Subscribe by RSS
This is becoming a common theme coming from deep within the confines of the Clinton campaign. They are touting the opinion that, should Obama win the nomination, he will be a pushover for Republicans in the fall.
Here’s the report on it from The Politico:
Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee?
Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naive Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story.
But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either.
A lot of coverage of the Clinton campaign supposes them to be in kitchen-sink mode — hurling every pot and pan, no matter the damage this might do to Obama as the likely Democratic nominee in the fall.
In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.
Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.
Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).
Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.
In many ways, what more can they argue at this point. The only problem in this situation is that, by the math, Obama has already won the nomination. If the Pennsylvania primary ends being a tight race, Hillary will not take many more delegates than Obama which means he’ll still have a sizable lead.
However, just taking the Clinton’s arguments at face value, that Obama would be Republican fodder in November, probably isn’t that far-fetched. No doubt operatives like Karl Rove, who is working for McCain now, has been keeping an archive of the negative Obama press such as Jeremiah Wright, Michelle Obama’s statements, and his latest gaffe about bitterness in relation to guns and God. Those topics will be strung together in numerous political commercials and will terribly hurt Obama when it comes to independent and moderate voters as they appear to be very divisive.
That is, regardless of what Obama meant or whether the remarks of his Pastor should reflect on him, they will be painted as such by the Republican Party come November. As of now, Hillary Clinton is able to paint herself as the pro-America candidate and paint Obama as the, well, not pro-America candidate.
As a result of Obama’s situation and the benefits to the Clinton campaign, Hillary has been celebrating by throwing back some shots:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Why dont american voters like intelligent, capable politicians like Obama?
Obama means change in a good way. If America chooses Hillary or Mccain, they will stay in their conservative smallmindend cages forever.
Why dont voters see this? Why is being liberal bad? What have republicans done for the needy people in America? Why would someone vote for a 71 year old bush supporter who wants to continue wars and, in doing so, keep lenging money form china everyday.
Obama tells te truth to the american people and we should reward him for that.
Please fellow americans, think before you vote. Obama is a good guy to you and it doesnt matter if your White, Black, Male, Female, Jewish, muslim, Hispanic, poor or rich.The guy cares about you.
I doubt that the Clintons truly belive that Obama would be a disaster. They only push these ideas out there to damage his chances of winning in November, because they already know that Hillary will lose the nomination. The Clintons will stop at nothing to be back in the White House, even if that means trying to ensure a McCain victory in November in order to pave the way for another run in 2012.
oh wow you boys just have it all figured out don’t you…
–amused.
They can say what they want but I want Obama to answer the 3 am phone call. From what I’ve seen and heard he is by far the most capable person to perform this task.
Hillary can say what she wants but she is disaster-in-waiting herself in my opinion.
I for one won’t be surprised if we’ll end up staying another 100 years in Iraq.
America Is Not Functioning.The clintons don’t see what They are doing and people do not unerstand what the Clintos are doing.She is simply trying to make things hard for Obama or tutoring Obama now so that if Obama succeeds in winning the Democratic nominee,McCain would thrashed so easily since she believes she is capable of beating McCain.So to say anyone who beats her can beat McCain.
Can’t say much that hasn’t already been said. I’m pretty much done worrying about things. The media can’t sway me, nor can the overly boisterous online blogging. Obama’s going to win, end of story. I hope I’m not the only one ready for it.
Love you, America!
Just to throw in another opinion here.
“Obama tells te truth to the american people and we should reward him for that.”
This is the main problem people have with Obama, he does NOT tell the truth. Or let me amend that, he tells the truth after he’s caught in a lie. First example, his books, supposedly true. Fantasy. His relationship with his Pastor, a lie. His statement that he is more knowledgable about foreign affairs than either McCain or Clinton, a Farce. And a scary one if he believes that.
He can have the best intentions in the world, and maybe he does, but no one believed that little boy who cried wolf, and many don’t believe Obama anymore. And that’s his fault. When you’re caught in several lies as he has been, you tune him out because you can’t ever be sure again what’s the truth and what’s the lie. And what he’ll change tomorrow.
If you claim that his books are fantasy, you probabbly didn’t read them. You don’t need much human knowledge to see who has the most brain of them all. Tell me, which president had experience on foreign policy before the beginning if his first term? I don’t think Bill did. Neither has McCain. You sound very scared. Don’t be.
Obama will save your ass too … if you vote for him.
What comes around, goes around my friend.
Greetz from Europe
(because I have the right to care)
I love how Obama supporters feel that he “cares about us” or will “save your ass too”. This is typical of the liberal thought process. I need someone to take care of me, save me, help me. The government was not created to coddle you through life. Get off your butt and do something for yourself!
I love the way they think we’re all scared. *L* I’ll take my 2nd amendment rights, my religon, and the truth over a elitist and green Jr. Senator from Illinois any day. Shoot, I’d even take Hillary over that.
Okay, then don’t vote Obama. but don’t come crie tot mama if your government doesn’t change. Believe you need to trust in. Ofcourse you need to do things for yourself, for your country. that’s what I meant. Easy to comment all this yes, but doesn’t solve any problems.
Tell me, Fred. Are you an American in Europe? Are you voting in this election?
No, I’m European. You’re not the only guys who are tired of your current administration. I just believe in the power of America and it would be a terribel loss to see it in the hands of the wrong person(s). I can’t vote, but I might persuade some who can… Just want you to know my opinion. Don’t feel offended, It’s nothing personal.
I don’t take it personally, Fred. In fact, when Obama loses the election, I’ll help pay for him a plane ticket to Europe so maybe he can save your ass for you in your country. =)
thank you, that’s very generous of you, but I don’t think Obama is gonna need your money. Use it on McCain, he can use some money I think … for a ticket to hell
I like your sense of humor btw. takecarethen, byebyenow.
Fred,
Why don’t you worry about your own continent buddy. I notice that you aren’t typing in German…
He isn’t typing in anything intelligent, just an interloper throwing out insults. Sounded a bit like a threat to McCain though, didn’t it?
Fred has a right to speak even if he doesn’t reside in the U.S. We seem to feel we can speak about affairs in other countries even if it has no immediate effect on us (Saddam Hussien, anyone?) And, if I may, I think it speaks greatly to our standing in the worlds and in terma of national security if Obama could change the way others view our country in terms for the better.
Honestly, I don’t want to shoot down others’ feelings and beliefs, but a lot of these comments just resonate with spite, ignorance, and (dare I say it) bitterness.
Yes, Fred has a right to speak, but when he personally insults, we’ll speak back. =)
It’s funny how the Clintons don’t realize how their decades of known and unknown scandals would be used against them as well. Let’s not forget the GOP was licking its lips for Hillary before the outbreak of these Obama flaps. Hillary has broken the “11th Commandment” in personally attacking a fellow party member. If Barack Obama was to do the same by mentioning the Clinton’s personal problems and investigating their recent dealings (some of that $109 million is probably attached to some seedy transactions) we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now.
“If Barack Obama was to do the same by mentioning the Clinton’s personal problems and investigating their recent dealings (some of that $109 million is probably attached to some seedy transactions) we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now.”
Good point, Jonathan.
And, I’d like to respond to Frank’s question of “What’s wrong with being liberal?”
I grew up in the Northeast, only an hour south of NYC, around probably some of the most liberal people in this country. I spent most of my young life believing that everyone had such a broad-minded and liberal point of view. When I left the Northeast for a while, I discovered a whole new ‘America.’ I was shocked to see how ignorant, close-minded, and ‘backward-thinking’ so many people are in this country. I was amazed to see that there are people who truly believe the world is only 7,000 years old, even though there is scientific evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
It’s also scary how so many people rely on the opinions of the media to make decisions for them. I just heard someone say the other day,
“Did you know that Obama is a Muslim?”
“Huh?”
This is completely untrue. But it will actually continue to circulate and affect how a large percentage of people will vote in this election.
If that person actually took the time to learn a bit about the candidates (or at least research whether or not this were true), we’d be so much better off as a society. This anecdote is an indication of a bigger problem. If the media says its wrong to be liberal, then its wrong. End of story.
M.B., you are correct in a lot of what you say. For example, Obama misquoting (intentionally) McCain on the 100 year statement - and he has recently stretched it to 10,000 years, by the way. If one simply believes Obama and does not question the truth of his statement, then our society does indeed suffer.
As to your second paragraph, though, ignorance knows no geography. There are nuts in the northeast, too.
Also, the media is the biggest liberal machine in America.
Babs, Obama hasn’t really stretched it to 10,000 years so much as changed which of McCain’s quotes he’s using. McCain DID throw out that figure, saying that he didn’t think Americans cared if we stay in Iraq for 10,000 years.
Now, I like John McCain, but with all due respect - I DO care if we stay in Iraq for 10,000 years. Seriously, what on earth could have led him to think or say that Americans don’t? Obama didn’t make this up. He’s just reading between the lines and capitalizing from a gaffe.
I didn’t hear that quote from McCain, IndiMinded, but hearing you quote it I don’t think for a minute he meant it literally, do you? I think if you’re going to say 100 years you might as well say 10000 years, both are well beyond our life expectancy which I would think was his point. When you can’t give a definite time frame, and you know none of them honestly can, you might as well say a million years.
But thanks for clearing that up, when I heard Obama say that it sounded as though he were quoting McCain’s original comment and just threw that in with it. He didn’t clarify that it was at a separate time.
No, I’m sure he didn’t mean it literally, Babs. I mean, 10,000 years is a bit longer than we can predict or fathom, so I sort of doubt it. But it’s such an outrageous thing to say that I have to wonder why he would put it out there. Here’s a video
http://video.google.com/v.....;plindex=0
I guess I understand what he’s saying about how we need to reach certain priorities such as troop safety and Iraqi government independence - which is his overall point - but a statement like “and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we are there for 100 years or 1000 years for 10,000 years” is still so obviously untrue as to make my head hurt.
Of course he’s exaggerating. But it’s not an encouraging exaggeration, if you understand me. It’s a statement that he thinks America’s just getting settled in there.