Friday, February 01, 2008
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter and Drive By Blogger endorse Hillary.
Obama really is starting rack up the quality endorsements. (Notice the NYT is outside of such a set) I think this is partly spurred by Edwards's departure. (It may even explain why Edwards decided to drop out before Super-Duper-Fantastic-Awesome-Fat Tuesday. It allowed this bump to happen)
I find myself in a pickle. I have repeatedly stated that I don't want Hillary as the nominee because I feel she is the most likely Democrat to bring out the right wing nut jobs against the Democrats (regardless of who the Republican is). That being said, now that I have the choice between Clinton and Obama, I have to wonder who is the more electable. Because at the end of the day, even if I like Obama more than Hillary, I would rather the more electable of the two.
The Nation article really doesn't help to convince me either. They argue that Clinton voted to allow Bush to go to war while Obama spoke out against it. Of course, I dealt with this on my blog where I stated that I have a big problem blaming Democrats for the fact that Bush misled them. Would you be angry at your child if he put that Abe Lincoln was the 1st President on a test if his text book incorrectly stated that as a fact? I don't think you would. (I really tried to come up with a better analogy)
The Nation says "Obama's circle is made up overwhelmingly of people who thought the Iraq War was a mistake. "
Clearly Hillary now believes that the war was a mistake. She just wont say her vote was a mistake and I wont blame her for the Bush lies.
They state: "[Hillary's] campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign"
I see nothing wrong with that, as long as they pull it off.
They state: "In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests. "
And that is all well and good, and if he is able to turn the increase of young voters into a win well then by all means he will have earned the nomination and I will support him for President. But we wont know if that actually worked until after the primaries are over so this really is not a reason for ME to support him.
"No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. "
Will Obama carry Mississippi? I doubt it. So the question is, will the racism that still exists in the south (and maybe even the midwest) trump the hatred for Clinton? Honestly, I don't know.
But this is where the Nation's argument falls apart" In this sense, Bill Clinton is right: voting for and electing Barack Obama is a "roll of a dice." All elections are. But the candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left's best chance to, in Buchanan's immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It's a chance we can't pass up. "
I believe we already HAVE the bigger half of the Country. Is it worth a roll of the dice to risk it to get even more? Will "greed" be our own demise?
So the question that still remains for me is this. Who is the most likely candidate to beat any Republican? And honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. I would like to believe that either candidate would be able to beat any Republican because of the shape our country is in. But i know Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
SOOOOOOO I guess I am still stuck deciding.
This was one of Mr. Obama's best campaign weeks. Gaps between he and Mrs. Clinton in the polls are shrinking. She still must be considered the favorite but Obama could easily pull of a draw that could be spun as a victory. There's even a growing outside chance he could shock in California, but I have a hard time envisioning it.
All of the races should be close, save for Illinois. I even think New York will be more competitive than is being discussed.
Noo Yawk, E? Fuggeaboutit. Hillary's a popular Senator who has delivered for her peeps. New Jersey, however, could be a different story...
Hillary's a popular Senator who has delivered for her peeps.
I live in NYC, and I'm just a bit in favor of Obama. Who knew?