Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[strandinthewind]

Obama was 19% to Hillary's 28%, which I submit is not that large of a difference. Also, this was at the end of March. I wonder if it has changed a la those people who said they were moving to Europe if W got elected again, which he did and they are still here. But, touche' my friend!

I truly wonder how much of it is sour grapes (surely that is out there) on the part of the Clinton voter and how much of it is Obama lacks experience, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

oh come now ..She was Al Gore's campaign manager!

and look at how that turned out

Seriously, I think she was intrumental in ridding Obama of FL and MI, where I submit he would have lost the D primary. The facts rather suggest that.

[strandinthewind]

McCain and Obama: a stark matchup By Linda Feldmann
Thu Jun 5, 4:00 AM ET

The contrasts could not be more stark: an African-American Democrat versus a white Republican. The latter old enough to be the father of the former. One with no military experience, the other with a long Navy career punctuated by a harrowing period of captivity in a Hanoi prison camp. One with a soaring rhetorical style that can light up a sports arena, the other more comfortable in the back-and-forth banter of a town-hall meeting.

Then there are the policy differences between the two presumptive major-party nominees for president. John McCain (R) is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of the Iraq war, while Barack Obama (D) has opposed it from the start. Senator McCain wants big tax cuts and less government spending; Senator Obama wants tax breaks targeted at the middle class and greater government involvement in job creation. On healthcare, McCain emphasizes consumer choice and market forces, while Obama favors government action that puts the nation on track toward universal coverage.

As the 2008 general election campaign kicks off, one point is already certain: The outcome will be historic. America will elect either its first African-American president or its oldest first-term president. But just as striking as their differences is a key similarity. Neither was the first choice of their party establishment for the nomination, and both have promised "a different kind of politics" from the highly partisan, divisive wrangling that has come to mark Washington for the past 20 years.

Both men hold appeal among independent voters – about a third of the electorate – and whoever wins a majority of them wins in November. So while both candidates must hold onto the bulk of their party regulars, they will also play to the nonideological center in a way that the nominees didn't in the last two presidential races.

Still, for McCain, the anti-Republican headwind he faces cannot be underestimated.

In any analysis of the 2008 race, "you start with the already-well-described Democratic advantage this time around, beginning with unhappiness over the war and the economy," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas, Austin.

President Bush's abysmal job approval ratings also don't do McCain any favors. Even if Bush were doing reasonably well, history would still point toward a Democrat in 2008. Rarely is a two-term president succeeded by the nominee of his own party.

Generic polls show Americans preferring, with no names attached, a Democratic president to a Republican by a double-digit margin.

But McCain's image of independence and working across the aisle gives him a shot in November. So far, he is holding his own in polls versus Obama.

One of the great unknowns is the race factor. With no historical precedents for a nonwhite nominee, it is impossible to predict how or where Obama's race will affect his chances.

While McCain faced some grumbling among key GOP constituencies when he locked up the party nomination – particularly among movement conservatives and evangelical voters – Obama, too, must unify his party after a divisive primary season. He will need the support of the working class, older, and Hispanic voters that flocked to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and thus how she ends her candidacy and whether she works hard for Obama's election loom large over Obama's chances.

Party strategists warn against making too much of the intraparty squabbling.

"I think both candidates will get 80 percent of their party's voters at the end of the day," says Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist based in Los Angeles.

"After eight years of George Bush, I just don't think Democrats will be voting for Republicans," says Mr. Carrick. "And when things calm down, they'll recognize that it's in the Democrats' best interest to elect Senator Obama. And Republicans will have the same feeling about McCain."

This leaves the moderates and the independents as the battleground. McCain is already trying mightily to distance himself from Bush, appearing in public with him as little as possible and pointedly criticizing his administration for its blunders, such as the handling of hurricane Katrina and what McCain saw was mishandling of the early years of the Iraq war.

McCain is also seizing opportunities to highlight his policy differences with Bush, such as his support for limits on greenhouse-gas emissions that the Bush administration resisted.

But every time the debate comes back to Iraq, McCain risks looking in lock step with Bush. McCain was a big proponent of last year's "surge" in US troop presence in Iraq, and so his complaints of the handling of the war have diminished.

Going forward, the mantra that Obama introduced first – change – will now be the theme of both campaigns. From the McCain camp, the question will be whose change do voters want, the change that a "maverick," experienced leader can bring, or the change that a young man who just four years ago was a state senator in Illinois can bring.

From the Obama camp, the emphasis will be on judgment over years of Washington experience.

During the primaries, Senator Clinton failed to gain serious traction over her highly debated advertisement asking voters whom they would want answering the phone at 3 a.m. In fact, analysts say, it may have only served to point to McCain as the most experienced candidate on national-security matters.

But even there, as polls show Americans more concerned about the economy than about Iraq or terrorism, McCain starts his general election run with a big anchor around his legs.

"He's in a tough situation, McCain, given that the major issues are going to be economic and that these issues do favor a Democratic candidate," says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

"McCain can campaign if he wants on national-security grounds, but unless there's a change in the international environment and a perceived threat to the US, I don't know where that's going to get him."

McCain's admitted weakness on economic matters could be helped by selecting a running mate with a strong reputation on economics and finance, such as former Rep. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio, also Mr. Bush's former budget director, or Mitt Romney, ex-governor Massachusetts and a wealthy businessman.



Copyright © 2008 The Christian Science Monitor


Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

ok ..a slight majority of hispanic voters in FLA are repubs but that is still different from any other state ..particularly out here where the latino population is overwhelmingly Democratic..all that aside though if Donna was that prescient she could have stopped the theft of the 2000 election.

I don't think anyone could have anticipated the "voting irregularities" in Florida except for Jeb Bush and the other perpetrators who rigged the system. This time around, it wasn't a matter of prescience, as much as it was being on the cc: list of the memo sent by Dean and Pelosi.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well it is pretty crazy to jump ship and vote for McCain particularly when he has reached the limit of the average life expectancy for males in the U.S. and will likely choose a right wingnut as his running mate and while most of Obama's supporters would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee a much higher percentage of Hillary supporters are willing to go over to the otherside..Kind of shows where their mindset was to begin with.

I think McCain's dream VP candidate should be someone who is a fiscally conservative financial powerhouse, far removed from Bush and a popular politician from a big state. That would be Mayor Bloomberg!!! I think Bloomberg could realistically deliver NY for McCain, which basically locks up the presidential election. Bloomberg's achievements in New York City are real and profound.

By contrast, McCain is toast if he chooses an evangelical wingnut like Huckabee. And even Romney, despite his credible pol experience, will not be able to shake off the Mormon thing.

[dontlookdown]

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

Here ! Here ! I can't understand it that some people's political ideaologies could change with the wind so easily mine have been pretty constant since before I was even old enough to vote and I have been voting since the 1980 California primary which happened to fall on my 18th birthday .I have never strayed from the progressive agenda in all that time and I'll be damned if I do it this year.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Here ! Here ! I can't understand it that some people's political ideaologies could change with the wind so easily mine have been pretty constant since before I was even old enough to vote and I have been voting since the 1980 California primary which happened to fall on my 18th birthday .I have never strayed from the progressive agenda in all that time and I'll be damned if I do it this year.

I think it is because people are frightened Obama cannot do the things he says, which I readily admit sound good and like good things to do. Obama has yet to explain in detail how he plans to achieve all of this and, to many, it sounds like pandering. Moreover, people see him saying all these great things and then surrounding himself with lobbyists and/or ex lobbyists (allegedly just along for the ride) just like every other politician. So, I do not think that every person not supporting Obama is doing so out of spite. I think some think he and his lack of real experience can hurt us far more than McCain's comparatively mild conservatism, with a D controlled Congress. Plus, he just seems sneaky to me and, apparently, others. These are legitimate concerns I do, however, readily agree that anyone who will not vote for Obama solely because of sour grapes is not doing anyone any favors, save maybe for McCain.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think it is because people are frightened Obama cannot do the things he says, which I readily admit sound good and like good things to do. Obama has yet to explain in detail how he plans to achieve all of this and, to many, it sounds like pandering. Moreover, people see him saying all these great things and then surrounding himself with lobbyists and/or ex lobbyists (allegedly just along for the ride) just like every other politician. So, I do not think that every person not supporting Obama is doing so out of spite. I think some think he and his lack of real experience can hurt us far more than McCain's comparatively mild conservatism, with a D controlled Congress. Plus, he just seems sneaky to me and, apparently, others. These are legitimate concerns I do, however, readily agree that anyone who will not vote for Obama solely because of sour grapes is not doing anyone any favors, save maybe for McCain.

I seem to recall a 46 year old Democratic candidate who was certainly sneaky(Jennifer Flowers) and not all that experienced himself once .I voted for him twice pretty much knowing what I was getting and was not in the least surprised when he tried to sneak in a bit on the side again..The silly puritanical production that this nation made of it was a worldwide embarrasment and it galls me majorly that a country could be preposterous enough to impeach someone overa BJ and not a litany of war crimes and abuse of the Constitution..and Clinton did turn out to be a decent President..Most of the Kennedys were worse rascals than he was and I adore them .No one is perfect and if I was looking for a Messiah I'd become a Christian.I believe we need to look at the issues facing us and the world and the terrible damage that has been done by two terms of The Chimp.Lets' put petty differences aside and give this man a chance.

[SteveMacD]

Obama should pick Jennifer Granholm to be VP. She is the governor of Michigan, which means she has executive experience, comes from a blue collar state, and is a female, which are the areas in which he's hurting badly. I wouldn't mind Hillary on the ticket, but realistically, if YOU were running for president, would YOU want your VP's spouse to be a former president?

McCain needs to pick J.C. Watts, former Representative from Oklahoma. He has an extensive conservative background and has done extensive religious work, both weaknesses McCain has with Republicans, and is black, which is the biggest weakness (disadvantage) McCain has in the general election. It effectively takes the race discussion off the table.

EDIT: Just noticed this is my 2500th post. I wonder if I get a used toaster or something?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I seem to recall a 46 year old Democratic candidate who was certainly sneaky(Jennifer Flowers) and not all that experienced himself once .I voted for him twice pretty much knowing what I was getting and was not in the least surprised when he tried to sneak in a bit on the side again..The silly puritanical production that this nation made of it was a worldwide embarrasment and it galls me majorly that a country could be preposterous enough to impeach someone overa BJ and not a litany of war crimes and abuse of the Constitution..and Clinton did turn out to be a decent President..Most of the Kennedys were worse rascals than he was and I adore them .No one is perfect and if I was looking for a Messiah I'd become a Christian.I believe we need to look at the issues facing us and the world and the terrible damage that has been done by two terms of The Chimp.Lets' put petty differences aside and give this man a chance.

I think Clinton was different in that he was a Governor. But, Clinton's sneakiness with women is not the same thing as what I think Obama's sneakiness is. Rather, Obama reminds me of Cheney in several ways, which is scary. I could give a rat's a$$ about a bad boy.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

I think your assertion that everyone's candidate selection is personality-based is ludicrous. For example, to take this to an extreme, if Adolph Hitler went around with a super progressive and liberal agenda and telling everyone what they wanted to hear, despite his Nazi ties, would you vote for him? I'm not saying that Obama is a Nazi, well, at least to the best of my knowledge. Issues are important, but so is a person's character, their experience, their reputation and their values. I am not going to buy a car that I haven't driven, so why should I choose a candidate that is so untested? I mean, anyone can make a Hyundai look like a Ferrari.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

I wouldn't mind Hillary on the ticket, but realistically, if YOU were running for president, would YOU want your VP's spouse to be a former president?

If I had only 13 months of DC legislative experience, yes I would want Hillary to be my tutor.

McCain needs to pick J.C. Watts, former Representative from Oklahoma. He has an extensive conservative background and has done extensive religious work, both weaknesses McCain has with Republicans, and is black, which is the biggest weakness (disadvantage) McCain has in the general election. It effectively takes the race discussion off the table.

I'm not a big fan of "stunt casting" the veep slot. I think that's why a McCain ticket with Condi would seem decidedly condescending, just like an Obama ticket with Kathleen Sebelius would seem like pandering. It's almost saying, "hey, disenfranchised voter, I've got a token _____ on my ticket, so choose me!" But to be honest, I wouldn't put it past Obama to do something like that; he'll do or say anything to get a vote.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think Clinton was different in that he was a Governor. But, Clinton's sneakiness with women is not the same thing as what I think Obama's sneakiness is. Rather, Obama reminds me of Cheney in several ways, which is scary. I could give a rat's a$$ about a bad boy.

Maybe it's his pasty complexion and moobies.

[strandinthewind]

I think that Condi would be a good choice because though I do not agree with her, I think she is highly intelligent and would not mind her a President because I think she would be easier on social issues than W or McCain. But, McCain will be seen as pandering if he selects her. I also think no black person (R or D) would dare get on McCain's ticket because deep down inside they want Obama to win. If I were black, I would. The milestone is too great.