T Nation

Hillary: All Washed Up?


#1

No, this is not a thread about Hillary showering before a sex party. ;D

Is her candidacy over?

I watched an Obama speech last night and I'd say that, unless Hillary can catch lightning in a bottle, she is finished.

Furthermore, Obama would smash a tired old pseudo-conservative like McCain.

Let's get used to it guys: Barack Obama, President of the United States.


#2

I wouldn’t count Hillary out yet, for a number of reasons.

And I wouldn’t anoint Obama yet either, for many reasons - the least of which is that he hasn’t been sufficiently vetted by an adoring media. Democratic warhorses - “superdelegates”, for that matter - must face the fact that Obama

  1. Is a boilerplate left-wing liberal, which doesn’t play well in general elections

  2. Isn’t a uniter, and has done nothing in his public life to suggest he is

  3. Has dubious connections to seedy campaign contributors and radical politicians (i.e., foreign policy advisors)

I am not counting Obama out, and he is in the catbird’s seat, but Democrats like winning, and if they think Obama’s bubble could pop when he gets legitimate scrutiny, they may like the tougher, better known commodity of Clinton.


#3

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wouldn’t count Hillary out yet, for a number of reasons.

And I wouldn’t anoint Obama yet either, for many reasons - the least of which is that he hasn’t been sufficiently vetted by an adoring media. Democratic warhorses - “superdelegates”, for that matter - must face the fact that Obama

  1. Is a boilerplate left-wing liberal, which doesn’t play well in general elections

  2. Isn’t a uniter, and has done nothing in his public life to suggest he is

  3. Has dubious connections to seedy campaign contributors and radical politicians (i.e., foreign policy advisors)

I am not counting Obama out, and he is in the catbird’s seat, but Democrats like winning, and if they think Obama’s bubble could pop when he gets legitimate scrutiny, they may like the tougher, better known commodity of Clinton.[/quote]

This is kind of obvious, which only makes the point more validating, but isn’t the fact that he’s black a uniting quality?

Uniting in the way that black people and white people will be voting for him together? And yes, Hillary is a woman but race is simply more uniting than sex. Unless, of course, we’re trying to unite the gay community.


#4

[quote]meangenes wrote:

This is kind of obvious, which only makes the point more validating, but isn’t the fact that he’s black a uniting quality?

Uniting in the way that black people and white people will be voting for him together? And yes, Hillary is a woman but race is simply more uniting than sex. Unless, of course, we’re trying to unite the gay community.[/quote]

One of the talking heads made a point that he does well in all white areas, all black areas but not areas with whites and blacks.

I am not sure what he was basing this on but it was interesting.


#5

[quote]meangenes wrote:

This is kind of obvious, which only makes the point more validating, but isn’t the fact that he’s black a uniting quality?[/quote]

No - why would it be?

That doesn’t make sense - your point taken on its face, black people and white people have been voting for the same candidates for years. That wouldn’t change.

And, of course, the “unity” Obama speaks of is political unity, not race unity directly.

This still doesn’t make sense. If people are divided by race in a way that needs to be fixed, what makes you think a black candidate is suddenly going to make whites who don’t like blacks vote for him? If they aren’t “in unity” with other black people, why would they suddenly overcome whatever obstacles they had and vote for a black man?

The “unity” Obama speaks of is post-partisanship unity, not so much racial unity. And, as such, given his resume, post-partisan unity is nothing he is interested in, nor could he achieve (even if it was desirable).


#6

Wisconsin has a 6% black population, and Obama smashed her like a grape.

Watch one of his campaign rallies. The guy is like a rock star. Then compare that to one of McCain’s.

Unless something major comes out against the guy, he’s got it. People want to be done with the Clintons and McCain is seen as closer to Bush than Reagan. He’s toast too.


#7

Bye-bye paycheck.


#8

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wouldn’t count Hillary out yet, for a number of reasons.

And I wouldn’t anoint Obama yet either, for many reasons - the least of which is that he hasn’t been sufficiently vetted by an adoring media. Democratic warhorses - “superdelegates”, for that matter - must face the fact that Obama

  1. Is a boilerplate left-wing liberal, which doesn’t play well in general elections

  2. Isn’t a uniter, and has done nothing in his public life to suggest he is

  3. Has dubious connections to seedy campaign contributors and radical politicians (i.e., foreign policy advisors)

I am not counting Obama out, and he is in the catbird’s seat, but Democrats like winning, and if they think Obama’s bubble could pop when he gets legitimate scrutiny, they may like the tougher, better known commodity of Clinton.[/quote]

I think all Republicans should donate to rodham’s candidacy. I like the Good Guys’ chances against a wounded rodham.

On the other hand, I watched obama’s so-called speech last night. I had to turn it off.

Seriously, it sounded like a broken record. I wanted to “change” it up after about 2 minutes.

Everyone knows that I’m a Republican. That is my bias. However, hearing the MSM talk about obama, you’d think he was a master orator.

I didn’t hear anything masterful. I wasn’t inspired. I started talking to the television (pretty sure barack couldn’t hear me) asking for some specifics.

It isn’t enough to say “change” 7,465,000 times without explaining what that means.

To sum up, I wasn’t impressed. However, in the interest of fairness, I’ll continue to listen to him. Perhaps last night he was “off.”

JeffR


#9

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wouldn’t count Hillary out yet, for a number of reasons.

And I wouldn’t anoint Obama yet either, for many reasons - the least of which is that he hasn’t been sufficiently vetted by an adoring media. Democratic warhorses - “superdelegates”, for that matter - must face the fact that Obama

  1. Is a boilerplate left-wing liberal, which doesn’t play well in general elections

  2. Isn’t a uniter, and has done nothing in his public life to suggest he is

  3. Has dubious connections to seedy campaign contributors and radical politicians (i.e., foreign policy advisors)

I am not counting Obama out, and he is in the catbird’s seat, but Democrats like winning, and if they think Obama’s bubble could pop when he gets legitimate scrutiny, they may like the tougher, better known commodity of Clinton.[/quote]

Would any of this trickle down to the average poorly informed voter? Could you translate any of your 3 points to a 30 second campaign add, and since he is obviously the media’s golden boy, do you think he will ever fuck up seriously enough to cause them to turn on him? He seems to have his media game down pat and doesn’t deviate from the script much. I doubt he will ever have a Howard Dean moment.


#10

[quote]tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.[/quote]

Isn’t that the truth.


#11

The dem primaries are a referendum on the Clinton Presidency. There has been either a Clinton, or a Bush running this country since 1988 - 20 years. If you count B41’s stint as VP, make it 28.

I think people are really getting sick and tired at the thought of another 4 years like the previous 20.

Obama wins crowds.

I hate to say this, as I am a very stubborn person and rarely change my position, but McCain is the saner of two insane choices.

As we get closer to November, and the prospect of saying President Obama gets more real, the conservatives will rally around McCain and he will most likely be the next President.

God help us all.


#12

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
meangenes wrote:

This is kind of obvious, which only makes the point more validating, but isn’t the fact that he’s black a uniting quality?

No - why would it be?

Uniting in the way that black people and white people will be voting for him together?

That doesn’t make sense - your point taken on its face, black people and white people have been voting for the same candidates for years. That wouldn’t change.

And, of course, the “unity” Obama speaks of is political unity, not race unity directly.

And yes, Hillary is a woman but race is simply more uniting than sex. Unless, of course, we’re trying to unite the gay community.

This still doesn’t make sense. If people are divided by race in a way that needs to be fixed, what makes you think a black candidate is suddenly going to make whites who don’t like blacks vote for him? If they aren’t “in unity” with other black people, why would they suddenly overcome whatever obstacles they had and vote for a black man?

The “unity” Obama speaks of is post-partisanship unity, not so much racial unity. And, as such, given his resume, post-partisan unity is nothing he is interested in, nor could he achieve (even if it was desirable). [/quote]

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.


#13

[quote]meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.[/quote]

From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.


#14

[quote]Professor X wrote:
From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.[/quote]

I’m hoping that was sarcasm, as that view is a little extreme.

If you look at the demographic breakdowns, it is clear that Obama is benefitting for being black much more than Hillary is for being a white woman.

Obama is routinely getting 70-80% of the black vote, and while I am sure there are plenty that are voting for him because they like his policies, (I don’t understand why, but that is another subject), it is hard to argue that many aren’t voting for him just because of his skin color.

If you look at white women, they have been split between the two candidates.

In a general election, I think it would start to balance out more, i.e. plenty of whites would vote against him just because of his skin color, but I am still willing to bet that overall he will benefit because of it.


#15

[quote]Professor X wrote:
meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.

From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.[/quote]

pox,

I was wondering what you think when you see 80-90% of the black population voting for obama. Further, I was wondering what you think when you see more whites voting for obama than hillary.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR


#16

[quote]meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.[/quote]

Think before you post. Say there is a large contingent of people who would not vote for someone because he is black.

And? Why would Obama change their minds? If they already have that racial bias in place, Obama’s candidacy isn’t going to change that or motivate them to change their minds.

There may be a large number of people who wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, there be a miniscule amount of people who wouldn’t vote for a black candidate - and Obama’s candidacy isn’t going to move that number of voters - whatever it is - around.


#17

[quote]Professor X wrote:
meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.

From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.[/quote]

What is the difference in voting for a black candidate because he is black, or not voting for him because he is black?

I hear no one bemoaning the fact the there are those who will silently be voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

If you are going to start diving the thoughts of one side of the coin, you should do the same thing on the flipside.


#18

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.

From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.

What is the difference in voting for a black candidate because he is black, or not voting for him because he is black?

I hear no one bemoaning the fact the there are those who will silently be voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

If you are going to start diving the thoughts of one side of the coin, you should do the same thing on the flipside.

[/quote]

Rainjack,

You’ve done it again!!! That was exactly what I was getting at with my most recent post. I was hoping to highlight his hypocrisy once again.

Now that he’s been warned, expect silence.

JeffR


#19

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I hear no one bemoaning the fact the there are those who will silently be voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.[/quote]

Yep.


#20

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
meangenes wrote:

Not so much? As in a little?

So there aren’t a large part of the public who aren’t basing their votes on the idea that they do or don’t want to see a black man in office? Right.

From the other thread, if they don’t vocally yell out that they hate the idea of a black president, then it isn’t happening.

What is the difference in voting for a black candidate because he is black, or not voting for him because he is black?

I hear no one bemoaning the fact the there are those who will silently be voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

If you are going to start diving the thoughts of one side of the coin, you should do the same thing on the flipside.

[/quote]

I dunno, if they are all fucking fuckers you might as well vote foe the first black president?

Or the first woman?

Why not get it over with in an election that has no real choices?