Letters to the Editor
-
Cassandra Man Speaks
Salon got it right here. The polls have consistently shown that despite Ms. Clinton’s strong numbers among Democrats (due, I think, to name recognition), she polls very weak among Republicans and is so divisive and well known that there are few undecideds. That is, either you already like her or you hate her—not a strong way to go into an election where independents will be key to winning.
Inversely, in speaking to the people around me, everyone has an anecdote about their conservative uncle or a grandma who have been voting Republican since Reagan, but who expressed positive feelings toward Obama. I’m not talking about policy here (in which case, Obama still beats Clinton), I’m talking about liability, which-right or wrong-is essential to getting elected in this country. I’m not sure what Kool Aid my fellow Democrats are drinking that makes them think that Hillary Clinton is in ANY WAY more electable than Obama.
Mark my words, nominating Hillary Clinton is the only way that the Dems can lose in ’08. If Edwards can’t pick up traction soon, start thinking about throwing some money Obama’s way.
-
Typo...
Sorry, I meant "Likeability". Clinton is the liability.
-
Are crossover votes necessary this time around?
Somewhere between 60 to 65% of independent voters pulled the Democratic lever in the 2006 elections. The war, the social conflicts, and the economic insecurities present then are still around, if anything significantly amplified. Combine that with the historical reticence of American voters to continue a party's presidential franchise more than two consecutive terms, and you have to ask yourself "What's the point of Obama's potential Republican votes?"
Additionally, many Republicans (and Democrats) are not as politically maniacal as are, say, blog comment posters (ahem). My wife, a registered Republican, last voted for a Republican for President when his name was Reagan (and she has since had some regrets about even that). My subjective perception is that an awful lot of voters decide when the two candidates are up there on the debate stage a few weeks before the general election. And then it comes down to Personality A versus Personality B.
The flip side of my argument (demonstrating that liberals can hold both sides of an argument simultaneously) is that I suppose it's possible that a carefully nonpolarizing candidate could begin a process of political realignment (along the lines of Karl Rove's pipe dreams, and ironically achieved through tactics exactly opposite those of the Blossom). Sigh. That would be a truly awesome feat, in the language of Obamaese.
-
WhoTF are these "Democrats" who love Clinton
I don't know any Demcrats personally, and most liberal blogs are ambivalent about her at best, including the commenters. It seems she's being shoved down our throats. I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against an old yeller dog. The following is very illustrative:
Is John Edwards 'Karl Rove's worst nightmare'?
Joe Trippi says Karl Rove most fears John Edwards.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Many political watchers are wondering exactly why former top Bush aide Karl Rove has attacked New York Sen. Hillary Clinton so aggressively since he announced he was leaving the White House last week.
Well, Joe Trippi, one of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' top strategists, thinks he knows the answer: Rove "doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination."
"Rove knows that Democrats will rally around whomever he attacks—so he attacks the candidate he thinks Republicans can most easily defeat," Trippi wrote to supporters in a fundraising e-mail. "It may seem backwards, but Rove and his cronies did the same thing last time around. In 2004, they were scared of John Edwards, so they attacked John Kerry."
"Rove is using his sneaky, underhanded tactics to try and trick Democrats into rallying around a candidate who won't be as strong as John in the general election," Trippi added.
Rove, who announced he is leaving his post at the White House at the end of the month, has repeatedly criticized Clinton, arguing her "high" disapproval numbers render her a "fatally flawed" candidate.
All good except one thing: I don't see a rally 'round Clinton, despite poll numbers. What I see is a Trojan Horse the neocon corporate fascists can live with.
Clinton Wins Coveted Bill Kristol Endorsement
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/clinton_wins_coveted_bill_kris.php
-
What discomfits me about Sen. Clinton
I suspect, as many here and elsewhere have noted, that Hillary Clinton is an entirely "known quantity" across America. No one is left who has yet to form an opinion. Many of those opinions are negative - we all know that. Mine is...lukewarm at best.
What I fear most about a Hillary Clinton nomination and run is that while she may win, with small pluralities in enough states to deliver the Electoral College (barring the usual sorts of Republican stunts, or their attempt to game California), she will draw enough "R" voters in the red states to lose them by huge numbers. This matters. Why? Because there are Democrats down-ticket who will be adversely affected. Her nomination could very well torpedo Howard Dean's "50 state strategy", which has yielded substantial Democratic gains in unexpected places, simply because we bothered to show up and run.
We could, in theory, under this scenario, get the White House and again lose one or both houses of Congress again, to say nothing of multiple state legislatures - the people who will draw district boundaries in a few years!
-
Totally aggree with Allen
Clinton nomination means we lose the house and maybe the Senate and a chance to fix the redistricting.
She is probably a brilliant women and may be an excellent leader but she will tear the country in half again. Even if we win it will be just more of the same political war fare.
We don't need Bill round three we need a new direction.
-
How do you spell "doom?"
H-I-L-L-A-R-Y
Obama or Edwards can appeal to independents and Republicans, despite being less conservative than Hillary. Go figure.
Hillary is what the GOP is praying for. She must be stopped.
-
Obama`s Socalled Cross over Appeal
Anyone who is guillible enough to believe that Obama has crossover appeal then I have bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. No matter what they tell pollsters Republicans are not going to vote for a black with a Muslim name and heritage.
Frank Luntz has no credibility. He is a fierce GOP partisan who stacks his socalled focus groups with people who refelct his point of view. The GOP would like nothing more than for Obama to be the nominee because he would lose all 50 states. With one black senator and one black governor there is no tangible evidence to indicate Americans are ready to elect a black president.
Hillary`s socalled high negatives are irrelvant because we do not know who her opponent will be. She had high negatives in 2000 and won by 12 points. Her husband in 1992 and Bush in 2004 also had high negatives and by comfortable margins.
Meanwhile Hillary is leading the GOP in red states such as Kentucky, Arkansas and Virginia.
The fact is that most Republicans believe the lie that Obama is a Whahabby and went to a madrassa and that will never fade or go away.