Though he claims to be discussing Obamites, it's just so bizarre how clearly and incisively he described the behavior of the Cult of Hillary, like the kid with the baseball bat offering elaborate explanations about how it was the other kid who broke the window.

He was boring.

Here's the intangible quality that I think makes Obama a great candidate. Hillary supporters scoff and say that this is a stupid thing to vote for. I disagree, because we can look at the last 30 years of Presidential politics and see who wins elections:

Ronald Reagan won because of his charisma. The man was a terrible President. I have a book called Reagan's Reign of Error from those days, which is still hilarious - Reagan quotes were Bushisms before Bushisms had a name. (Dan Quayle and Bush II continued what I think has become a Republican tradition.)

Dukakis would have been a great candidate but he was a bit of a dork, and didn't have charisma.

I can't explain Bush I, except that he was part of the Reagan administration, and his opponent was not charismatic either.

Bill Clinton - charisma! He still has it, too.

Al Gore - negative charisma. Fabulous, wonderful man, and I wish he had been president. But he didn't connect with people.

Kerry - same thing. Great candidate in many ways, very bright, but his speeches bored people to tears.

Bush II - evangelical vote. And for some reason I will never understand, he was "the candidate you'd most like to have a beer with." (well, maybe not YOU, specifically.)

I would like to think that the American people will vote for someone just due to substance, but let's be realistic. Part of why the democrats have lost so many times is because we keep nominating people who have no charisma. Obama has both substance AND charisma. You need both to win the Presidency. I think part of the reason Dems keep losing is that we look down our noses at voting for anything BUT substance, but we need to look at the total picture if we want to win the White House. Because a lot of the populace votes based on who they would most like to have a beer with.

"I will vote for Mccain if Obama gets the nomination and I'll vote for HRC is she gets the nomination. It is certainly false that Obama appeals to people who are now supporting HRC. Anyone with any wisdom about how the world works knows that his feel good campaign will result in zero change in Washington. We'd be safer with McCain."

was just posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 11, 2008 01:29 PM in response to the "Clinton more electable than Obama, Mark Penn claims" War Room post.

The Bush nightmare never would have happened. In 2000 Democrats will be painted as hedonistic, amoral, and incapable of telling the truth, and it was enough to stop Al Gore

Clinton didn't cause the press to lie about Al Gore. Clinton had nothing to do with people thinking that Al Gore invented the internet, or the Love Story incident, or the Love Canal incident, that he needed Naomi Wolf to tell him how to dress, etc. etc. etc.

Al Gore just was a polarizing figure. (where have we heard this before?)

Oh that's right. This was all the Clinton's fault.

But I hate to burst you ego, you should go to Bob Somerby's blog and type in the words "Al Gore" into his search engine. You will get a few hits. The media hated him.

Besides, Al Gore won the election. He won Florida, but Jeb was able to supress the black vote and there was other stupidity in designing the ballot made the Jewish vote to suddenly go to Buchanan. (No, that's wrong. Bill and Hillary caused the Jewish voters to vote for Buchanan.) And before I forget, Thanks, Ralph.

Stop rewriting history. You folks have zero credibility. You are proving Stanley Fish correct.

But it isn't her fault.

She is polarizing because she is hated by the Republicans. That's not because anything she has done wrong...in fact, I was 100% in her court in the 90's and have always respected her. She isn't divisive in her actions, she's divisive because she is Hillary Rodham CLINTON. And in 1993, she didn't know her place. (I am saying that tongue in cheek, of course.)

The attacks on her by the right wing are completely unfair, but if she is elected that hatred and division will continue, because to the Republicans she is symbolic of Bill Clinton's Presidency and First Ladies who have the audacity to attempt to pass a health care plan rather than host easter egg rolls. They will make all of our lives miserable for as long as she is in office, if she can get into office. And they may actually unite against her, which would be some feat given that they can't unite around their own candidate.

I love Hillary in the Senate. We need her there. I hope she stays there, where she can actually get some things done. But a HRC presidency would mean more of the Clinton-hate we lived with for 8 years, and I am ready for this country to move beyond Bushes and Clintons and on to something new that might actually work.

I appreciate your so kindly providing context. I'll admit, your explanation makes a lot of sense.

My difficulty is a claim such as "And you know what? I don't care if the Supreme Court DOES overturn Roe v. Wade" really carries a hefty weight in terms of tone.

Similarly, I'd wince if someone wrote "I don't care if we ARE in Iraq for 100 years" or "I don't care if climate change IS ignored for another four years". I think the reason is that after that sentence, I read "...because that's someone else's problem." It's the same gut reaction I get when (usually) young, white, middle-class libertarians discuss how if the indigent, ill, or disabled would simply just work harder they might overcome their difficulty.

Essentially, I'm hearing the common Republican argument that if something doesn't absolutely directly affect you, then it's someone else's problem.

I think one thing Senator Obama would want is for us to care more, not less. I'd hope that he does want us to care about Roe v. Wade, about Iraq, about climate change, et cetera.

To somewhat embarrassingly ape The Wire, it matters. It all matters.

Identity politics is unavoidable, but it's the issues that matter. There's a human cost to the issues, and directly or indirectly, we're all going to pay.