions to the nation and to the Democratic Party, but I think it's time for a change. If you don't agree with me, go ahead and vote for McCain ... then explain to your daughters why they have no choice over their reproduction and explain to your sons why they might have to go to war.
Wow Cin, you can't be serious. Obama ran one of the most devisive campaigns ever??? Where have you been? Not once did Obama accuse them of being racist nor did he disrespect Hillary Clinton like he disrespected him. You would be doing yourself a favor if you would TRY to see things as they really are, and not distort the truth. I know Hillary Clinton has passionate supporters as well as Barack Obama has passionate supporters, but if Hillary Clinton was to become the dem. nominee, I would hold my nose and vote for her and not hold her responsible for all the nasty and untrue things her supporters said about Obama and his supporters....that would be really immature of me, and really devisive.
Okay. That's your choice. Good luck.
I meant like SHE disrespected him.
McCain acts like he just wants to joke around, knowing full well that he hasn't a chance in this election.
He is so used to saying nothing of substance that he seems annoyed when he gaffs again and again and expects it to not matter a whit, like in his real life.
He doesn't take his senate job seriously, misses important votes and/or votes dead wrong and thinks nothing of it. He will continue to implode over and over and his campaign will be a joke.
Yes, the election will be a shoo in for the dem candidate...that was what Hillary was counting on.
Now though, this country is going to get something different...at last. That something different is a whole new crop of activists that after they elect Obama, are going to keep pushing for the change they need and he will benefit along with the country.
Recently I heard that Hillary was supposed to give evidence during the lawsuit Peter Paul vs. the Clintons, in November. Does anyone know anything about this? Why isn't this covered by the media?
I have seen the legal documents, and I know this case is pending.
Here is your unforeseen that will sink Obama...... Hillary will run as an independent, thereby liebermaning the party. McCain is already snickering.
Maybe MCain shouldn't snicker tooooo soon. Bob Barr has announced his plan to run as an independent, also. He's running on fiscal responsiblity.
Dylan.....
You are now entering and drawing conclusions based upon quase' historical aspects of previous presidential races. Your post and opinion that you deem fact are based upon?......Your experience?
In my opinion you have no historical experience to draw upon. With this said and while your post is well worded is nothing more than creative fiction. It is also my opinion that you were a mere toddler at most during Bushy Sr.'s Desert Storm, no?
OC
0. That is what this man will turn out to be. Has anyone tried to get the training manual on this man from the rnc yet?
If Sen. Obama isn't 18 points ahead of McCain in the national polls in July, I'll throw up. There is no reason that he doesn't win this election going away, with the punditocracy declaring the race over by the end of October. Unpopular president. Unpopular war. Lousy economy. Folks, this is why Hillary is hanging on by her fingernails against all odds, against her economic self interest and against common sense. She knows that the democratic nominee will win in a walk, no matter what "divisions" or "bad feelings" may have characterized the last few months.
And then there's Bob Barr. Not good news for McCain.
There are many who are concerned that, given some recent exit polling data, a number of Hillary's supporters would consider voting for McCain over Obama, a decision based less on policy and more on revenge.
Wrong again, Loewe. It all depends upon which policy is important to the individual voter.
Obama has a long history of being very pro-Palestinian. You may believe that everyone can have everything, but that translate, at least to me, to being anti-Israel.
Obama's health plan is substantially different from Hillary's - it places much more burden on the small business owner.
Obama's policy is based upon increasing race-based income redistribution - not less. He often speaks and writes about race-based equity issues. Income redistribution based upon poverty is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Race-based "special equity" remedies should be eliminated.. Obama is internal proof that the LBJ's Great Society has succeeded - that race is no longer a criteria for special treatment. Instead of providing an "exit plan" he promises increased "special equity."
And much more...
Your arguments are debatable but valid. However, if you think voting for mcshame is the answer then your seeming "objectivity" loses it's validity.
I don't. At least at this time. But, as they say, "that's why they have horse races."
Loewe's view is that it is based "more on revenge." Simply not so.
For me, as for many, there are a large number of questions about Obama that have yet to be answered. I especially grow tired of the "Change" rhetoric, with concommitant To-Be-Determined status on the issues. Change can be good. Change can be bad. Change to what is the answer that, for me at this time, seems lacking.
Obama seems to be a gifted politician and communicator. His record in Chicago is that he waits to see what his constituents want before he decides (or, at least, reveals) his opinion. That may be excellent in a local politician. I don't think it excellent in a Senator. And, especially not in a President - who must provide leadership.
Presidents, like all executives, are quite inflenced by their advisors. With Obama, we don't really know who they might be. Without much past history, we cannot judge where the change will go.
As a non-Christian, born in South Central LA, highly-educated (two doctorates), financially-successful small business owner, I'm not convinced by Obama. He seems to me to be all talk, no action.
Some People seem to think that Obama just walked off the streets and said I want to be President, give me a break. Come November he will be President and a lot of people will love that and a lot of people won't but the ones who don't will just have to get over it just like I did when Bush was elected.
We've had over 7 years of Bush and people are tired and they want a change. People are sick of this war and most people want it over but McCain has said he would keep us in Iraq for a 100 years if necessary and our economy is all screwed up and McCain has said he doesn't know much about the economy and he doesn't offer much on health care and more and more young people is finding it hard to pay for college and I have yet to hear what McCain would do to help these young people to make college more affordable.
McCain says Obama is out of touch with the American people but with all the things McCain says he will do as President even Stevie Wonder can see he is the one out of touch.
I also have to add I just feel McCain is way to old to lead this country and i'm sorry if this make some people mad but someone his age does not represent change.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Dems are wasting this rare opportunity. Since taking Congress in 2006 they've done... um, exactly NOTHING to stop the Bush administration. Torture, taxes, Iraq, fiscal responsibility, etc, etc, etc. Why do you think their approval rate is even lower than Dubya? Because those of us (left, right and center) who want a different direction just got more of the same from Pelosi and Reid.
Dems need only look to themselves to find their biggest threat in November.
Good point. The press makes out "low Congressional approval ratings" to signify "the public doesn't support Bush OR Congress," when the reality is that Congressional approval ratings are that low exactly *because* they haven't been more confrontational.
I used to be a lifelong Republican. I voted my first straight-Democratic ticket ever, in 2004 and followed it up again in 2006 ... because I wanted to stop the insanity!
And yet ... the insanity continues. less, admittedly ... but no one is in prison and no one has been impeached. In my book, that means Congress isn't doing its job.
I agree 100%. But why do we always adopt Republican hot-button terminology? McCain is not "pro-life." I am "pro-life" because I oppose capital punishment and 100-year wrong-headed wars of choice and support universal health care. McCain is on the "anti-life" side of each of those issues. With respect to abortion, McCain is simply "anti-choice."
It's going to be a very, very, very bad year for the GOP. Panicky democrats are making the mistake of confusing temporary events (the various petty scandals of th nomination battle) with macro events--the war, recession, the GOP incumbant's record unpopuarity and failure of the party' political ideas.
Any one of those things would be enough to destroy a party's chances in an election. With all of the above (and more) on their record, a GOP victory in november is less likely than at any time I can recall.
Which was why Hillary fought so hard for the nomination--that's going to be the hardest part of winning for any democrat.
Don't discard out the "Rove" factor. There are still millions of redneck idiots out there who jerk-off to pictures of Reagan and would sell their own sisters into prositution if Lambaugh told them to.
At least 3/4 of Americans are incapable of critical thought. That's not intended as an insult, just an ominous warning. People would ignore their own experiences and any status-quo critical viewpoint in favor of being nose-lead by Oprah, their favorite 11th grade educated radio talk-show host or any charismatic person in their TV set, reagrdless of education or morals. Hell, - there are alot out there who still think Reagan was good for America.
So what? The Rove factor operated last time, too, and the result was still a squeaker. This time, the GOP starts from a start line another twenty paces back, while the democratic party candidate gets a ten yard bonus.
Senator John McCain lost any chance for the Presidency when he turned his back on moderate independents like me by throwing his arms around Bush. Yes there are still a few independents out their who don"t get it that McCain has sold his sole to the Devil Bush and Bush"s backer friends, but by election day they will have wised up. The only question remaining about McCain is was he always a fraud or did he in fact get taken over by Neocon body snatchers, because he has, indeed, gone completely senile. Once the Democrats get their act together Obama should be able to carve McCain a new you know what.
Yes, I know I"m flip flopping here because recently I said I thought if the Republicans can make the election about race I believe McCain would win. But upon further review, it looks like McCain"s brain is just too fried to be able to defend himself against a really likable and highly intelligent opponent
A running mate like Jim Webb or Gen Batiste would take a great deal of wind out of the Republican sails.
Additionally, I am sure we can count on McCain saying incredibly stupid things in the future, as he has for months. Also, where are his medical records? I think that will turn into a BIG issue.
I am very optimistic!
John McCain has a big problem, he can't win. While he shows much more vigor than Bob Dole, he's still this years Bob Dole.
http://www.futureosophy.com/2008/05/mccain-big-problem.html
I for one am sick of this BS talk of coming together. Clinton has shown herself to be the worst kind of human being imaginable, and her supporters accept this, they still back her. Even if it is a loss we can't have people that vicious, that rotten, that corrupt, in our party and ever claim the moral high ground again.
We were the party of truth, yet some of us back a bold faced liar.
We were the party of acceptance, yet some of us back a bigger race game player then the Repukes could ever put forward.
We were the party of peace, yet we have "the obliterator" and people refuse to denounce her.
We can not take the high ground with any sort of reconciliation. Clintonites are perverting our party faster then the neocons did to the Repukes, and it's time we wake up and realize this. Until the DNC renounces Clinton, with the same level of power that Obama did to Rev Wright, the entire party is guilty of condoning this crap.
I'll have hope in the Democratic party, actually doing what it should be doing, once Clinton is removed from the Senate and there is a public apology for not nipping this crap in the bud from the start.
overclocker, I hope that being a member of a self-professed superior minority will be comforting, in November. You can either "be the bigger person" and lead by example, or you can sit back and refuse to have anything to do with those with whom you have grivances (real or imagined) until they acknowledge their sins.
Me ... I'll go the Lead by Example route and work on ideological Unity against a foe whose only real ideology is the Pursuit of Power (i.e., the new millenium GOP).
I agree and it was confirmed yesterday when at my business in Tumwater Washington a republican transplant from Bellevue Washington (they like the cheap property here) voice their disdain for taxes to pay for education while at the same time saying the state should pick up the slack. I remind their mindless brains the state has to get the money from some where. Oh. Then on to the war and 9/11 they laughed with disdain at my comments on the war and said in response to the dead GI's that what they do. so the deaths of 3,000 got us into war with a country that had nothing to do with it, with a dictator we put in power who did not have WMD and they we now curse the day we were born. So my friends the hard core republican monster want war and more war and a poor education system a result of them not wanting to pay for quality education. Oh, my.
Dav... what's up with Patty Murray??
I among others worked our asses off to get the WA state Obama vote and she supports HRC! ... is her term almost up and she doesn't care any more?
I heard Marie Cantwell changes her vote to Obama, is that true?
does ANYONE out there care about how WE vote?
signed,
frustrated in Issaquah
I am sorry to object you, but what you are suggesting, is not the way the DNC should, could and would go.
Besides it being highly risky, to leave disenfrancised Hilary-supporters out in the open an accessible for republican rat-catchers, it's truly and simply UNFAIR, if the DNC would now turn the cold shoulder on those people, who began this primary season in support of Sen. Hillary Clinton with their best intentions in mind.
It's a human right to err. But it's a human gift to reconsiliate, too. Always remember: If there had been no Barack Obama campaigning in this year's primaries - for whatever reason - Hillary Cinton would by now be the certain presidential nominee of the DNC. We should her and her supporters pay tribute to that.
One party, one country, one president. Obama '08.
Hillary Clinton is a republican - why can't the party just expel her?
Posted May 12, 2008 | 08:20 AM (EST)