MyDD :: GOP Meddling Bodes Ill for Democrats
MyDD :: GOP Meddling Bodes Ill for Democrats
“Republicans have won five out of the last seven presidential elections. Not too shabby. And who is the only Democrat who's managed to beat them in the last 28 years? A lying, corrupt, backroom deal-making, racist Clinton - at least, that seems to be the way a lot of people view him. Read the posts of some (not all) Obama supporters. You'll see more venom directed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton than toward George Bush. I think that's a problem.”
Comments
The site you linked to on this post says this is a clear example of Republicans feeling Obama is easier to defeat than Hillary. Personally, my take after reading the comments on the original site this is from is that it is more an indication of the right's irrational hatred for all things Clinton. As Bill Maher often states, anyone who truly hates Hillary is making more of a statement about themself then about her.
This is an oldie but a good example of the opposite - Republican's for Hillary: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/01/opinion/main2746928.shtml According to Bruce Bartlett she is the most conservative of the Dem candidates.
That said, I just read a Republican mailing which goes into detail about Obama's close relationship with Frank Marshall Davis - a gasp communist!!!
I think it's safe to say whoever we get, they'll be running against a ferocious beast that is feeling threatened and more hostile than we've seen in a long time. These folks complained of being victimized and marginalized when they ran all three branches, just think how hostile they're going to be when they are legitimately the minority again. Their attack dog that is the MSM and the MegaChurches will be out of control. It's gonna get ugly and fast.
Norm,
I voted for Perot in '92 and '96. I think Perot spoiled for conservatives and George Bush big time, like 8% - 10%. Way more than Nader did for Gore. Were it not for Ross Perot, George Bush would have been a two term president.
Look somebody did the study!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-speeches-analyzed-feb24,1,3150697.story
If Obama was losing right now the exact opposite story would be written and would be equally true.
Nobody is running against Bush. They are all running against Bush's policies.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html
Ralph Nader is in the Race...Horray! :P
is that "good bob" or bad bob?
Why would you want Nader to run?
What purpose could he possible serve?
MyDD has been HUGELY anti-Obama for a long time.
You are posting this to make the Obama supporters seem partisan and petty, but the exact thing is true for the Clinton cultists at MyDD.
Look, Obama and Clinton are both good candidates, why do you have to keep fanning these flames... especially if Obama continues to be the party frontrunner?
True, but that has nothing to do with one of the questions they raised. Why are republicans telling their members to vote for Obama. Is it just Hillary hate or do they think Hillary would make the stronger candidate.
It's Hillary Hate.
It's Hillary hate.
I have friends who are Republicans and they don't like Obama, but they HATE Hillary and want to destroy her. There's no political calculation there, just pure hatred. It's not rational, it is what it is.
Ugh..."their" members, Norm, not "there"....
Anyways, I think the real question is, if an article had been published comparing Obama and Hillary's records and discovering Hillary's was better......who could honestly say it wouldn't have been pushed on the 1gm homepage and made a big deal out of.....
It's becoming a parody....
People been Hating on the Hillary since Obama was in Diapers.
In 2002 in LA, Republicans ran ads against Landrieu that compared her voting record to CLintons.
Dark voice::: "Mary Landrieu, voted with Ted Kennedy 60% of the time and with HILLARY CLINTON 87% of the time"
It's like, yeah they are both moderate democrats.
Remember back to 1992. Bill Clinton had to make a big deal of defending his wife in the democratic presidential primary debate.
People just don't like her, and spare me the strong woman nonsense, people also don't like Rudy Giuliani and he wasn't a strong woman.
At least Ross Perot financed his own campaign.
The Republicans can always count on Nader to siphon off a bit of the Democratic voters. You know, the rebel voters, the 'real lefty' votes, the 'am so fed up with the corporate fascists running the government' vote.
Thats why the Republicans send a lot of big checks to Nader every 4 years. Just enough so he can run in the election.
What the hell has Nader done for us lately?
These seem to me on the mark. I don't see how Republicans wanting to destroy HRC is somehow an indication that she would be the better democratic nominee.
Let the right shoot itself in the foot: I'm all for that.
::sigh::
This is an atrocious premise to make an argument from. Let's stipulate that there are actually some Obama supporters that hate the Clintons more than they hate Bush. That's certainly true of many Republicans, and we know that there are Republicans who support Obama. There may even be some Democrats and Independents who feel this way. And yes, they probably post on blogs. But what conclusions can you draw from it about the population of Obama supporters as a whole?? The answer is easy:
Absolutely none!
Why do people want to paint Obama supporters as being irrational? What is the motive for this? Is it a rational motive?
I have spoken to a lot of people about this race. I haven't met a single person who hates the Clintons, but many of us detest George Bush. All of the Obama supporters I know say that they would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, they just prefer that Obama gets the nomination (because we all believe he will do better than Hillary against McCain, and he will be better for the future of the country).
There are lots of good reasons to vote for Obama. If you choose to ignore those reasons, and instead focus on the irrational rantings of a few, then you need to examine your motives.
By the way:
One other Democratic candidate could have won in the last 28 years, but was foiled by someone running to the left of him. Oh, I see that person is running again. Will the left lose again because we are so idealistic we can't create a functional coalition?
The quote referred to the last 28 years. That refers to the start of Reagan's tenure. Has it occurred to anyone that Reagan's greatest asset was his ability to inspire, using "just words", a new generation of conservatives? Sure, he had specific policy proposals, but does anyone really think that the policy specifics were the only reason he created a lasting legacy with conservatives?
If John Edwards had been as inspirational as Obama has been and achieved the same degree of "mania" among his followers, would that have caused you to turn away from him too?
Perhaps you might think that Edwards was as inspirational, because he inspired you like Obama inspires so many others. That's fine. Edwards is a great man and I hope he continues to provide moral leadership for progressives. But if we on the political left want to actually win back the presidency, we need a candidate that can inspire more than 50% of voters, at least enough to vote for him. For whatever reason, Edwards wasn't able to do it. Ralph Nader won't be able to do it either.
Protest votes are useful when they don't damage the greater coalition you are part of. If you reject the idea of being part of a greater coalition, then I hope you recognize that your politics are doomed to perpetual failure.
Obama is no John Edwards on the issues that matter.
John Edwards was no John Edwards until 2006.
Clinton is taking Kristol's advice.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
Fear mongering anybody?
Norm, can you remind us again what you consider to be "the issues that matter"? I believe you've been clear that health care is your #1 issue, but it's not clear to me what your #2 and #3 issues are, and how much weight you give to them.
Have you looked at glassbooth.org? They list 13 issues, and ask you to dole out 20 points to those issues, then survey your position on those issues, and use the results to match you to the pool of presidential candidates. I'm curious how you would have doled out your 20 points? And whether there are issues important to you that are not one of the 13?
There are definitely issues that are important to me that are missing from the list: transparency, science, power of corporations, the ability to inspire and organize a disaffected public, etc.
Given your top three or four issues, can you briefly summarize why Obama is inferior to Edwards, but more pragmatically, why Obama is inferior to Clinton , McCain, or Nader?
FYI, the most important issue to me from the glassbooth list is Iraq/Foreign Policy, which I gave three points. I gave two points to four other issues:
Note that for me, all four of the other issues actually rank higher than health care, i.e. if I was forced to take away one point from any of my top 5 issues, it would be from health care.
This leads me to think that we probably have radically different takes on what are the critical issues. I wonder how much that colors our respective beliefs on how well the various candidates address important issues?
Wow - glassbooth.com is very cool...thank you for pointing it out. Since the candidates were about where I thought they would be (and Barak and Hillary were one point apart), it wasn't a surprise, but I liked the detail and being able to compare on all the issues. I guess I just really liked how it worked!
The most important issue for me is the environment and energy - (not that you asked :) and I do really like Hillary but am voting for Obama as the candidate that can beat McCain. From that position, I think people talk about Obama fans being cultish because there wasn't a lot of "meat" to judge him on to the level of support he was getting. If there were people excited by him - okay - but, reservations in all things unproven seems to be a good rule in politics. But --- I do like that people are so into him. I hope that means he'll get elected....and I hope he'll be smart enough to surround himself with the very top Democrats - including Hillary and John Edwards (and Bill for that matter.)
Post a comment