Categories
Open Thread

Obama for VP

I am no psephologist, but as the owner of one of those V-thingies, I have had a particular interest in the women in this election. Sadly, with one exception, they have shamed my gender and behaved in general as if they have one of those P-thingies instead.

Hillary – the Great White hope. Before this election got interesting I hoped and assumed that Hillary would trounce the republicans and we would see a woman in the White House. As an avowed feminist this was pleasing indeed and seemed to make this election a trailblazer for that reason alone. Anything to see the end of George the Imbecile, and what better way to turn the tables on neo-conservatism than to see a democrat woman as POTUS.

She is charismatic, confident, assured and knowledgeable. It turns out she is also rabidly ambitious and prepared to play dirty to that end. I was amazed at some of the stunts she pulled , the fake accents, the lies about her foreign affairs experience and worse, her preparedness to smear Obama when the Primary race got tight. Hillary believed that she had an entitlement to be back in The White House and she dragged it out to the bitter end, which was damaging for the party, and ultimately herself.

Then there’s the Stepford wives. Cindy McCain who has behaved like a handbag: an attractive accessory (if you like plastic), with not much content. She has conducted herself like all good wives from the 50’s should – well groomed, and silently supporting her man. Who knows what she really thinks? She represents a thankfully bygone era where a woman’s only public role was to be seen to support her man. Even when he has publicly humiliated her and called her a “Stupid C-nt”. If she had divorced him and spoken out against abuse of women she would be deserving of admiration. Instead she relies on his success for her identity. Not the kind of role model I want for my daughters.

And the First Lady – Laura . I actually feel sorry for her – after all she sleeps with George every night, so she is punished enough and in an act of sisterly solidarity I shall harm her no more.

My favourite anti-hero of this election is of course Sarah Palin. Not much I can say that hasn’t been said, and nothing anyone can say that betters Tina Fey. She will become a symbol of all that is loathed about the American Character – an arrogant, brash, ignorant, fundamentalist who does not have the intelligence to know that she isn’t. But she is also frightening – a juxtaposed “I can do anything” feminist persona overlaying a basic narrowness that is determined to undo some of the rights that women have fought and even died for – most particularly the right to choose whether to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy. This in my view makes her one of the most dangerous female politicians in the public arena today. Whatever your personal view on abortion is, it is not her right to impose hers on all American women. It’s bad enough that she’s doing it to Bristol.

Then onto the stage strides Michelle Obama. A woman of intelligence and style. A woman who clearly supports her husband but has her own views on matters of public policy. A mother and partner who has a successful career. A woman who can talk and think for herself. And an African American who must know first hand what it means to live in a country which has not reached it’s potential, but may in fact be about to. This is a role model for my daughters, and for all of us who aspire to see women in public life reflect the best of us.

Frankly – I wish she was VP.

1,370 replies on “Obama for VP”

Hi all. Jen – great lead post.
Regarding Powell, I agree it will mean nothing in terms of votes. Already, Fox News and Limbaugh are spinning it as an endorsement based on race – “Hey look, Powell’s Black. So that’s why he’s voting for the Black dude!”

BUT – it does knock some of the wind out of McCain’s sails, not that there was much there to begin with, but especially since it comes after a string of newspaper endorsements for Obama. A sense of running against the tide would not be a great feeling and will only tip McCain further towards desperation politics (robocalls, race-baiting, hail mary passes), which ultimately does more damage than good to him.

In saying all this though, I get the sense that McCain has already accepted losing. He has relaxed somewhat since Wednesday’s debate and is openly talking about the possibility of defeat. It would be very dangerous, however, for Democrats and Obama supporters to suddenly rest on their laurels.

I am so with you on this one Spammy….and someone is going to dig it up. (contemptible though this practice be, I can’t help but hope 😈 )

102
I hear ya jen, I was sitting here thinking, well, it really is wrong how this stuff gets done, but f#(k it, on this one … let it rip 👿

Ah, it is nice to see people joining the political dark side … 🙂

The ends justify the means in this case. (And I would go a lot further to win POTUS for the correct side than simply stealing medical records …)

Further joy on the story mentioned @69
Maureen Dowd as Madame Defarge sharpening her knitting needles at the guillotine.

Just when we thought executives of A.I.G., the insurance giant bailed out by taxpayers for $123 billion, had been shamed into stopping their post-bailout Marie Antoinette spa treatments, luxury sports suites, Vegas and California posh resort retreats, we were dumbfounded to learn that some A.I.G. execs were cavorting at a lavish shooting party at a British country manor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19dowd.html?ref=opinion

105 DG
Then you would simply be putting your self-interest before your duties and would not be fit to hold any leadership role, let alone POTUS.

Enough of the compromise and ‘the end justifies the means’ bullshit. Shove the dark side – we’ve been dominated by it so long that even good people get sucked into believing you have to join ’em to beat ’em. Open the fuckin curtains and let some light in for a change!

Paddy @110
As the TB patient said when being shown to a group of medical students..”Im just a case of conspicuous consumption”

Meanwhile, over on Salon.com
Joan Walsh gives her take on the Powell endorsement.

A devastating blow to John McCain

Colin Powell destroyed the last hope John McCain had to defeat Barack Obama and become president. I have never heard such a devastating and thoroughgoing critique of McCain’s issue-free, fear-mongering campaign. While Powell’s endorsing Obama on “Meet the Press” Sunday was expected, the way he did it was stunning.

Goodness me jen. Clearly your post has fired up the sisterhood across the intertubes. 🙂
Well done.

Ferny Grover,

I disagree. What I would be doing is putting the interest of the nation as my highest priority.

If an opponent who in my opinion is going to screw over the nation lies, cheats and steals to get elected and that lying, cheating and stealing works, then it is not good enough to simply stand back and let the nation be wrecked.

There are two ways to go: either expose the lying, cheating and stealing (which seems to so rarely works) or you lie, cheat and steal yourself to level the playing field.

It is no good playing straight in a system which rewards crooked.

81 – FG

That is very true 🙂

I guess there is no comparison after listening to an insightful endorsement from Powell compared to the grudging spiteful surrender from our far less esteemed colleague.

111 Ferny; you are absolutely right – we mus rise above our base instincts etc etc. But you know – can’ t help hoping Palin will gets her comeuppance. I’m not as fine an indivindual as Obama – I’m only human 😉

115 – DG
Or we could as a nation push for increased penalties for lying and deception in public office.

asanque,

But the only way to get such laws passed is to get the good guys into public office …

And, asanque, if doing that simply lets the country be stuffed up for another eight years – or longer – then is that really the right course to take?

Utter rubbish DG.
All you’re doing is perpetuating the corrupt system and deceiving yourself that it’s somehow in the nation’s best interests to do so. It’s the rationalisation Rove uses so he can sleep at night. We need a clean break from that – which is what Obama is pushing. It’s also bullshit to say the only option is to stand back and let the nation be wrecked. You challenge the crap, present your arguments and offer a better alternative.
All you’re offering is more of the same and kidding yourself that it’s different.
I could give a lecture on the relationship of ‘moral authority’ to effective leadership but this isn’t the place.
It’s sufficient to say that you don’t change a crooked system by being crooked yourself – no matter what your expressed motives may be.
It calls for leadership and character to change what is. Right now, leadership and character are what the US nation is callng for and what Obama is offering.

120 – DG

Unlike many others on this site, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoints.

However, I still respectfully disagree that the ‘Karl Rove’ doctrine is a sustainable and viable path to electoral victory.

#105
[The ends justify the means in this case. (And I would go a lot further to win POTUS for the correct side than simply stealing medical records …)]

[Noocat shakes his head]. DG, has Obama’s campaign not taught you anything? Obama could have gone much dirtier. There is a load of gutter stuff he could have attacked McCain with (Cindy too) but he didn’t and YET, he is still ahead in the polls.

Good day, fellow compassionati. Hear, hear, Jen!! An excellent summary of the female personalities in the action. And what an excellent choice indeed MO would be for high office.

EC @ 84- That is a wonderful image! While he might say he’s Hillary free, and had been for one week, three days and seven hours, it only takes one Hillary to undo all the good work, so I hope he can phone a friend when the urge for one comes on. Perhaps some of us here could offer to such friends to be rung if the desire for the demon Hillary becomes too much?

Diogenes [from previous thread] – Thanks for that consultation Diogenes. And it’s good to be back. I have unfortunately been unable to perform the therapy of the 6 month binge due to increased work commitments and building a house. Hope to get on the turps soon though, November 5 in Brissie being one opportunity for practise that won’t be missed 🙂

David- while I understand the motivation, the fact is that we are seeing the excat opposite of what you are saying actually taking place now. Obabam is trouncing the REpugs and has not stooped to their tactics at all. People aroung the globe are embracing this approach of decencyand honesty. POlitical pragmatism is on the way out it would seem.

[And, asanque, if doing that simply lets the country be stuffed up for another eight years – or longer – then is that really the right course to take?]

Well, only if you assume a person can’t win unless they resort to Rovian tactics, which Obama has avoided for the most part, and yet still seems to be winning. So I guess the answer to your question DG is that your “either-or” scenario needs a few extra options in it. It is not a case of “do-a-Rove” or lose. There are other ways, actually, better ways that still inspire hope rather than relying solely on fear.

Hmmm. It seems to me that the reason people are voting for Obama has nothing to do with the tactics that he is using versus the tactics McCain is using. As to people around the globe embracing decency and honesty, umm, where?

A question: if Obama was two points down, and you had legitimate access to the medical records that showed that Palin had had an abortion 18 months ago, would you leak them?

It seems to me that it is very easy to be moral when one is seven points ahead.

Noocat,

I agree. Using those tactics is not an ‘always’ deal. However, if my opponent was using them and I believed that I had to use them to put myself into a position to win, then I would do so.

Jen @117
“I’m not as fine an indivindual as Obama – I’m only human ”
At the Al Smith dinner BO explicitly said that he hadn’t been born in a manger!
DG et al.. every decent person wants to win playing fair. The US and the world are very lucky that a decent man looks like winning without dirtying his hands. But IF it were necessary to play dirty to ensure that palin were not first emergency leader of the free world, then I for one would play dirty.

It’s never ‘easy to be moral’, DG. That’s why many folk take the easier road – and nothing ever changes, except for the worst.
What’s the difference between you and Rove? Both of you underestimate the power of values – which always assert themselves eventually. It’s a survival thing. It was Aristotle who spoke of ‘virtues’ being necessary for human flourishing. Without them society crumbles. Look around – smart cookie that Aristotle.

Ferny Grover,

The thing is, this just boils down to an argument about what morality is.

Is it moral to permit someone to do harm when you have the ability, by doing another harm, to prevent them?

In many moral systems, the answer depends on the level of harm involved.

That is generally where I sit (although not always – sometimes it is more acceptable to allow a great harm rather than perpetuating a minor one).

As to Aristotle, yes, smart indeed. I am more of a Schopenhaur and Nietszche man, however. And Karl Popper rocks.

Aristotle held back Western civilisation by about 1500 years. It wasn’t all his fault that everyone based their world view on his but he’s still one of my least favourite philosophers.

DG

If you like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer (I’m guessing you are a Cynic or sceptical Empiricist), Montaigne, Bacon and Kierkegaard are brilliant.

David @ 96 – [Having said that, I do not expect Powell’s endorsement of Obama to mean much in terms of votes.]

Not so sure about that David – it is a very strategic endorsement, and might remove an obstacle for a lot of the independents in the area of that spurious ‘experience’ qualification that has been trotted out in the primaries and since against Barry. From US ABC News:

“What that just did in one sound bite,” former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said during the same discussion, “is it eliminated the experience argument.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6067626&page=1

For me the ‘experience’ card has been much overplayed over far too long. If I may be allowed some leniency I will expand on that a little:
As if Obama couldn’t take up office as POTUS straight off and do an excellent job. He is a highly intelligent person with a detailed knowledge of domestic and world events. He has demonstrated consummate skills in listening to advice, processing information and making durable decisions.

Compare him to McCain on the issues of emerging events in the campaign and he is completely dominant. The best example is in the financial crisis. How much did McCain’s alleged great experience help him make considered and sensible suggestions for action? It simply didn’t – he lurched around knocking over the furniture. Obama was a statesman by comparison.

Before that we had Hillary making ill-conceived decisions in her campaign, showing none of the benefits of her alleged (and grossly inflated) ‘experience’ as she made unwise and immature choices on the run in a shocker of a campaign. At the same time Obama was building on his credentials as a superb leader, strategist, listener to his advice, synthesiser of information and decision-maker.

If we can for the moment use the West Wing as perhaps a little bit of an insight into the reality of being POTUS, then if Barack Obama isn’t best qualified to carry off that sort of gig, as he has demonstrated time and time again in the primaries and the main campaign, then I’m a Dutchman.

Expansion over.

I think Plato is more responsible for holding back Western civilisation. His influence is still huge today, unfortunately. Brilliant man, but wrong pretty much in all things …

Geez Diogs – Aristotle can hardly be blames for how Aquinas et al used – and usurped – some of his observations.

And DG – it’s not so much about morality as ethics.

Ferny Grover,

I have to say that I have never understood the difference between ethics and morals. But maybe that will not surprise you … 😉

135 – DG

The one thing holding back all civilisation is simple. ‘Religion’.
Which not coincidentally is the biggest influence today.

I suppose an analogy to your political strategy would be a war.
Do rules apply in a war?
We all know about the Geneva convention, but if the other side starts slaughtering your civilians, what do you do?

My view is that taking a Rovian view is a slippery slide to self-destruction. Whilst it may work in the short-term, the entire basis behind this view is to divide society. Eventually, you make so many enemies and your followers are so deluded that the entire structure gives way.

Just like Howard and just like the Republicans.

asanque,

I agree on religion.

If the other side starts slaughtering civilians, then you pretty much have to win the struggle.

If that necessitates slaughtering civilians in exchange, I honestly believe that you do not have much choice. However, I would attempt to find a way to win without doing so – it would be a last resort.

On the Rovian view, though: if you can win then you can change the system. Otherwise, you cannot. You can wait, I guess, until circumstances give you the win in any case. But the damage done in the meantime has not been prevented …

Basically, I would have resorted to pretty much any means to defeat Nazi Germany, as the short term damage that being vicious and cruel would have caused would have been massively outweighed by the short- and long-term that losing would have occurred had I lost.

I do not believe in unnecessary cruelty. I am, however, bang on the side of necessary cruelty.

DG & Asanque
Hold on – I’ll tune up the guitar and we can all sing a chorus of Lennon’s ‘Imagine’

Then, of course, the debate becomes, ‘What is necessary?’ And that can be a very difficult question to answer.

me @102
OMG! I momentarily morphed in to Hillary. I’m back now…
and NO it is not OK to resort to dishonesty to win. Surely we’ve just seen the repercussions of that in Iraq – millions dead, and for what???
Enough.
Vote1 Obama. He’s such a nice chap.

141
Ferny
we can all sing a chorus of Lennon’s ‘Imagine’’
Stuff that Ferny. 🙂
Let’s have some peace and love etc from Guy Rundle in Crikey today.

Colin Powell’s a murderous little turd — “we are going to cut off this army and then we are going to kill it” — who, if there were any justice in the world, would have been in a glass box with Schwartzkopf at the Hague tried for the “turkey shoot”. That was the massacre of tens of thousands of Iraqi conscript soldiers in retreat on the Basra Road in the aftermath of the Gulf War. How many died there who would have otherwise gone back to families, to jobs, to everyday life? Between twenty thousand and forty thousand is the estimate melted by bombs and napalm into their tanks and jeeps, a crime against humanity on a par with Babi Yar, Katyn, Nanjing, My Lai, the Sandakan Death March, and and and … Fallujah, to hit all the bases.

Powell was a Vietnam commander, and then worked his way up, seen as a shining symbol of African-American advancement, a strange sort of way of achieving the ideal. Give me Muhammad Ali’s “No Vietcong ever called me nigger” anyday,

http://www.crikey.com.au/

jen,

Re Iraq: the dishonesty they used did not convince anyone, so the dishonesty was completely pointless. If I had been in charge, I would have said, ‘We need to secure oil and Saddam’s a scumbag, and so we’re going in.’ The war caused the deaths, not the dishonesty. (However, I suspect that ‘millions dead’ is a slight exaggeration.)

The main thing the dishonesty did in this case was wreck the chances of the US ever forming a useful military coalition in the future. Lying is not always necessary, and can often be counterproductive.

149 – DG

Unfortunately dishonesty and the Iraq war go hand in hand.
If Dubya had used your rationale, there was no hope of the US getting the necessary authorisation or assistance from allied forces to invade (not that they got it anyway).

Somebody said there would be a bombshell in October.
Maybe this could be it!
Answer the questions you Fcuken Jerk

Sarah Palin, why was Bristol home-schooled last year?

Check this out: It’s a list of babies born in April at the hospital where Sarah Palin claims Trig was born in April. Only Trig isn’t on the list. And check this out: when she ran for mayor of Wasilla, Palin demanded that her opponent release his marriage certificate. She wanted him to prove that he was actually married to his wife — because, you see, his wife used her maiden not, not her husband’s last name. For all voters knew, Sarah Palin insinuated, her opponent was living in sin right there God-fearing Wasilla. And living in sin and everything that goes along with it — premarital sex, children born out of wedlock — is just wrong. (Or was wrong — Bristol and Levi’s appearance at the RNC was a “game-changer,” as they say.)

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-106057

asanque,

I would not have bothered to try to get necessary authorisation from the UN in the first place. The UN is fundamentally flawed, as you have to get the democratic vote of undemocratic nations in order for it to do anything.

DavidG
“T”e war caused the deaths, not the dishonesty.”
Huh?.. the lies caused the war. Preemptive invasion as Saddam had WMD’s. Only he didn’t ,and it turns out they knew that.

“However, I suspect that ‘millions dead’ is a slight exaggeration.’
You may be right. Possibly only a million 😡

142 – DG

The age old question is where do we set the line.
I agree that it is extremely difficult to provide an answer to this one, so I won’t. 🙂

I’d also tag ‘nationalism’ along with ‘religion’ as setting back humanity’s path.

153 – DG
The UN is fundamentally flawed. However, as a leading nation, the job of the US if not to ignore it, but to guide the process in making it work.

A good analogy is our police force today. If a rich private citizen can flaunt the law (which still happens), then the whole system goes to the shits.

The US would never have tried to invade Iraq if it didn’t have the backing of a few other nations. There was no way Britain or Australia would have gone along with the invasion if the US had proposed it the way you had. The lies propagated by Bush and Howard convinced just enough gullible people to allow the war to begin.

As far as I’m concerned they both broke international law and should be tried as war criminals.

The lies did not cause the war. The war was decided upon. The lies were used to try and sell it. They failed, but the war still occurred.

157 – DG
I disagree. The lies actually worked, allowing the US Senate to pass a resolution authorising force.

It was also the basis behind Britain and Australia joining in.
Is your contention that the war would have gone ahead if the fiction that was ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was never propagated? 🙂

[It seems to me that it is very easy to be moral when one is seven points ahead.]

DG – we’ve been through all this before. If Obama resorted to full-on Rovian tactics, I would withdraw my support because he would be no better than the opposition. We expect politicians to play the game hard and we want our preferred leader to do so, for the sake of getting into power and then enacting the policies we want… BUT there is a point where the means no longer justify the ends, and a point where the means tell us more about the person we are actually supporting and what they might be inclined to do when under pressure whilst in power.

Politics is not a sport. It is also about values. And sometimes winning is not worth it if our values are destroyed in the process.

Sorry David- disagree. Blair in particular involved Britain based specifically on the threat of WMD’s directly affecting the UK’s national security – or so he claimed.
Howard went along with whatever GWB wanted of course, but used the same lies to convince people that it was in the interests of security that we supported the US.

Here’s a hypothetical.
Who believes that Clinton in the same political environment would win more electoral votes then Obama if she was the nominee?

I believe Clinton would still have won, but not by the same margin as Obama will (and Obama will).

jen,

‘So he claimed …’

Says it all, really. The war was a done deal.

asanque,

Yes, that is my contention.

As to the UN, while it has its uses, it is not the kind of organisation that I would support as the body to authorise the use or otherwise of military force, for example.

I would much prefer an organisation that only permitted membership to countries that had acheived a certain standard in terms of human rights, for example.

Noocat,

I agree that the end does not justify the means in all cases. And I agree that dumping our entire value set is not worth winning. But dumping some values to get other values implemented is worth it. Losing and not getting any values implemented is far worse than keeping all one’s values.

asanque,

I believe Clinton would win more electoral votes than Obama in this environment. There is no state on Obama’s that would not be on hers, and she would also win Arkansas.

(That is, unless Obama wins Georgia or Texas or places as far out of reach normally as those states.)

163 – DG
I couldn’t see Clinton winning North Carolina, Virginia or Colorado.
I couldn’t see Clinton generating the youth nor black turnout.
I couldn’t see Clinton raising $150 million in 1 month.

Although I suspect that Clinton wouldn’t be running against VP Palin 🙂

163
DG
The one big difference, is that Clinton wouldn’t be facing Palin as VP.
Totally different race plan.

All 3 of the above locations being where Obama beat Clinton handily, and is still only just ahead of McCain in this current climate.

[I believe Clinton would win more electoral votes than Obama in this environment. ]

Sorry, I don’t buy this argument. If Clinton were the candidate now, the GOP would be implicating her in the economic meltdown, from NAFTA to financial deregulation when Bill was POTUS. Sure, the GOP would be just us muddied by this as they are now, but they would have been able to bring Hillary down with them.

Obama’s clean skin on this matter has been a HUGE bonus for the Dems.

Maybe not North Carolina; that is true. But I have my doubts that Obama is going to win there, either.

I think that Clinton would win Virginia; and possibly West Virginia, too, although I would not count on that.

The youth or black turnout would not be required in states like Ohio or Colorado for the Democrats to win them under Clinton. Ohio was going to hers easily. Obama has yet to seal the deal there.

While I agree on the money thing, money is not the only determinant of elections, and there is a law of diminishing returns that applies.

Noocat,

They cannot attack her for deregulation because that is what they support. She can simply point to the golden economic years under Bill, and any economic arguments the Republicans might have are completely destroyed.

Let’s not forget that the reason that Hillary is not the candidate is because she did not have the support that Obama did. Therefore it seems odd to suggest that is she had won the Primary she would somehow have gained more than he has.

Good on you for trying though David. We’re such a homogenous lot here these days it’s good to get a bit of a challenge occasionally. However I think that’s pretty reflective of the entire non- republican support base these days. Hillary is frankly irrelevant as we all join behind`the juggernaut that is Obama.

And Australia are in deep, deep trouble, aren’t they? Darn India – they lose a world-class spinner, but have another dozen or so ready to bowl …

176 – DG
As long as you don’t go too far, and accuse us of ‘pallin’ around with the 3 Amigos, its all okay 🙂

Now I know I’m prone to wearing tinfoil beanies on the odd occasion, but even I can see the “Monty Python” moment here.

VP candidate Palin introduces ‘Ed the Dairyman,’ promises lower taxes.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke to a crowd of about 10,000 supporters Sunday in a Roswell airplane hangar, not only making a reference to Joe the Plumber, but alluding several times to “Ed the Dairyman”

http://www.startribune.com/politics/31257339.html
Helloooo!! 10,000 supporters in a Roswell aircraft hangar??? :mrgreen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident

179 – Paddy

I’m just waiting for them to bring out ‘Simon the Unicorn’ (for anyone who watched SNL)

[Let’s not forget that the reason that Hillary is not the candidate is because she did not have the support that Obama did.]

Exactly, Jen. She had everything going for her. Early on, nobody thought Obama would be the candidate, yet Hillary failed to put herself in a winning position. Why should we expect her to have not made similar errors in the lead-up to the general?

The world has got the candidate it wanted the most and that is Obama. He BEST represents this particular turning point in world history.

[They cannot attack her for deregulation because that is what they support.]

DG, of course, they wouldn’t spin it that way. All they would simply need to do is associate one or two policies (e.g., NAFTA) to spin a line about Hillary having laid some of the groundwork for future Wall Street greed and offshoring of local jobs that weakened the economy, blah, blah, and how this makes her less trustworthy on the economy… even Bush last week made references to the economic crisis having its roots a decade ago (i.e., during Clinton’s reign). It doesn’t even have to make sense. Just drawing connections and creating the mudpool is all that is required… all very Rovian.

But Obama has been untouchable, allowing him to float above the fray when it has come to this crisis.

DG – It’s just impossible to hypothesise where Hillary would be now. The big thing that is generating registrations and support for Obama where Clinton would have wallowed is the instructive polling that says 89% of voters want a change in direction. As representative of the old politics she couldn’t have garnered all those votes like Obama will. She wouldn’t have got 175,000 at two rallies over one weekend. Also the hatred of Hillary factor among GOP supporters would have had more of them out to vote.
But in the end the question is on a par with asking whether the 1948 Australian cricket team would have beaten Steve Waugh’s team. No-one knows.

I was having a think about any narrowing. While McCain’s numbers have got a touch better over the last week, we have yet to see any movement in his state numbers. This may partly be because there has not been much polling at his best end of the week, but it also might reflect the fact that he is solidifying support in strong red states rather than picking up undecided voters or, indeed, grabbing lukewarm Obama supporters. If this is the case, any gain that he has made might not help him get electoral votes.

TPM Election Central: Debates Improved Opinions Of Obama Among Independents And Conservatives

New polling from ABC News and The Washington Post reveals just how big Barack Obama’s victory in the collective debates really was.

The survey finds that more than a third of likely voters (36%) said their opinion of Obama had gotten better because of the debates, while only 12% said it had gotten worse. By contrast, only a fifth (20%) said their opinion of McCain had improved, while more than that (26%) said it had gotten worse.

The numbers among independents are pretty interesting, too. A third (33%) said their opinion of Obama had improved, while only 19% said their opinion of McCain had improved — significantly less than the 28% of indys who said their opinion of the Arizona Senator had worsened.

And get this: While McCain won handily among Republicans, opinions of both candidates improved by approximately the same number among conservatives. Twenty seven percent of conservatives said their opinion of Obama had gotten better, while 28% said the same of McCain.

McCain Improves
But Obama Takes the Prize

It’s the sheer nuanced and poetic nature of Sarah that I so admire…
‘She drew cheers from the crowd when she said, “We’ll drill here, we’ll drill now.”‘
🙄

Well – we do appear to be a bit more on the ball than this fellow.

“Murray Clark, the Indiana Republican chairman, says with grudging admiration in his voice, “Obama’s done these things right. That’s how he nearly beat Hillary in the primary.”
😆

Nice post Jen.

I’m late on the Powell endorsement, but I know I’m not alone in lacking respect for Powell after his lies to the UN about Iraq’s WMD’s. Well, it’s more than lacking respect – he disgusts me. I agree Powell’s endorsement is unlikely to affect voting significantly, but I’d imagine it’s a psychological blow to the Republicans.

Goodness, I didn’t mean to start all that 😉

Personally, I’m blaming Sarah (mainly cos I don’t like her 😛 ) for this whole thread, if she’d release the God damn medical records none of this would have happened :mrgreen:

For what it’s worth,
1. I wouldn’t steal and leak her med recs
2. I wouldn’t leak em if I knew the source had stolen them
3. I would have killed Hitler at birth if I somehow could have known what an evil prick he would become
4. I like to eat chocolate custard baby food
5. I was lying at point 2 😉

oops srry jen, I didn’t mean the whole thread, just everything that happened after comment 98

Comments are closed.