Who Can Beat McCain?
Lotta folks on this site hating Hillary because she's a woman. Lotta folks on this site loving Hillary because she's a woman. Makes me think that, in some quarters, men have been uncomfortable with women a lot longer than whites have been uncomfortable with blacks.
Sometimes I honestly believe that a racist white guy would vote for Obama over anyone like his wife or mother. A woman as Commander-and-Chief? Uh-uh, they say.
How sad.
Lotta folks worried about Obama's level of experience. Whatever you do, don't buy into that Republican bullshit. Obama is FDR compared to this Bush. The GOP committed every possible sin in order to get Bush elected. They forged a whole set of new ones to get him reelected. Everyone around the world recognizes that America is in real trouble. Most Americans do, too.
The past eight years have been the moral low point of the American experience.
I have said in these pages before that either candidate has the potential to make a very good president. Clinton is smart and shrewd in ways that will serve her well in office. I think she would play a Democratic Congress like a violin. Obama will have the great fortune of being able to attract his own version of the "Best and the Brightest", an army of brilliant and capable reform-minded people who would normally abjure political careers as the result of their inherent cynicism.
Who can beat McCain? That is all that matters.
McCain is another right-wing, retro, deficit-loving, never-seen-a-defense-appropriation-I-didn't-like tool. But there are a lot of people in this dumbed-down country that will buy that. They want to turn the clock back. To what, I don't know. Which Democrat will give a critical number of Americans the courage to move forward? This election represents a turning point for this country, not only internally, but regarding our future among the other nations of the world. America will begin to, albeit slowly, irreversibly go down if we do not get this right.
It is wrong to assume that either of these Democrats is less qualified than the other. But Democrats must think like Republicans, now more than ever. Who can win?
You think major GOP fundraisers sat back and clucked over the nomination of Bush in 2000? You must be joking. They held their noses and went along for the ride because Republicans like James Baker and that maniac Richard Mellon Scaife have their hands on the money valve and they anointed Bush. The GOP plays to win. They don't have good candidates all that often, but they don't let that stop them. Everyone digs in and puts their shoulder behind even the lamest nominee.
If you want to advocate for Clinton or Obama, do so in the context of how they will defeat McBush.
PS: One possible consequence of an Obama presidency? Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton. Dang, that sounds good.
Loading comments…
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 have no doubt that there are some people out there who would not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I think that there are more people out there who would not vote for Barack because he is black. However, I strongly disagree with the "lotta folks on this site" hating her because of her gender. I doubt there are 2 people on here who hate because she is a woman. I strongly dislike here because she, like her husband, have become most unlikeable. The worst thing a Democrat can do is to adopt the ugliest of the Republican's talking points which she has done repeatedly. She is unprincipled, insincere, arrogant and incompetent. I am a woman and there is a female Republican Gov. here in CT whom I admire tremendously. I would vote for her in a minute. Not Hillary Clinton. She sickens me!
Unfortunately Hillary has been and still is receiving too slanted media reporting. Even the questions about her raised by pundits are structured to the negative. This hardly serves the voters well.
http://pac
...... keep it balanced.
... The journalists with her would have been burning up the wires with firsthand reports on it! No doubt there are people out there who love or hate Hillary just because she's a woman, just as, I believe, the majority of Black voters love Obama simply because he's a viable Black candidate for president. I have no use for this kind of thinking. I want Hillary out because she is, in my opinion, no longer worthy of the effort.
"Lotta folks worried about Obama's level of experience. Whatever you do, don't buy into that Republican bullshit. Obama is FDR compared to Bush." Damn, just a beautiful statement. I agree wholeheartedly, and I would add that Obama is FDR compared to just about everybody. Just the best statesman in who knows how many years, and as Gary Hart so beautifully said, "his instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others." Obama could turn out to be a huge letdown, but I highly doubt it. Forget Bush: compared to McCain, who is Hillary Clinton? A slicker, more mendacious policy wonk who will predictably do whatever best serves her ambitions, at the expense of all else. I don't want that person as president of the United States.
I'm not sure what to make of what you're saying here. It's like you're trying to be diplomatic and point out how either candidate would be okay to go against McCain, but at the end you kind of nod in Obama's direction for the presidency. And what's the matter with Obama as a Supreme Court justice or chief? Far and away I trust his judgment over Hillary's. My word, all you have to do is examine why she stood by Bill: to nobly "stand by [her] man," or because of her unquenchable, now-fully-
At least she doesn't have reverend WRIGHT as a surrogate uncle!!!!!!!!!!!
What is it with you people.
You talk as if Obama is the second coming of Christ!!!
Just remember Satan will be here too!!!!
Mr. Perfect! I too at one time thought he was pretty cool and what an orator.
but the neocon way you people have followed him and hallowed his persona
makes me sick and suspicious.
We are just now finally getting rid of the worshiped ass in office. Not another one.
get realistic.
get some new talking points, surfer!
Guys- anyone interested in politics/p
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!
Check out the article “We are the puppets”!!
With each passing day it becomes more apparent, to me, that the only person that can beat McCain is:
John McCain. - I think he should keep quiet for the next 7 months and then might get a little bit of creditability.
I agree with AB, except that I think it will be a rather rapid decline with hideous effects if we don't get this right, not a slow decline; not to be reversed in either case. Look at how low we've fallen in 7 years, what with our right to trials and attorneys and freedom from unlawful searches all gone. We have but one Bill of Rights right left, which is that we aren't obliged to quarter soldiers, and if McCain or McBush or McAnyRepublican wanted to quarter soldiers in the name of "homeland security" (a COMPLETE crock of hypnotic crap) they jolly well would and damn the citizen who would try to say no. The longer this debacle goes on (and I don't even have to mean the "war") the more Chalmers Johnson's prediction that Nemesis is lurking in the neighborhood and is just waiting to devour us, seems more than true.
I think there is clearly hate on Clinton but I think it would be overly simplistic to suggest it's because she's a woman...As I read an interview with Chris Rock not too long ago in the Guardian, he was asked about Hillary and a woman becoming a president.
Excellent article Mr. Baldwin.
I believe that it's obvious both on the face of it and in analysis of the polls so far that Obama would have a definite advantage over McCain in the general election, by anywhere from 4 to 12 points if the stats are to be believed. And I have no huge problem with seeing Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court. Even though I suspect there are probably more qualified, less controversial picks.
However, your quote that was the most telling of all was, "that maniac Richard Mellon Scaife". Hey, guess which of the two Democratic candidates that maniac is getting really cozy with lately? I'll give you a hint -- it's the same one who likes to praise FOX News and agree to their debates...
You know I had not thought about the "Justice Hillary" angle. I like it. People so often only look as far as the vote on election day to see who will occupy the oval office for the next four years. Many times the real good or evil done to the country is in the federal courts where appointees to the bench sit until they retire or fall off the bench dead. ( I think some remain after brain death but that is another issue )
Getting rid of Bush and keeping McBush out of office is a primary concern, but we are stuck with his judges. We do need to think very progressive in that regard to help counter the fall to the left.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for better judges too !
I've said it before: http://www
The general will be close. McCain can win against either candidate. Clinton *matches up* more favorably.
Every Candidate puts different new states into play, to their advantage *and* disadvantage.
Without the bully pulpit, Democratic advantages achieved at state and congress will be short lived.
Mischief, arrogance and zeal pinned to the DNC party itself, some progressives and the media are the liabilities with Democrats *not* the battle between the two candidates occurring today. Negatively impacting success to the 50 state strategy the Democrats must incorporate.
More essential than developing McCain attacks, the Democrats still need a clear and tangible message to vote FOR them as opposed to AGAINST someone else. They need to transition from the party of *no ideas* to *bad ideas* to *better ideas* quickly. The single issue of Iraq is negative, risky and prone to events, and, the Democrats have little positive credibility on the economy outside of Clinton.
Many Democratic supporters continue to ignore or underestimate the substantial psychological impact 911 had on states east of Illinois.
Industrial Military complex augmented by the CIA and aligned with the energy industry are more energized the more liberal the candidate.
The 70s are amazingly similar and constructive. Energy, financial and Middle East conflicts, Olympic boycotts, unpopular president, etc. Democrats must take a critical look at what went wrong from 1978-1982. A structural Democratic majority squandered. They won the battle but lost the war, so to speak.
Isn't it pretty much the states "east of Illinois" who have voted pretty consistently for Democrats (unless you count Indiana and sometimes Ohio and most states in the SE (that are really just southern states)? Indiana is the only midwestern state east of Chicago that has voted Republican in the last 4 presidential elections. Michigan, PA, NY, CT, MA, Maine, NJ, RI and VT all voted Democratic in all 4 elections and NH voted Democratic in 3 of them.
What the Democrats have been losing to is the Republican coalition of racists, religious fundamentalists, and corporationists. Republicans have had this advantage in congress ever since the passage of the civil rights bills, and it has created a big Republican-voting bloc of mostly white men who are willing to vote against their own economic interests (and those of their families).
My feeling is that it is in the Democrats' best interests to appeal to the famly financial interests of white men (which will be hard for Hillary to do because, Bill broke his promise to oppose NAFTA and she flacked it on his behalf, no matter how much she denies having done it).
Thank you for your comments.
The truth is that with Clinton what you say is true and add to that Arkansas, Tennessee and even Florida. With the right VP, add Indiana to the in play RED states on the Hillary column.
With Obama, no way. He loses FL, OH and PA and NJ becomes a swing state. Do you know those states, their demos and behavior-based issues? Perhaps you do.
Further this is not about Race, Corporations or any of the other typical Obama demonizations. It is about Reagan Democrats and Latinos that are hard working and more left center than far left. I agree CO and VA may be in play, but FIVE TIMES that many EVs in the general are lost or likely lost to McCain. VA also has a large military population that even Webb will have issues moving that far left.
Finally, to prove my point Ohio voters are most affected by NAFTA and they voted for Clinton over Obama.
The Republicans began what had been described as a "sneaky" telephone registration drive in Mississippi in 1979, what some thought litigious. They had banks of phone callers using phone books and asked if they could send a card, and don't quote me here, if the card was not returned it meant you were a ?
I was working in the archeology of the impacts of the since built Tennessee-Tombigbee Barge Canal, as it was called, which tore up NE MS and channelized the Tombigbee River into Alabama and out to Mobile on the Gulf of Mexico. That river runs through "Tennessee" Williams home town of Columbus, MS where I lived for awhile on that phase of archeology nearby the Waverly Plantation, before moving on to Belmont, MS near scenic Tishomingo, where they found Aaron Burr had been after the duel with Alexander Hamilton, from the money available for Bicentennial research in 1976.
The Congress' choice, (or no choice) was between a new technology "energy island" for NYC (a few NYC archeology types worked there in MS where the then "new" Grand Dragon outed and to this day is followed by Southern Poverty Law Center) and barge canal (Tennessee River feeder) in the Tombigbee River, is apparently also for an unforeseen time when the Mississippi becomes useless from drought or deluge. I find it interesting that in Western New York I can dump a pail of water in the Allegheny river and it flows out in New Orleans, Louisiana. Huge drainage.
Well that chili did taste good going down. thanks for the response.
Alec, the real problem is two-fold. It's not the democratic candidates, their race or gender or their experience (or lack thereof). As you said, the gop tries to polish up a turd (an inexperienced one at that) and sell it to us for president, and they actually manage to do it! Because they unify, they refuse to bash their own guy, they squash any argument, and most of all, they control the media narrative.
Sadly, the reality of who can and should beat McCain based on his or her policies, vision for the nation, realistic understanding of Iraq, compassion or respect for the constitution (i.e., either one of them is light years better that McSame) might be trumped by the completely erroneous media narrative of this supposed "maverick" with "experience" (like sidling up to bush on everything?)
The media never reports it when McCain throws a temper tantrum or can't articulate his own policies. They don't point out his waffling voting history or his ignorance of the issues or his close relationship with a lobbyist who looks like a clone of his wife, or other questionable activities (keating, anyone?). Nope, he's a maverick with experience in their eyes, and nothing else matters.
Except Obama's crappy bowling. That was a HUGE story this week.
We've got TWO candidates who can and should beat the pants off McCain. Our battle is with the media. We have our work cut out for us, opening their McCain-adoring eyes.
Ahhh, but if a draw occurs, the Superdel's could install Gore as the runner w/Obama as #2 (an "apprenticeship" if you would) and turn the reins over in '12 or '16. I think it might be a safe assumption that with a Democratic controlled Senate, HRC would take a plea bargain for the Supreme Court nomination
Gore cannot and will not be drafted - so speculating about it has as much meaning as supposing a lightning bolt will fly up Cheney's ass. - An entertaining vision, but damned unlikely.
8
Yeah he is a crappy bowler. But gee how in the hell did HBO do a special on the sport commentary with what's his name?? Makes me sick one free hour of campaigning under the auspices of sports.
Oh yeah I forgot he says his father was great at basketball (is that why they did the hour special?)
Maybe he should get the medal of honor too; wasn't his grandfather a veteran of world war II?
Makes me sick since I as a female am a real veteran.
I have a question for Obama. If he thought he could bring the democratic party together and restore unity in congress, why did he run for the presidency at a time that he knew a competent and capable woman was? Did he not know the division this would cause? Did he not care?
It seems to me that everyone in the world knew Hillary Clinton would be running for president and most of us assumed that she would in fact be our first female president. Obama admittedly asked Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle (all losers I might add) if he should throw his hat into the ring. I think he went to these men for support to do something that he knew would create a great dilemma for the democrats. Do we vote for the first woman or do we vote for the first black? If he is the uniter he says, why would he have jumped into this race with less than two years of national experience and no international experience when he knew he would have to "beat out" the first hopeful female candidate? I think his timing is going to cost the democrats the election in the fall, not because of Hillary's "scorched earth" policy as mentioned above but because Obama believes he was entitled over all others and did not care if he divided the party to do it.
What a strange post. So since "everyone knew" she was running, everyone else was supposed to stay home? Apparently the people who voted for Obama so far and gave him more delegates - so many more that Hillary can't win - didn't get the memo that they weren't "supposed" to vote for anyone but Hillary.
You're basically saying that the nomination was already hers and no one else should have gotten in her way. If she can't beat Obama, she doesn't deserve the nomination. That's called "democracy".
Ah, my dear Delphine, lest you forget: Obama can't beat Clinton outright either.
And, according to Obama over the last year, he proposed delegates and super delegates should vote with their State and their constituency. Therefore, by Obama's own reckoning, Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, etc. should be casting their vote for Clinton.
This is the elephant-i
The Democratic Leadership are attempting to anoint Obama without respecting the rights of every individual voter in each State. Obama is playing along with that DLC choice. It will most likely cost him MI and FL in the General Election.
If Obama fails to win in November, he will have no one to blame but himself (oh, maybe he could kick Axelrod in the a$$)
You seem to give Hillary way to much credit, the woman has time and again prove herself to be such a Lying human being. The woman is a perfect reflection of George Bush. The Democrats and Republicans are all the same. None of them can tell the truth, nor do they know the meaning of truth.
Another Hillary hater. Interesting to note that sexism is now more of a problem than racism. Hillary deserves an opportunity to show what she can do. We have been eleting men since the union was formed. I would like to see what priorities a woman would choose. . I am for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, HRC doesn't deserve to be president just by virtue of being a woman. We wouldn't want people to refuse to vote for her because she's a woman, so why do we want people to vote for her simply because she is?
Hillary Clinton is not as progressive as I like my candidates. She voted for the IWR and is unapologetic about it, and she tends to triangulate so as not to alienate the right. I want someone who's sick of the right and is willing to take a stand even if Rupert Murdoch takes his money and goes home. I'm not voting for a uterus. I'm voting for president. So don't assume my vote as a woman will go to the first woman no matter who she is. It does matter who she is.
Just have to tell you that I love your statement, "I'm not voting for a uterus. I'm voting for president.
Hey Supershrink good comment. Though I would leave out the two years of national experience.
He has spent that time campaigning on my dime!
Gee I wish my job would pay me while I ran for something.
It's a men's club out there and don't let anyone fool you. The blind leading the blind.
No Suprshrinkl he does not have 2 years national experience.
He has spent those 2 years campaigning.
Campaigning on my dime.
I am angry that these people working in the government can just take their pay, their insurances, their holidays and vacations and retirements from my pocket while they spend all this time campaigning.
It's a boy's club out there and they probably planned to ruin Hillary's nomination all along.
Obama is not a uniter and people better wake up.
This country is in the worst mess I have ever seen and we need someone that has been out of diapers for quite a while.
Come on people quit giving Obama a free ride.
Hillary Clinton is stronger than Barack Obama when pitted against John McCain, according to new polls in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, three critical swing states.
A Quinnipiac University survey released April 2 found that Clinton leads McCain in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, while Obama trails McCain in Florida and leads him by narrower margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The results:
-Florida: Clinton 44 percent, McCain 42 percent; McCain 46 percent, Obama 37 percent.
-Ohio: Clinton 48 percent, McCain 39 percent; Obama 43 percent, McCain 42 percent.
-Pennsylvania: Clinton 48 percent, McCain 40 percent; Obama 43 percent, McCain 39 percent.
"At least for now, Senator Clinton's argument that she is the better general-election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Peter Brown, Quinnipiac poll assistant director. "In this survey," he said, "her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Senator McCain than does Senator Obama."
Clinton leads Obama among white Pennsylvanians by 59-34 percent, while Obama holds a 73-11 percent margin over her among blacks. Overall, Clinton held a 50-41 percent lead over Obama in Pennsylvania, which holds a primary on April 22.
In the three general-election swing states - Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida - 23 percent of white Democrats say they'd defect to Republican McCain if Obama were their party's nominee, while only 11 percent would do so if Clinton were the nominee.
Hillary can win. Obama will lose. It's Hillary or McCain. Take your choice.
Blunt but likely.
HILARIOUS!!! Of course the polls show Obama would lose Florida, he hasn't even had the opportunity to campaign here? He does well when he is permitted to introduce himself to the voters, as is evident in the majority of the states.
Ohio was a skewed election due to Operation Chaos and the NAFTAGATE Lies. When the race is between McCain and Obama the results would be in Obama's favor!
I think the polls and many of the Political Specialists are forgetting the non-partisan and indie voters that have been hiding until this year. This group combined with the young voters will put Obama over the top. He will win in November, not because of the color of his or anyone else's skin but because he is a diplomat that can motivate people!
Hey Kimberbrooks his name was on the Florida ballot and he lost!
I am so sick and tired of all you Hillary supporters false statements with these polls etc.
I watched Obama's primary returns and I watched McCains and he had a lot more votes in those states than McCain had .So that tells me he definately would beat McCain.
I am also tired of hearing about Florida and Michigan who by their own misjudgement caused thier own problems with the DNC punishing them for moving up their primary date .
I am also tired of hearing how Hillary supposedly won Michigan and Florida when 1.Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan therefore she had nobody to run against ,,hardly what anyone would call a fair contest 2.In Florida she already had voter recognition as being first lady and a Senator so it didn't matter whether she campaigned there or not she was well known by the voters ,on the other hand Obama was a relative knewcomer who they had not heard much about and he had not campaigned there so they never had enough information about him to make an informed decision whether he should be their candidate or not ,again hardly a fair contest .Obama was willing to split the vote and Hillary is not ,she wants all or nothing ,which would in most peoples estimation is not be a fair outcome in dealing with those two states votes.
If Hillary were going up against McCain I think she would lose.
Chief Justice Clinton, you say. Dang, you say. I'm sure that sounds good to Bill Clinton, but it sounds like "Dang-er" to me. Actually it resonates with me as more of a "Clang."
I think she is a highly competent and intelligent woman who could probably do a good job in the White House if she could keep her husband in check--but I don't think she can. And he is a serious liability to her.
Obama's competency IS an issue, and so is effectiveness. I've been studying him since he announced, and this Independent voter is not on fire for the guy. He is most certainly intelligent and has an elegant manner. But his tendency to be long-winded and a bit pedantic reminds me of John Kerry, and the qualities I have always disliked in him--self-
According to Carl Bernstein, Hillary Clinton flunked the District of Columbia bar exam, and chose to take the Arkansas version, which was much less demanding. I would prefer a legal scholar on the Supreme Court.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
