onegoodmove

Voting For Hillary:

Just remember: The Hillary branch (and the mainstream democratic party) treats its progressives the same way that the Republicans treat their evangelicals.

Turning the election it's all "we're with you" but once they get into Office, you progressives are on your own.

That is what a vote for Hillary will do for the progressive movement. Shove it back into the closet.

peace box

Ostroy's view is, I think, shallow. In concentrating on Obama's trees, he's missing the Clinton forest. And just because she's not been on the hot seat for the last few months, does not mean the Republicans haven't been hard at work; if not, indeed, salivating for Hillary to win.

But when Ostroy says this:

That brings us to Clinton, who is way too untrustworthy, untruthful and disingenuous to way too many people, including this writer. But the simple truth is, people expect such duplicity from politicians, and especially from the Clintons. There's nothing new on the front. With the Clintons, it's the same old same old. The skeletons are already out of the closet, and have been under the RRAM microscope since '92. Unlike with Obama, her news is old news. But more important, Hillary has the Ruthless Clinton Attack Machine (RCAM) behind her, consisting of Howard Wolfson, James Carville and many other battle-tested warriors who know how to fight the RRAM and win. I'll put my money on them any day of the week.

...wow. I guess having an asshole in the White House is A-OK so long as it's OUR asshole, eh?

Disgusting.

I also believe i am a realist with voting. That is why i am so against the voting for Nader. I however disagree with the Ostroy report analysis. I think that the republicans will have less ammunition with Obama than Clinton. We just have not really seen the Clinton attacks yet. Silly things on Bosnia sure, but not a bunch of stuff like Whitewater rehashed. The other thing that is clearly in Obama's favour is for the most part his campaign has been much better run. They both have had misteps, but Obama has been more skilled and faster at responding quickly and effectively. I also think that both candidates will look better than McCain in debates, much better i would think. He was terrible in the republican debates. I also think that Obama will change the demographic patterns of voting, I know that may make me sound not realistic, but he has appeal to many non traditional democratic voters.

I also cannot figure out if this long primary season is good or bad. Sure there is attacking of each other but they are getting it all out now, will be old news by the time the real election starts. They are also getting their campaigns in shape, Hillary's has taken a while but it is improving.

I am convinced that much of the increase in voter turnout in the election is due to Obama, not Hillary. Will this be enough of a factor to help? I am not sure.I

I think a more interesting argument is the whole analysis state by state. This is more complicated than i can handle. Whatever happens this will be an interesting election.

way too much ammunition involving his Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, flag pin, BitterGate and Michelle's "pride" controversies. Throw in the inescapable fact that he's a 46-year-young black man with a Muslim name, a drug past and just three years experience in the Senate and the picture deeply worsens.

1.Clinton has past fundraising scandals that make Rezco look tame.

1. Bill Clinton Pardoned Weathermen

2. Flag pin? Bill was accused of draft dodging. Hillary worked at a communist law firm

3. Bittergate? Cookie Gate?

Not to mention, The millions given to Bills charity and paid to him by corporations and foreign contries, etc.

They both have plenty of read meat.

Who has kept their positive numbers up in the face of those attacks?

interesting article. hmm. is "Realisticrat" an obnoxious term? in that it suggests others are not realistic? as for "winning" - winning what? boxcar is right. whatever progressive verbiage the Clintons may speak, they're right wingers. granted they are not psychopathic, and they are exceedingly competent, so maybe they'd run the insane neocon policies more efficiently. does that look like victory? i hope Pennsylvania votes for the guy who voted against the war, who runs an ethical campaign, and who may be responsible for the biggest increase in youth vote in our history. realistically, i think he is far more "electable" and the reason is simple - he would be a much better president. as for handling the right wing attacks, he's proven he can do that, as Clinton has given him some practice. it's no big secret - he's forthright and honest, that's all. Mr. Clinton didn't inhale. He didn't have sex with that woman. Obama inhaled, repeatedly, that was the point. issue closed, no controversy. it might well be amusing to watch right wing pundits fall over themselves trying to make something stick, to a guy who has nothing to hide. part of why he's winning is that he is willing to accept loss if it means lying or being untrue to his values. that my friends, is presidential.

hmm. did i say the Clintons are exceedingly competent? that's too generous. they are competent, somehow resilient, and insanely ambitious. both are unrepentant liars. realistically, i think we need to set our sights higher. or what's the point?

"Hillary has the Ruthless Clinton Attack Machine (RCAM) behind her, consisting of Howard Wolfson, James Carville and many other battle-tested warriors who know how to fight the RRAM and win. I'll put my money on them any day of the week." Interesting that this vaunted RCAM has taken last year's presumptive nominee and managed to have her trailing in the primary race all this time to a guy that most of the country had never heard of not so long ago. As far as electability goes, I think Ostroy makes some fair points. However, what, 40-45% of the country hated Hillary before this even started, and now she's cleverly alienated about half of the Democrats who used to like her. I don't quite see how that puts her on the road to electability. It has seemed to me all along that, while there are plenty of folks who won't vote for either Hillary or Obama, there's a much better likelihood that Obama may bring in enough new people to vote for him to make a difference.

I think the authors makes some very good points about Obama, but I'm not sure those points translate into greater electability for Hillary, or that the "old" stuff won't still have traction (leaving aside the sexism v. racism aspects for each). Regardless of which of them has the nomination, they will both be subject to all this nonsense.

For me the difference is that Obama seems to have a better teflon coating, and a better ability to hit back that doesn't make one's eyes roll (most of the time). Also, as Jakash points out, Obama will bring in people that Hillary wouldn't, which will probably at the least offset people who would turn out or turn away against him.

I am consistently shocked by the "electibility" argument from the Clinton wing, because all the evidence we have shows but exactly the opposite.

There has been a consistent trend in this primary season--that Clinton starts with 50-60% in any given state, and the better known Obama becomes, the more he eats into her support. That is, given that Clinton had national name recognition from the start, and Obama was a no name as early as a year ago, the more voters are exposed to Clinton, the less support she has: for instance, she had a 59% favorability rating among independents, 39 % unfavorable in mid-January; these numbers are now exactly reversed. Conversely, the more voters are exposed to Obama, the more his poll numbers go up (scroll to the bottom, and then scroll up to see Obama's poll ratings from late 2007 to now).

Finally, Obama leads in the national polls as well now but a 10 point margin ,see here at Real Clear Politics.

There is a trend in all of these numbers: being a divisive figure, Clinton's support has maxed out or leveled off, and among some groups, such as independents, is even in decline. For Obama, by contrast, aside from slight dips following the Wright affair--but not, surprisingly, the supposedly 'elitist' remarks--the more national exposure he receives, the more his numbers go up.

There is simply is, on the evidence, no argument for Clinton's so-called superior 'electibility'. The only thing that sustains that impression is her capacity for smear, which hasn't helped her, as the polls show.

Finally--for god sake--when did the Democratic party stubble upon the sick, Bush -like idea that it doesn't matter who wins, so long as its our own party member? Having the word "Democrat" next to your name does not mean you would be much different--on foreign policy especially, Clinton has outdone even McCain in right-wing talking points about whom she would nuke, which sounds to me more like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh than any one else.

Ostroy's article is excellent - thought provoking, fodder for a good discussion. I'm not convinced, but he gathers up points worth considering.

(1) First an academic objection. "It's all about winning." No - it was that view that gave us George W. Bush for TWO TERMS, no less. I consider myself to be an independent as a matter of principle. The powers that be in the GOP are the same bastards that ran a corrupt mediocrity in 2000 and never mounted a primary challenge to him in 2004. For them it was "all about winning" - no matter how much he damaged the country. Believe it or not, there are intelligent people in the GOP worth listening to - but they are too enfeebled to cowardly to throw the crooks and theocrats out. The point? Despite what he says, Ostroy does belong to a "team" - the Democratic party. If the Democrat were bad enough and the GOP was the GOP of 1956, we should prefer to lose to McCain just as Republicans with any brains or patriotism should have preferred to lose to Gore and especially to Kerry - Bush was proven to be a spectacularly bad president by 2004. Fortunately, the is academic for us - neither Clinton or Obama are spectacularly bad so far as we can now tell.

(2) 'Obama isn't vetted - the RRAM will devour him.' This is Ostroy's strongest point, but it is still overstated. Drug past? This will get McCain zilch. Obama has owned up. Bush was a cokehead and 20-year alcoholic and he got a pass - this is a dead issue. Flag pins? Get serious - this will not cost Obama a single vote he wouldn't have lost anyway. And if the press are the ones putting the questions, if Obama can make the reporters look stupid (and they are) he'll win some votes in the process of doing so. Bittergate? Again, with just a little finesse this is small potatoes. Obama's nationwide polling numbers registered barely a blip. William Ayers? Get real. Obama's people can comb through every committee. board, and panel that McCain has ever served on and do better, I'm sure. The only serious problems in Ostroy's laundry list are with Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.

The question that Ostroy doesn't ask much about but should is, "Is Obama ruthless enough to 'raise McCain's negatives' to nullify the certainty that the RRAM will do the same to him?" The material is there. McCain's trophy wife and dumped ex-wife are there. The Keating five are there. John Hagee is there. Obama will have plenty of money - he can go toe to toe in the mud with McCain. In fact, Obama's relative youth is advantage in this respect - not as much history, not as much dirt.

(3) 'Clinton is vetted.' I'm not so sure - if only because the RRAM has eight more years of material to chew over since WJC left office. HRC can't expect to adopt WJC's experience as her own, without taking on his scandals. For example, WJC never paid any real price for his last minute pardons - HRC will. Did any of the pardoned individuals pitch in for WJC's library? Is any of the Clinton's $109 million since 2000 traceable to connections with the pardoned individuals? McCain is not wedded to Bush's new drug plan - how much Pharma lobbyist money can he hang around HRC's neck? The right-wingers hate the new entitlement and liberals hate the Pharma 'guaranteed profit plan'. This is a perfect place for McCain to paint Clinton as more beholden and corrupt than he is.

As a self-proclaimed Realisticrat myself, I am not sure who is the more electable at this point (who would've believed Bush could get in for a second term?) but I think Obama is the candidate the right wing DOESN'T want.

I think if Hillary gets in, they will not let her do one thing, I think Fox will re-blossom, Rush will become stronger, etc. They have ingrained an out-of-proportion hatred of Hillary so deep that it even extends into those who tend to vote Democratic. Ostroy thinks she has the team to fight back but...look at the impeachment - the Republicans should NEVER have been able to do that - that's easier to even see now when there ARE so many truly impeachable offenses going on in the White House. Then, when nothing gets done, the right wing will claim the Democratic party is ineffective and be poised to take it back. (I realize there is a marginally Democratic Congress - thank goodness - which might help but - they seem so ineffectual, also.)

If McCain gets in, he will do their dirty work (lower the taxes on the wealthiest - screw the rest, put in the partisan judges so they can get rid of Roe v. Wade to keep the religious right at their beck-and-call) and, when we continue to go to h@ll in a handbasket, they will deny him saying he's not a true Conservative and blame the Bush fiasco on him. And, then they will say this (Jeb Bush?) is a true conservative....

If Obama gets in though, I think the country will not let the Republican Noise Machine do too much because I think (I hope) the country is tired of this bickering and petty gotcha moments and with someone new on the scene will look to the bigger picture. I think they will at least want to give him a chance. I also think they will have to be very careful against racist remarks in a way they would not have to be against sexism (which is all just one big joke, after all.)

The problem with the Realistic party is it's all second-guessing. I do understand why people want to vote with their heart and given less dire circumstances and a loosening of the right wing stranglehold on the news, I can hardly wait to be out of this party.

Interesting - I just went back to some lower threads and saw Adam and Little Mikey also think Hillary will spend too much time dodging Rush, etc. - giving relevance back to the evil ones. That is helpful to see (although I am definitely a bigger fan of Hillary's than they are...) PA is going to be interesting.

The Ostroy article is interesting. However, you have to take it with a grain of salt... these "Realisticrats" are the very same people who brought us John Kerry in '04.