Quote:
Originally Posted by tresha
I dunno, I hate to disagree publicly with WEB, but here goes;
|
One should never feel a pause to publicly disagree with myself. I've never been a fan of people on a forum acting together to put partisan politics first over what they really think. Among civil people, the forum is no different than two people talking over sandwiches or beer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tresha
I think Obama did a heck of lot to close the gap that was there 6 weeks ago. (in PA)
Clinton had powerful political backing in PA and the whole, "I spent my summers here-favorite daughter" thing going on and she still only managed to win by 10 points.
Unless I'm remembering wrong, most of the states where Obama has won the popular vote, he's beaten her by quite a bit; whereas she keeps eeking out these wins by single and low double digit percentages.
I think the Rev Wright stuff and Ayers has become baggage for Obama, no doubt, but I think there's a chance too that it will turn out to be a positive.
I think it would have been much worse for this stuff to have come out next fall.
|
I would say that the difference between our views then would be more of a glass half full/ half empty argument. You look at how far Obama's come, I look at how far he's fallen short. We'll have to agree to disagree on which is more significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tresha
Chris Matthews was venting for a bit last night about (his opinion) that the Clintons are acting like the Democratic party is theirs to do with what they wish. That they are the un-elected leaders of the Party and woe unto anyone who says different.
I think, or maybe just hope, that the longer she draws this out, the more voters new and old, will see her for what she is. A power hungry, irresponsible she-beast willing to sacrifice the party rather than concede she is the wrong candidate.
Course, all this could be the Kool-Aid I just drank too.  |
I don't think that's what has been happening though. I just read an article about how this one journalist or pundit was saying that people would have "buyers remorse" about Obama, and that they may feel he is unelectable. I think one of the major things Obama had going for him during his January/February surge months was his electability argument and that Republicans hate Hillary. However, the whole Revered Wright and Ayers thing changed that. Now you seem to have a lot of the Republicans coming after Obama too. Obama is looking very weak outside of his core of white liberal / black vote supporters.
It's Obama's scandals that have really brought him down. Obama is an "unknown quantity", in so far as he is new and thus his support has a wider and less predictable amount of fluctuation. The scandals reinforce that unsteadiness that makes him less appealing to blue collar voters.
I will add one last thing. Bill Schneider commented last night that actually the race has been extraordinarily predictable. The same demographic that voted for Hillary in New Jersey and Ohio, also did so in PA. There was no difference in the demographics. The PA primary was closed to independents, and to voters trying to register on the same day as the primary. Indiana has less demographic and institutional disadvantages for Obama than PA.