Cannonfire

Monday, February 04, 2008

Horserace stuff

Well, here it is, a day before the first California primary in ages that actually means something, and I do not know how to cast my vote.

Obama's surrogates made me furious a while back by playing the proverbial race card, in what I still consider a "reverse Rove" maneuver. Barack's histrionic ground-level supporters have done their candidate no service with their over-the-top internet rhetoric. The widely heard Hillary's-a-Republican lie has only made me want to vote for her.

Moreover, Obama's talk of unity with the Republicans bugs the hell out of me. I want combat, not unity. (Combat with the opposing party, that is.) Hillary, by contrast, has learned the hard way that there ain't no unity to be had. I hope she has hard feelings; I hope that a seething lust for vengeance lies behind that poised smile.

And another thing.

Yes, it's true that questions of substance, not style, should guide this decision. Even so, I must admit that something about Obama's style functions like a cheesegrater on my nerve endings. That man can talk-talk-talk without saying a damned thing. All politicians rely on nostrums, generalities, pleasing-but-empty sonorities -- but with Obama, the pap-to-substance ratio is particularly high.

Compare him to Bill Clinton in 1992. When BC answered a question, he'd start out with a minute or two of meaningless blather. We'd hear the bit about moving into the 21st century, then we'd hear the trope about "one definition of insanity," and so on down the list. But just when you were about to throw a shoe at the TV screen, he'd actually answer the question. With facts and specifics and stuff.

Can you honestly say that Obama does likewise?

Hillary, I think, takes after her husband in this regard, although she sometimes stretches out the pap until after the shoe has flown. Her debate performances have won the admiration of this former member of the Anyone-But-Hillary club.

And yet...and yet...

This piece in Kos by DHinMI makes some interesting points. Like me, he seems annoyed by the prog-blog distortions of Clinton's senate record. The decision, for DH, all comes down to who will get more votes in November:

The American public wants change. They hate George W. Bush. They hate the political gridlock—AKA Republican obstructionism, even if they don’t realize that's the problem in Congress—and they want new leadership. They will vote for Clinton. But I believe many of them will embrace Obama. And the difference between a Clinton win at 53% and an Obama win at 58% is probably 12-15 extra members of Congress, and maybe another 3-6 Democratic Senators.

I disagree with much of this argument. The American public has turned against Bush, but W is not running in 2008. McCain will likely be the nominee, and almost no-one hates him on a visceral level. In spite of Republican filibusters and presidential vetoes, the public -- in my opinion -- blames the Democratic party for gridlock. Why? Because the public has been trained to blame Democrats for everything, up to and including the dog's latest accident on the carpet. If something like Cloverfield were to occur in real life, the Dems would get the blame and the GOP would capitalize on its tough-on-monsters image.

Unlike DHinMI, I am far from certain that Hillary will win in the general. In fact, I think she will lose.

That's the reason why I may have to pinch my nostrils and vote for Obama. Hillary Clinton has a 51% unfavorability rating, according to the latest Rasmussen poll. Obama's rating is 45%. McCain's is 43%. Those numbers tell me that Barack Obama stands a better chance of living in the White House.

But I still don't care for the guy.

posted: 9:42 AM

23 COMMENTS - CLICK HERE

Comments:

Doesn't it tell you something that you know Clinton might lose in the general? Doesn't it tell you that the old models don't work anymore and that we need a new one? Isn't it at the very least clear to you that Obama is smart enough to know that the old models don't work and that a new one has to be utilized? I am 65 and even I see that our only hope of moving foward is to pass the reins on to a younger generation. Sure, his might require a new, improved "fighting style" compared to those of the past, but I've concluded that the ONLY WAY we will restore our economy, end the war, regain some respect in the world is to give it to someone--Obama--who makes it clear that, if elected, he will ask us, even expect us to do our part. He will ask us to sacrifice, to get engaged, to abandon some failed paths. Nothing Hillary Clinton has said during this campaign asks anything of me. And that, to me, makes all the difference.

posted by

Anonymous : 11:54 AM

I know a far-right conservative who has already absentee voted for Hillary because she will be easier to beat in November. I saw a piece somewhere on the net this morning that Obama can actually draw some Republican voters in November, especially against McCain.

posted by

gary : 12:00 PM

I too have just decided on Obama (after much anguishing and wringing of hands!). Interesting to hear others here in CA saying the same thing today.

After all the reasoning is done, I have to admit there's something alive, almost organic about stepping into the Obama stream. And something stale and unfruitful about Clinton. I honestly think Obama can win. (And I won't hate him in the morning!) For one thing, if he faces McCain, we'll have a clear choice regarding Iraq. I can't say the same about Clinton.

posted by

Citizen K : 12:02 PM

I honestly do not know whether Hillary or Obama will make the stronger candidate against the Republicans; I would argue that nobody does. The case against Hillary has been made repeatedly but few seem to see that Obama is a balloon right now - the support for him is a big mass of heated emotional air-one sharp pin and he could pop. Let us not kid ourselves that not only pins but many well honed knives will be aimed at him. Those who think he is from a different planet and therefore not subject to gravity will be sharply disappointed (remember the swift boats).

Hillary, on the other hand, has no where to go but up - she has taken all they can throw and is still standing and still going after something that will really change the world - universal health care.

I think her chances against the Republicans are at least as good as Obama's and she is the one who genuinely represents my interests; I'm voting for her.

posted by

Anonymous : 12:13 PM

Joe, it's a very easy decision IMO.

One can only go down from here.

One can only go up.

One has no idea what it is store.

One has already taken all the crap in the universe, and still stands.

One sells out - nuclear, health care, whatever I would imagine.

One continues to fight for the same things as before.

One just unleashed Harry & Louise Redux against a fellow Democrat!

That last bit made the decision easy IMO. Joe, pick the one who will fight to the death please.

As you know, I believe a lot of right-wingers are fueling one side right now. The differences between Purity Progressives and Right Wingers is so small, I wonder if there is any difference at all.

John
SluggoJD

posted by

John : 12:43 PM

Yikes, should have been "One has no idea what is in store"

posted by

John : 12:44 PM

Yes, Hillary Clinton has taken a lot of crap over the years. So have most women. But so have black men---every last one of them. So the argument that Hillary-can-take-the-crap- because-she-already-has can't stand my smell test. (And, FYI, I'm a white woman.)

posted by

Anonymous : 12:59 PM

No, you're an anonymous poster who could be anyone.

And that's all you are.

posted by

John : 1:03 PM

Dear John: Your snarky post amuses me. In my comment above, I only expressed my opinion and added that it was coming from my perspective as a white woman. So very telling that you question even that about me. As if the fact that you post as "John" assures that you are a man. However, since I am by nature inclined to believe people until I find out they are not telling the truth, I will believe you. And I will also believe that you, like Hillary Clinton, are a fighter. But trying to pick a fight with me makes no sense to me. I see the same tendency in Hillary Clinton, who I covered as a journalist throughout Bill Clinton's terms. I guess you could say it takes a fighter to know one.

As you can tell, I'm going with the lover not the fighter tomorrow.

posted by

Anonymous : 1:26 PM

I don't understand how anyone who opposes the war in Iraq cannot make it their highest priority in selecting a candidate. Nothing is possible until the dying and the bleeding (of blood, money, and international stature) over there ends.

I'll take a string of platitudes from someone who's walked the walk over a bunch of specific promises from someone who has failed to prove their commitment to them in the past.

Obama may not move you, but he moves a hell of a lot of people, and right now, this is a nation that needs moving.

Want to end the war? Name me a better candidate than Obama to do that.

Want to have someone in the White House who will inspire citizens to get involved and start applying the pressure necesary to clean up the crooked mess behind the beltway? Tell me one other candidate who even stands a chance.

Name me one other issue that is more important. Tell me how different Obama and Clinton are on that issue, and then describe how much of a difference that would make in what they would be likely to actually accomplish?

No one is going to get everything they want out of the next administration, no matter who is elected. You have to prioritize and make a decision, and make it decisively, with conviction.

This train is moving, pal. Time you shed that protective shell and get on board!

posted by

Deighved H Stern MD : 1:27 PM

Obama has gotten a free ride from his opponents and the media for his entire public career. Of course, his uniform is shiny white, and his countenance unmarred from taking punches. So far.

But those who would assume this will continue when the GOP trains their sights on the man are naive in the extreme.

Just as the war hero Kerry was convincingly portrayed as a glory hound near-deserter, so too will Obama's strengths be turned into weaknesses, the facts or logic be damned.

There is likely as much bias against a black presidential candidate as a woman presidential candidate, but the difference is that it is less PC to admit the former bias.

So we have more than a bit of an unknown with Obama. We do not know his true weaknesses, because he has not been adequately vetted by the process so far.

Nothing could be worse than having the shining knight on the white horse shown to have grave chinks in his armor, in just the most vulnerable places to discredit his whole story line (cough, Tony Rezko, cough). Idealistic man of change doing the same old thing with disreputable influence dealers? How would you try to sell that one?

Does Hillary have problems? Yes, but we know of them already, and while potentially serious, they are surmountable.

....sofla

posted by

Anonymous : 2:01 PM

I don't much like Obama either. I think he preaches at Democrats too much. He panders to the religious right too much. He never mentions how toxic the religious right has been in this country. Likewise, though I am not gay, I felt it was extremely telling when he twice brought along anti-gay preachers on his tour. He was shocked that anyone would be offended.

I am a white woman. I don't love Hillary either. I think she is too quiet on her views about the unitary executive. I do not trust her to give back all those rights we've lost. I would like to see either of the candidates stand up for the constitution for real. All they do is pay lip service, then duck out on the votes and never even mention FISA in a speech. They could make a difference and they won't. I will probably vote for Hillary though, because she is not afraid to fight. No matter which is nominated, they have to have really thick skin. Hillary has been villified for 15 years and she just keeps coming back.

Obama needs to stop with the can't we all just get along crap. NO WE CAN'T! If he thinks Republicans are going to be nice to him he is in for the same kind of shock Kerry had. I detest everything the Republicans stand for. I do not want to "reach across the aisle". They grab you and choke you to death when you do that. I want someone to kick them in the balls, and Hillary is not as nice as Obama.

I wanted to vote for John Edwards and am upset that I won't get the chance.

posted by

apishapa : 2:13 PM

of all these comments, apishapa's most matches my sentiments.

geez, it's so hard to be torn like this. and the effect an undecided dem candidate will have on the next several months could be our death knell. we need to do something, and quick.

so i was thinking about this, about how mccain is their guy and they'll just start their whole presidential campaign now while hillary and barack attack each other, potentially destroying the party and bringing down our potential wins in november. this cannot happen. what to do what to do??

then i read robert parry's piece yesterday. pretty impressive. he points out that, sure, clinton has fielded loads of slings and arrows for the past 15 years, but there's more out there. even though we might think the populace is sick of attacking the clintons, there are more potential scandals out there waiting to explode.

but more importantly, he pointed out that the ONLY way the dems have been able to beat the repug machinery in the past thirty years is with the excitement and hope of bill. there's just something about that fire that the machinery cannot touch, perhaps that it is contagious.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/020208.html

hell, even repuglicans kinda like obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html

this is really hard. i worry that obama's taking nuclear power money and will have to pay that back somehow. i worry that he won't have enough experience to stand up to the worst of them.

but larger than that, i worry that not having a winning candidate will doom our chances forever. (in fact, i worry more about mccain's VP choice than i worry about him; who'll take over??)

so i think i'm taking parry's advice here in a solid clinton state that has been tilting dizzily toward obama recently. if i vote my conscience for edwards it will just be lost.

and in a democracy, it's just the nature of the beast that you end up voting the lesser of two evils. or at least in the dems case, the better of two candidates lower on my list.

as joe has pointed out, if ANY of the dems had led the ticket, we could be proud. that's a far site better than the repugs could say, possibly have ever been able to say!

posted by

dr. elsewhere : 3:33 PM

Dr. elsewhere, can you not grasp that the republicans do not "kinda like Obama" even if they are laying hands off during the primary?

You are being set up: get the dems to nominate Obama and then mow him down like we did Kerry - result republican in the White House.

Why do you not just vote for the one that will make the best president and who has shown resistance to the mowing machine - in my view, Hillary.

posted by

Karot : 4:08 PM

My opinion is right.

Just don't ask why.
Or what it is.

Or tell me why yours is right.
:P

Nobody can predict the future, nobody. Obama could win and sell out. He could win and unite, or but given that the senators from red states have pledged to destroy any and all chances of bipartisanship from now until eternity, I don't see how thats possible. You think repugs listen to their constituents, they don't. Not until they are thrown out of office kicking screaming and lying. Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise bipartisanship, didn't anybody notice that the repugs said FUCK THAT NOISE,and filibustered their way through the record books. Uniting the people is one thing, uniting the house and senate is another beast.

Clinton could win, Or loose the primary. Polls show her behind, can she draw from the other side. Will men stop being afraid of her triple vaginal threat.(female, liberal and a clinton) nothing scares a man like a vagina.

So who do I vote for, and hope that the dems destroy the pugs in house and senate elections as well? My leanings are on Hilary. Up here in the tundra I can here new york norm coleman crying that his term is over before he could leave an even bigger footprint on the constitution.

Their is more than one way to breathe life into (inspire) the general electorate, I mean the rabble!

posted by

Clayton : 4:37 PM

But I still don't care for the guy.

Thjat's really weird Joseph. He told me he really really adores you.

posted by

Sabrina : 5:14 PM

The heart makes its own rules, Sabrina.

posted by

Joseph : 5:19 PM

karot, i am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion you do.

using similar logic, i.e., that our best bet is to select the person less likely to draw muck from the repugs and more likely to gain general approval, i'm selecting obama.

i'm not convinced that hillary will necessarily make a better president. she's a compelling candidate, and i've always admired her, but she has done some things that concern me. so has obama, but i believe his message is offering what parry noted the repug machinery has not been able to beat: excitement and hope.

that, coupled with the higher disapproval ratings for clinton, not to mention the looooong history of venomous hatred for the woman (i don't approve of that, but would be a fool to ignore it), i'm marginally choosing obama.

solidly choosing edwards, but there is also THAT reality, a rather key feature of my reasoning process.

posted by

dr. elsewhere : 6:00 PM

Again with the Democratic self-loathing, and again for the 97,000th time? Joseph, the voters elected the Dem in 2000 and again in 2004.

Let enlightened self-interest be your friend and guide: If Hillary is the candidate, and if you have been actively working to get her elected, she is more likely to invite you into her administration than Barack would be if he wins. Has there been a Cabinet-level WH Cartoonist yet or recently?

posted by

AitchD : 6:48 PM

One comment here finally decided me. Clinton has already survived the attacks of the Repugs, and been investigated from birth - nothing. That's a lot more than Obama has faced. I say she's fireproof and can survive the general election, Obama may end up another Eagleburger.

posted by

Anonymous : 6:56 PM

So many anonymous folks...but this reply is to the one that wants to challenge me.

My name is John Dean. Joe knows me. Brad Friedman knows me personally. My name is easy to find, SluggoJD is also easy to find with lots of hits...

but not as many hits as your worthless online identity has.

You are nothing but an anonymous screenname, and nothing you say can be counted on.

posted by

John : 7:03 PM

Stop*quoting*Rasmussen - they are never, ever, even close. They*overweight*republicans*in*their*samples

posted by

Anonymous : 10:07 PM

John, I wish that the anonymous commenters would leave some sort of signature. But in this case, don't sweat it. People here have been fairly calm, compared to the histrionic nonsense taking place on other sites this night.

Aitch, if you are suggesting that I apply for the job of White House cartoonist, then I really must root for Obama. He's easier to draw. It's not the color of his skin that makes him easy to capture -- it's the fact that his head is shaped like Prince Namor's.

Of course, by that logic I should have been pushing for Giuliani all along. THAT guy is incredibly easy to draw. McCain...? Not so much. Ah, but Rudy...! That big bald pate...those tiny rat eyes...the fake toothy grin. The man is a cartoonist's dream, just as Nixon was.

My readers may be interested to know that the "student on the sofa" -- whom you so kindly helped last Christmas -- tells me that she is voting for Edwards, even though he officially pulled out. She says that Edwards was loyal to poor people, so she will remain loyal to him.

posted by

Joseph : 10:55 PM