Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MarkG
Obama would be killed if elect according to very old lady

Obama will be assassinated if he wins: Nobel winner Lessing

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated, British Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing predicted in a newspaper interview published here Saturday.

Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.

Lessing, who won the 2007 Nobel Literature Prize, said it might be better if Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton were to succeed in her bid to become the first woman president of the United States.

"The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama," she said.

"Let Billary win or the ****** gets it."

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MarkG
Obama would be killed if elect according to very old lady

Some considerably younger Poly posters made the same prediction before her.

Copycats.

[Ramo]

Regarding the Obama's "cult of personality," it's pretty clear that the difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues is insignificant compared to the difference between either one and McCain. So the most reasonable "cult of personality" metric would be to measure how many strong Obama supporters (which might correspond roughly to Obama primary voters) would be extremely dissatisfied with a Clinton nomination and how many Clinton primary voters would be extremely dissatisfied with an Obama nomination. And coincidentally, this has been measured by CNN in the exit polls. I haven't seen every exit poll, but the basic pattern is that this "cult of personality" measurement is similar, but somewhat larger for Clinton than for Obama.

Anecdotally, since we tend to be young, well-educated guys coming from areas of high diversity (i.e. the sterotypical Obama supporter), we disproportionately hang out with other young, well-educated, diverse guys, so there's a sampling bias that would lead us to believe that the "cult of personality" measurement would be stronger for Obama than Clinton. Similarly, on the interwebs, there's a sampling bias operating in the same direction. Krugman should know better. He made some legitimate points about mandates, but he's getting off the rails...

[Dinner]

The Billary campaign is trying to grab some of Obama's support among young voters. The problem is their campaign ads suck so bad it is almost embarrassing to watch.

[Imran Siddiqui]

New Rule: You can't refer to the Clinton campaign derisively as "Billary" and then be able to point to how great the country was under President Clinton in the 90s when arguing against Republicans.

[Dinner]

I do think Bill Clinton was the greatest President since Eisenhower. I don't believe Hillary is worthy of being President nor that she would even be considered except for the fact she married a man who was qualified to be President. She's riding his coat tails based on nothing she herself ever accomplished so I think merging Bill and Hillary together is justified.

[Wezil]

What happened to "Rodham"? Seems to have gotten lost in the campaign.

[DirtyMartini]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I repeat some stuff.

Anecdote alert! Most Obama supporters I know (myself included) support him for no other reason than that he stands a better chance than Hillary in the general election.

The degree of irrational Hillary-hating rampant in this country makes her a weaker candidate than Obama. That's really all there is to it to me. Hillary the nominee mobilizes the Republican base and alienates the undecided middle who have heard one too many Hillary jokes over the past 16 years. Even if she wins the presidency, she gets enough straight ticket Republicans to the polls to cost the dems a few close senate races. Obama the candidate is more neutral with regard to the repub base and mobilized the (admitedly flaky) youth vote. He more easily wins the presidency and gains more senate seats for the dems.

On the policy/experience question -- Obama can always surround himself with policy experts. Hillary can't make herself inspirational and charismatic.

[DinoDoc]

On the policy/experience question -- Obama can always surround himself with policy experts.

Isn't that what people said about Dubya?

[Impaler[WrG]]

The difference is Dubya didn't create his own cabinet he got the keys to his dads and then abducted the running of the government to them. Obama has already chosen a circle of advisor's in his campaign who are proving themselves competent by battling virtually-incumbent Hillary to a dead-heat.

[Ramo]

Interesting article about the recent shakeup of Clinton campaign:

Even after grasping the magnitude of the [Obama] threat, the Clinton campaign didn't react quickly and stuck to the strategy of trying to project an aura of inevitability. Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton's Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration — and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary's inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle

Doylie, heckuva job.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
The difference is Dubya didn't create his own cabinet he got the keys to his dads and then abducted the running of the government to them. Obama has already chosen a circle of advisor's in his campaign who are proving themselves competent by battling virtually-incumbent Hillary to a dead-heat.

Good point that. At the start of the year I thought he was ahead, but when I looked at the actual charts

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
The difference is Dubya didn't create his own cabinet he got the keys to his dads and then abducted the running of the government to them. Obama has already chosen a circle of advisor's in his campaign who are proving themselves competent by battling virtually-incumbent Hillary to a dead-heat.

Campaigning = Governing?

[Ramo]

It's creating and running a large, $100 million+ organization. Obama has proven to be adept in this respect (as Impaler pointed out, Dear Leader inherited an organization).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As pointed out by Krugman (among others... he's only the latest to assert it), that there is most definately a (somewhat loud) group of his supporters who thinks he can do no wrong.

Bald-faced assertions are great and all, but you've provided no backup for anything you've said besides "Krugman says so." Yes, there is a group of his supporters who apparently think he's great - just like every other candidate ever. Yet it never seems to occur to you to attribute this to "popularity" or "a more articulate presentation" or even "a vaguer message." It's a cult even though you've conflated popularity with a cult; it's a cult of personality even though you've said that the campaign seems more about the message of hope and change. Clinton's supporters who think she can do no wrong are just her partisans; for Obama, they're apparently "cultists," and you've come to this conclusion based on the fact that they are "somewhat loud." A logical conclusion would be that Obama's partisans are more numerous, or more enthusiastic, or just that you're exposed to a biased sample by being on the internet, but for you (and Krugman!) it's a cult of personality.

Look, you're a smart guy and I respect your opinions in general, but your argument is utterly preposterous. You originally suspected a cult of personality on the sole reason that Obama did better than Edwards on a similar platform, even though it's been pointed out that the campaigns were aimed at very different audiences. At times you don't even seem to know what a cult of personality is. I don't mean to be rude, but seriously, WTF are you talking about?