The ridiculousness of Obama

[RoboCon]

Hello there! I see you are discussing Barack Obama. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

Obama's reverse racism is color-blind. Never has the African-American community seen so much hatred amid their free-rides. Obama sired 8 children by 7 different women in the 1990s. Yes, Tawana Brawley. Check out the link to the Free Republic on Drudge for details. Dubya will be talking about it with Shep tonight. I heard this joke at the Young Baptists Convention last night:

Q: How do you keep Martin Luther King from being a moral hypocrite?

A: A tire doesn't sing and dance when you put a chain on it! HAHAHAHAHA!

[SlowwHand]

Oh hell.

[DaShi]

He's on your team. :/

[SlowwHand]

He's not on my damned team.

[Elok]

RoboCon is on nobody's team, fools! RoboCon fights for RoboCon! All hail RoboCon!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Robocon fights for skynet.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The GOP isn't afraid of Obama. They are, however, scared sh!tless of Hillary, and with good reason.

The Economist recently said of Hillary that she has the best of both worlds: she's hated both by the demented Left and the deranged Right. That strikes me as spot-on, but it's not the only thing she has going for her.

Remember, we're a republic, not a democracy. This isn't about charisma or experience or even who people like more. It's about Electoral College math.

Look at the electoral college map from 2004, and ask: Which states did Kerry win that Hillary would lose, even against McCain? Answer: none. Hillary runs, and she's instantly within 20 or so electoral votes of the White House. In a moment when Ohio's GOP apparatus has imploded and the Rocky Mountain states are trending Democrat, however temporarily, this gives her a very, very good shot at the presidency.

You can't say the same about Obama. Outside the Northeast, California, and maybe Illinois, he'd have to fight for every state.

Moreover, Obama running actually helps Hillary. Without Obama, the Dems look like they'll be running a bunch of centrists -- Hillary, Bayh, Vilsack, Edwards. In that pack, Hillary is probably the most liberal, and most vulnerable to being attacked as "too far left" (which is absurd, but so is US electoral politics). Put Obama in the race, and he turns Hillary into a moderate -- just as Jerry Brown helped do for her husband in '92.

Hillary is very, very close to becoming president the minute she enters the race. I can't help but think that the GOP loves Obama, because they're so scared of Hillary. Hell, Bush is already turning intoo the second coming of Nixon ("the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce..."), so think 1972. Think Muskie and McGovern. Think about who the GOP feared, and who they wanted to run against. That's where we are again.

[Zkribbler]

Re: The ridiculousness of Obama

Originally posted by DanS
Who is going to vote for a "real progressive?"

<----

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The GOP isn't afraid of Obama. They are, however, scared sh!tless of Hillary, and with good reason.

The Economist recently said of Hillary that she has the best of both worlds: she's hated both by the demented Left and the deranged Right. That strikes me as spot-on, but it's not the only thing she has going for her.

Remember, we're a republic, not a democracy. This isn't about charisma or experience or even who people like more. It's about Electoral College math.

Look at the electoral college map from 2004, and ask: Which states did Kerry win that Hillary would lose, even against McCain? Answer: none. Hillary runs, and she's instantly within 20 or so electoral votes of the White House. In a moment when Ohio's GOP apparatus has imploded and the Rocky Mountain states are trending Democrat, however temporarily, this gives her a very, very good shot at the presidency.

You can't say the same about Obama. Outside the Northeast, California, and maybe Illinois, he'd have to fight for every state.

Moreover, Obama running actually helps Hillary. Without Obama, the Dems look like they'll be running a bunch of centrists -- Hillary, Bayh, Vilsack, Edwards. In that pack, Hillary is probably the most liberal, and most vulnerable to being attacked as "too far left" (which is absurd, but so is US electoral politics). Put Obama in the race, and he turns Hillary into a moderate -- just as Jerry Brown helped do for her husband in '92.

Hillary is very, very close to becoming president the minute she enters the race. I can't help but think that the GOP loves Obama, because they're so scared of Hillary. Hell, Bush is already turning intoo the second coming of Nixon ("the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce..."), so think 1972. Think Muskie and McGovern. Think about who the GOP feared, and who they wanted to run against. That's where we are again.

Ok, I like Hilary, and so like this analysis, BUT

1. You ignore Kerry, Clark etc. Who could all run to the left. Even Edwards seems to be trying to position himself that way. And on the war, Vilsack is running around taking on McCain for wanting more troops, while Hilary maintains (or seems to maintain) ambiguity on whether the admins mistakes included not having enough troops in now. Whether she is left most of the DLCers depends on how much you way the healthcare proposal of 1993 and her feminist image, vs her foreign policy positions of the last 6 years.
2. I think Obama gives much better speech than McGovern did, but maybe im misremembering McGovern.
3. Speaking of Muskie, the real question in a Hilary vs McCain race would be who cracks up first. Either is capable of a very embarassing public moment. In wich case all the electoral math is off
4.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Look at the electoral college map from 2004, and ask: Which states did Kerry win that Hillary would lose, even against McCain? Answer: none.

Er... Michigan? Pennsylvania?

Up 'til the last two years, I lived in Michigan my whole life. I know how blue it is. But if McCain runs? That spells trouble for the Dems in Michigan. Remember, Michigan is one of the states that voted for McCain in the primaries...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ok, I like Hilary, and so like this analysis, BUT

1. You ignore Kerry, Clark etc. Who could all run to the left. Even Edwards seems to be trying to position himself that way. And on the war, Vilsack is running around taking on McCain for wanting more troops, while Hilary maintains (or seems to maintain) ambiguity on whether the admins mistakes included not having enough troops in now. Whether she is left most of the DLCers depends on how much you way the healthcare proposal of 1993 and her feminist image, vs her foreign policy positions of the last 6 years.

I assume Kerry won't run, or won't get very far if he does. He's over. I also assume Clark won't run because he's a close friend of the Clintons (I still think he's a very good bet to be Hillary's veep). It's true that Edwards could tack left -- which will also help Hillary.

2. I think Obama gives much better speech than McGovern did, but maybe im misremembering McGovern.

Absolutely correct. I didn't mean to extend the analogy that far. I meant only that the GOP would have an easier time defeating Obama than any other Dem (except the hapless Kerry); in that way, he's analogous to McGovern in 72.

3. Speaking of Muskie, the real question in a Hilary vs McCain race would be who cracks up first. Either is capable of a very embarassing public moment. In wich case all the electoral math is off

McCain will crack up first, absolutely. Hillary is very, very controlled, which is what makes her such a formidable opponent in 2008, especially against a famously volitile personality like McCain (or Giulianni, for that matter, though he won't get very far).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Er... Michigan? Pennsylvania?

Up 'til the last two years, I lived in Michigan my whole life. I know how blue it is. But if McCain runs? That spells trouble for the Dems in Michigan. Remember, Michigan is one of the states that voted for McCain in the primaries...

Michigan and Pennsylvania have been getting bluer and bluer (PA just threw out Santorum and several Republicans thought to be holding safe seats). That means not only have people been voting Dem, but the Dem party apparati have been getting stronger in those states while the GOP has been weakening. PA in particular also has a popular Dem governor who was reelected in a landslide and is very close to the Clintons. I don't think either state is much at risk.

As for McCain in Michigan, 2008 is not 2000. In 2000 he was a relative unknown, running as a maverick against a better funded but in all other ways inferior candidate. In 2008 he'd be taking on Hillary, who would be a much more formidable opponent than Bush, and, after 8 years of shilling for the Bushies on and off, he will have a hard time fitting into that maverick costume again.

[SlowwHand]

I have his campaign slogan ready if he needs it.

"Hey, At Least I'm Not Hillary Clinton!"

[rah]

Probably work as well as the lastest round of
"Hey, at least i'm not GWB"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'd actually be ok with a Guilliani ticket. He's pretty middle of the road and we wouldn't see the die hard Christian extremist stances which we get out of Bush.

What part of psychotic control freak don't you understand? Just because Joseph Stalin shares some political views with me doesn't mean I'd be okay with his leadership. Before 9/11, Guilliani had a Bush level approval rating among New Yorkers. Even white New Yorkers were starting to complain about the heavy handedness of the NYPD under his administration, and if you were a minority, it was like living in an occupied country. Anyone who opposed him got to see what it was like having the long arm of the law come down on you. He threatened to withhold funding from museums when he didn't approve of their displays. He spied on critical journalists, etc.

If you think Bush's heavy handedness in undermining our civil liberties is problematic, you ain't seen nothing compared to Guilliani