--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > All that having been said,
Er, exactly what "all that" was said, Marek? Was there some point to that smarmy little exchange about arugula and the white-hot crotches of goats that you thoughtfully reproduced for us? Do you think Obama, in contrast to Clinton, had a real great time at the bowling alley? the Politico.com essays suggested by Judy > were thought provoking but (IMO) still in the realm of fear and > speculation that, They weren't "still" in that realm, as if they should have been in some other realm. I posted them in response to the folks here who are so sure Obama will win the nomination and are dumping on Clinton because she refuses to bow out before she has actually lost. > "Obama might just be the wrong guy, we can't > really tell (and we don't want to find out because then we'd > know for sure, and we'd be so disappointed, and you don't want > to take a chance on *real* change because, you know, nothing > ever *really* changes, so better not take any real chances) Yeah, you pulled this nasty in an earlier post, by taking something I had said completely out of context and then proceeding to misrepresent it. (You know, speaking of intellectual dishonesty.) Some of us Clinton supporters are quite sure Obama is very much "the wrong guy," and we don't want to have him inflicted on the country as president at such a crucial time. I'd be astonished if Clinton wasn't convinced of this as well. His non-electability is only one of the arguments against him, but it's the most salient because if he isn't electable, his competence in office isn't an issue. But on that front: It isn't a matter of "taking a chance on real change," as you so patronizingly put it. It's that we perceive him to be patently incapable of bringing about the kind of change he vaguely portrays in his soaring rhetoric; and that any change he would be responsible for would be only marginally better than what we have now and would get at least four more years of with McCain. He hasn't even come close to running his campaign in the style he preaches about. He hasn't begun to bring even just the Democratic Party together; rather, he's done the opposite, partly through some of the dirtiest campaign tricks I've ever seen in presidential politics, as I've said before. His notion that he'd be able to waltz into the White House and have everybody sit down around a big table and make them feel so good about themselves that they'd stop being greedy and warlike and would be happily willing to restore the Constitution is a narcissistic fantasy. Moreover, he's not the progressive he pretends to be. If you look closely at his record and some of the things he says, his open disdain for the kind of battles progressives have been fighting for human rights and equal justice for decades, he isn't even pretending. I could tell you where to look for some good solid criticism from the progressive perspective of his stands on issues, but I'm sure you don't want to be bothered. <snip> > Her entire campaign to date shows that she plays by the > established political playbook (and does so very well). The > fact that Obama hasn't been able to close the deal yet is a > testament to her political abilities, more than his political > naivete (he *is* the unexpected dark horse in this race and > his success was unanticipated). But the fact that she is > fighting a candidacy of survival at this point, rather than > waltzing to her inevitable nomination, is proof that even as > formidable a force as the Clinton political machine hasn't > been able to figure out how to beat him. The "Clinton political machine" has been a disaster because it couldn't adjust to dealing with a real threat. If Clinton had had smarter people than Solis-Doyle and Mark Penn, the situation now would be a lot different, Obama's filthy tactics notwithstanding. Yes, Clinton has to take the rap for not getting rid of them a lot sooner, and that *does* worry her supporters. But it doesn't worry them as much as the thought of Obama in the White House (not to mention McCain). > McCain, on the other hand, won't have a clue about how to run > against Obama. With Clinton, he and she will both be using the > same playbooks, and when all is said and done (IMO), McCain > will look better and more presidential in lots of people's eyes > than Clinton. You missed the part in the Politico article about the "right-wing freak show." McCain doesn't *have* to have a clue about how to run against Obama. Obama has already handed the freak show bales and bales of material to use against him and is certain to add to it in the general campaign. McCain doesn't have to touch it; the freak show will do it for him. Here's the money quote from that piece: "Obama's advisers say they are not naive about freak show attacks. Their response is that Obama's appeal to a new brand of politics, and his personal poise and self-confidence, will allow him to transcend attacks and stereotypes in ways that Gore and Kerry could not. "Obama is indeed poised and self-confident. But the current uproar over his impromptu sociology lesson in San Francisco about 'bitter' voters in Pennsylvania raise questions about his self-discipline, and his understanding of how easy it is for a politicians in modern politics to lose control of his or her public image."
