That's a good one, Bruce! If I had to choose between the two, I'd definitely vote against Hillary and for Obama. To me, it was very unclear during the Clinton campaign as to which Clinton was running. I really am against the two-for-one deal, esp. with the Clintons.
Clinton would win, though. She's got a real hold on the middle class, especially if she fully recanted her Iraq support.
I have a hard time seeing Obama run as an independent, especially considering that he's running as a down-the-line Democrat with the occasional centrist head-fake. [Not that there's anything wrong with that; after 8 years of Bush, Democrats want real Democrats.]
If he were, for example, to get a little Ron Paul action going (hard-line fiscal conservatism, kill, kill, kill the deficit), he just might win that general election.
Let me throw one back at you, Bruce (and everyone else):
The '92 Clinton war room had the famous whiteboard with three things:
1. It's the economy, stupid. 2. Change versus more of the same. 3. Don't forget about health care.
Clinton pounded that into people's heads.
What's Obama's three?* Points given for novelty, accuracy and cleverness.
*The fact that I have to keep asking this question: is it just A. me? B. the Obama campaign's fault? C. the 24-hr news cycle and how you have to feed the press something new? I vote for A and C.
so my first response was Obama. Not sure that i could vote for Hillary given how she campaigned in the primaries.
But, McCain would be running a VERY different campaign (the one he wanted arguably) and so I gave the election to him.
to answer your question, the three are
1. McCain = Bush (more of the same) 2. Obama has the right judgment(ie Iraq) 3. Ignore Sarah Palin
as for you follow up, yes its you and yes its the news cycle. The Obama campaign, particularly Biden (OMG last night was great for him) have been very on msg.
She did much better than I expected but the constant shuffling of note cards and shifting the question back to card that was at the top of the pile was sometimes uncomfortable.
More importantly for Obamaniacs, Biden was excellent. A couple of times his details probably lost people which created a clear distinction for some. I doubt Sarah lost anybody.
"I have been at this for five weeks" was not a particularly useful line.
Ok so the fact that documentary can even be produced about a current presidential candidate is scary. There is guilt by association and then there is guitl by guilt. This is clearly the case of the latter.
And I'm sorry to the John McCain supporters, but this is not the same as Wright or Ayers or Raines. For John McCain, who was 54(?) at the time, this was not a youthful indiscresion. He's was older then than Obama is now.
You know the habit of politicians (cameras in tow) of walking up to people in restaurants/diners and talking them up, etc.? Why is this activity some common, even though it's kind of hackneyed and not actually useful? (how many minds are you giong to change?)
On its face, it would seem to be not such a useful activity, outside of the presence of the cameras. Who is in a coffee shop at 10 am or so? (the hour that these visits seem to happen) Retirees and random folks.
Then again, old people are more likely to vote, so...
Why is it always some local diner? I mean, if I wanted to meet voters in South Bend, I wouldn't go to Nick's Patio. I would go to (elitism alert!) TGI Friday's or some other joint on Grape.
7 comments:
Someone asked me an interesting question this morning.
Who would you vote for if Obama ran as an independant and Hillary had won the Dem nomination?
follow up: Who would win the election?
That's a good one, Bruce! If I had to choose between the two, I'd definitely vote against Hillary and for Obama. To me, it was very unclear during the Clinton campaign as to which Clinton was running. I really am against the two-for-one deal, esp. with the Clintons.
Clinton would win, though. She's got a real hold on the middle class, especially if she fully recanted her Iraq support.
I have a hard time seeing Obama run as an independent, especially considering that he's running as a down-the-line Democrat with the occasional centrist head-fake. [Not that there's anything wrong with that; after 8 years of Bush, Democrats want real Democrats.]
If he were, for example, to get a little Ron Paul action going (hard-line fiscal conservatism, kill, kill, kill the deficit), he just might win that general election.
Let me throw one back at you, Bruce (and everyone else):
The '92 Clinton war room had the famous whiteboard with three things:
1. It's the economy, stupid.
2. Change versus more of the same.
3. Don't forget about health care.
Clinton pounded that into people's heads.
What's Obama's three?* Points given for novelty, accuracy and cleverness.
*The fact that I have to keep asking this question: is it just A. me? B. the Obama campaign's fault? C. the 24-hr news cycle and how you have to feed the press something new? I vote for A and C.
so my first response was Obama. Not sure that i could vote for Hillary given how she campaigned in the primaries.
But, McCain would be running a VERY different campaign (the one he wanted arguably) and so I gave the election to him.
to answer your question, the three are
1. McCain = Bush (more of the same)
2. Obama has the right judgment(ie Iraq)
3. Ignore Sarah Palin
as for you follow up, yes its you and yes its the news cycle. The Obama campaign, particularly Biden (OMG last night was great for him) have been very on msg.
She did much better than I expected but the constant shuffling of note cards and shifting the question back to card that was at the top of the pile was sometimes uncomfortable.
More importantly for Obamaniacs, Biden was excellent. A couple of times his details probably lost people which created a clear distinction for some. I doubt Sarah lost anybody.
"I have been at this for five weeks" was not a particularly useful line.
Ok so the fact that documentary can even be produced about a current presidential candidate is scary. There is guilt by association and then there is guitl by guilt. This is clearly the case of the latter.
And I'm sorry to the John McCain supporters, but this is not the same as Wright or Ayers or Raines. For John McCain, who was 54(?) at the time, this was not a youthful indiscresion. He's was older then than Obama is now.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
An aside not worthy of a separate post:
You know the habit of politicians (cameras in tow) of walking up to people in restaurants/diners and talking them up, etc.? Why is this activity some common, even though it's kind of hackneyed and not actually useful? (how many minds are you giong to change?)
On its face, it would seem to be not such a useful activity, outside of the presence of the cameras. Who is in a coffee shop at 10 am or so? (the hour that these visits seem to happen) Retirees and random folks.
Then again, old people are more likely to vote, so...
Why is it always some local diner? I mean, if I wanted to meet voters in South Bend, I wouldn't go to Nick's Patio. I would go to (elitism alert!) TGI Friday's or some other joint on Grape.
Post a Comment