Barack Obama has run a great campaign. It’s hard to imagine how he could, were he given the opportunity, change things to get a more solid victory. Look at the big problems that were within his control: The Wright matter. The bitter comment. Bowling.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is within spitting distance of having won, has been winning lots of recent primaries, and has made some real strategic blunders. For instance, is there much question that she’d be the nominee if she had put more energy and effort into the caucuses?
So, it’s little wonder that she’s drawn the primary out to within an inch of its life. She knows, with unquestionable justification, that this thing should have been hers. That’s got to be eating her alive. I don’t mean to justify her recent decisions, just explain them.
I know I’m going to be called a racist for this, but she was right: the country was caught up with the idea of having a black president. Not sure why, but it’s true. Hillary was clearly the better choice. She’s scary smart and tough as nails. And isn’t that what we need in a president right now? I don’t have a problem with a black president (or any other “fill in the blank” type president), but I really would, after the last eight years, like to have a tough, smart president. I’m afraid Obama (like his friend Deval Patrick) is going to turn out to be all words and no action.
Where to start? Hillary Clinton made poor choices of people to run her campaign, listened to bad advice, made horrible decisions on how to spend her campaign’s money. Just what we need in a president right now?
<
p>She’s in bed with big money, she has a big-money lobbyist running her campaign (Mark Penn). Just what we need in a president right now?
<
p>She adopted the vile Republican tactic, when her support was waning, of turning to the fear card and attempting to exploit the post-9/11 concern about terrorists to her political advantage. Just what we need in a president right now, someone who will continue trying to whip up people’s fears every time the poll numbers go down?
<
p>She attempted to portray people who supported her as more important than those who didn’t. Just what we need in a president right now, another one who thinks only the opinions of their supporters matter?
<
p>Senator Clinton “made some real strategic blunders” because she chose poor advisers and listened to bad advice. It’s time to accept the consequences of those actions. Just what we need, yet another president who believes everything that’s gone wrong is someone else’s fault?
<
p>I don’t find Senator Clinton scary smart. She’s smart, but so is Barack Obama – or do you think becoming the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review was affirmative action too? Did Laurence Tribe call Obama the best student he ever had because he was African-American too? If you think so, then I’d say yes, that’s racist.
<
p>Finally, looking at the number of African-American voters in America compared to how many female voters there are in America, I am utterly baffled as to how anyone can argue it’s more of a benefit to be an African-American candidate than a female candidate.
I didn’t say it was more beneficial to be a black candidate. I said people like you were so entralled with having a black candidate that they gave him a pass on all the things we need in a president right now. How predictable that you called me a racist in your closing arguments. That’s what happens when you have no real points to make. You know there’s a HUGE difference between running a campaign and running the country. Obama ran a brilliant campaign, but in the end, a campaign is all smoke and mirrors and the presidency is where the rubber meets the road. I just don’t think Obama has what it takes. If you think that makes me a racist, then you deserve an Obama presidency.
The only reason I supported Obama is because he’s black? If that’s not racist it certainly is appalling, if you’ve decided, without knowing anything about me or my decision-making process, that the only reason I would support an immensely talented, bright and capable candidate is because he’s African-American.
<
p>Librus, you don’t know jack about why I decided to support Barack Obama.
<
p>I’m a woman. If I made my decisions based on the candidate’s demographics, I’d vote for the female. Like many women, it’s been very difficult for me that the first truly viable female candidate for president was one I couldn’t support.
<
p>I don’t vote based on candidate demographics.
<
p>As it happens, one big reason I supported Barack Obama is because I feel he is the candidate best equipped to counter Republican mud-slinging and fear-mongering, NOT by trying to out-mud-sling and fear-monger them but by FINALLY moving us into a new era where that garbage doesn’t work anymore. I don’t think Hillary Clinton would do so, either because she can’t or she doesn’t want to. Her fear-mongering efforts proved me correct.
<
p>How would you feel if I said the main reason you supported Senator Clinton was because you weren’t comfortable with an African-American as president? Probably not very good. But those are two sides of the same coin.
Ah, so now I’m a racist in the opening statement. That’s unfortunate, because using the r-word takes all the fun out of this sport. With all due respect, you don’t know jack about my racial attitudes. I made an observation that Obama enjoyed the support of some (I think many) people because he’s something different–this time, black. Before you say it, yes, Hillary was something different–a woman–but she was also something the same–a Clinton–and those two things seem to have negated each other.
<
p>Getting back to the point, though, I’m encouraged to hear that there are people (like you) who voted for Obama for the right reasons. I just happen to disagree with you. I still feel Hillary would have been the better president. Obama is naive and has overpromised on every issue. His plan to turn Washington upside down is destined for failure and he will get nothing done. We got a preview of this in Massachusetts with Deval Patrick. Before you hurl the r-word again, I draw the comparison not because they are both black, but because they ran virtually identical campaigns.
<
p>As for dirty campaigning, they both did it. Hillary was just more honest about it. Obama did it poetically or, more often, had others do it for him.
Wow. Not cool on so many levels.
By “people like you” I mean what others refer to as “moonbats.” Don’t read into it beyond that.
He’s just wearing a different negligee.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519
<
p>In Illinois, the “loose” laws about who and who is not a lobbyist is allowing Senator Obama to make the claim that he isn’t getting lobbyist money. He is, however, getting plenty of money from “people who lobby” and their firms.
The fact is that you either have to concede that Obama ran his campaign much more smartly than Clinton. Clearly he is no less smart than Clinton and I don’t see any evidence that he is any less tough. If that are your criterion, you should be fine with Obama.
<
p>
Obama is a master of stating the obvious: we should have health care, we should have good jobs, we should be respected in the world, we shouldn’t be at war, etc., etc., etc. He promised everything to everyone and showed that he is naive about what can be accomplished and what cannot. I felt that she had a better grasp of a wider variety of issues and was more realistic about what is possible.
<
p>He did run a smart campaign, but let’s be honest: he had the media on his side. They were clearly annoyed that she was “spoiling” the Obama lovefest and were merciless to her. He got a pass on everything, up to and including his long-term friendship with a true racist.
<
p>That said, of course I will be fine with Obama now that he’s the candidate.