BREAKING: Clinton pwns Obama

[GameMaster]

http://24.4.115.29/~synthoid/clinton.png

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/04/march.4.contests/index.html

"For everyone here in Ohio and across America who's been ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up -- this one is for you," Clinton said before supporters in Columbus.

"You know what they say," she said. "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation. Well, this nation's coming back and so is this campaign."

[Neo]

This is good for the Republicans.

[Professor S]

This is good for the Republicans.

Well thats arguable. I continuing Dem primary will keep a lot of media focus on both candidates and away from McCain. McCain will be able to concentrate on the general, the question is: is anyone listening when there is a knock down drag out on the other side of the isle?

And it will get ugly now. Clinton is finally doing what she should have down in the first place, and REALLY attack Obama's inexperience and naive comments, especially when it comes to foriegn policy.

If Hillary wins, I think she has a great chance to beat McCain, but I think McCain would destroy Obama in a general. Obama's rhetoric is already starting to wear thin on his "hope based" support. Thats problem when you run on emotion and not issues. When the rush wears off, all those inspiring statements quickly become cliche.

And imagine how McCain could attack Obama in ways that Clinton can't? On taxes? On foreign policy? On experience (which matters much more non-democrats)? My only worry with McCain against Obama is if he takes a bad turn in health, as his speech seems to have slowed of late. The age concern could be deadly.

[Neo]

Every head-to-head matchup I've seen shows that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would trounce Hillary. She doesn't exactly have the ability to grow her base of support since half of this country absolutely despises her and would not vote for her under any circumstances.

While it's true that Obama's inexperience and perceived Muslim ties may eventually catch up to him, that's all speculation at this point. I'm basing my opinions on the currently available data.

Put McCain on a stage against Obama, and it will make McCain appear even older than he really is.

[Professor S]

Every head-to-head matchup I've seen shows that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would trounce Hillary. She doesn't exactly have the ability to grow her base of support since half of this country absolutely despises her and would not vote for her under any circumstances.

While it's true that Obama's inexperience and perceived Muslim ties may eventually catch up to him, that's all speculation at this point. I'm basing my opinions on the currently available data.

Put McCain on a stage against Obama, and it will make McCain appear even older than he really is.


These are polls taken before the general election, meaning they are worthless when comparing two members of different parties.

McCain will go after Obama is ways that Hillary can't out of fear of alienating her base. McCain will have no such concerns and it will be ugly. America is not a liberal nation, and Obama is the most liberal senator there is and his state and national record reflect that. The National Journal even wrote a study on it. McCain will have no problem going after Obamas record on taxes, social issues, etc.

He's already shown to be vulnerable to national security issues with Hillary's red phone commercial. Imagine what McCain can do when he's even more hawkish than Clinton?

In the genral election, its going to be a very different story if Obama wins.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8843.html

If attacks by Clinton work, how more will they work coming from someone who actually disagrees with him?

[The Germanator]

Fuck Ohio. They always fuck everything up. I hate playing shows there and driving through the state. It sucks.

[Neo]

These are polls taken before the general election, meaning they are worthless when comparing two members of different parties.


I don't know what this means, they're just as valid as any other polls and are generally accurate. Do you mean polls taken before the primaries? Polls taken before the election match up pretty well. And the "half this country hates Hillary" portion has been true for a long time. Much harder to reverse that than it is to bring down Obama.


Fuck Ohio. They always fuck everything up. I hate playing shows there and driving through the state. It sucks.

The Germanator: "F U Ohio, F U!!"

Ohio: "F.....Me??"

Ohio: *thinks about it*

Ohio: "NO! F U!!!

[Professor S]

I don't know what this means, they're just as valid as any other polls and are generally accurate. Do you mean polls taken before the primaries? Polls taken before the election match up pretty well. And the "half this country hates Hillary" portion has been true for a long time. Much harder to reverse that than it is to bring down Obama.

It means exactly what I described further down in my post. They are polls based on a man who has not had to defend his past voting record or political beliefs, because his current opponent does not disagree with him.

Obama rarely talks about issues, and in fact, instructs his campaign workers to avoid the issues and concentrate on such specific topics as hopes and feelings.

Clinton can't say that her medical plan is far superior to Obama's and point out how crazy his plan is and get much leverage out of it because their plans are almost identical. McCain will spotlight that issue as his plan IS completely different.

Clinton can't come out and attack Obama on taxes, because they pretty much exactly the same on tazes. McCain will win hands down on this issue.

Clinton can't point out that Obama was determined to be the most liberal senator, because the Dem base LIKES that he is the most liberal. McCain will reference that journal article consistently and in high profile venues.

I'm not saying that the polls are inaccurate as of what people think today, but Obama has not had any kind of a sportlight put on his shallow campaign and leftist voting record as yet, and McCain and the republican party will have no problem exposing every nook and cranny of his past and present opinions and votes.

Thats why I say those polls are meaningless, because they are based on people's emotional reactions to a personality that can't be touched in the primaries, but the ideas and record behind the personality will be fully exposed in the general election. If Obama wins, expect those polls you speak of to change significantly if McCain remains in good health.

[Neo]

While it's true Obama has weak points which can be exploited, I don't believe he's any more vulnerable than Hillary is. They both have liberal policies in mind which are open to being attacked. Obama has the additional problem of inexperience, but Hillary has her own problems with her "Clinton baggage." If Obama goes into the debates he'll at least have a swell of support to act as a buffer. Hillary, OTOH, has reached her ceiling and has nowhere to go but down. She's far less likely to win over any additional independents and Republicans than Obama is. I see the odds favoring him.

Speaking of McCain, who does everyone think he will choose as his running mate? I predict Charlie Crist or Mark Sanford.

[Bond]

Speaking of McCain, who does everyone think he will choose as his running mate? I predict Charlie Crist or Mark Sanford.
Crist seems the most plausible.

Personally, I'm hoping for Powell or Rice.

[Professor S]

Neo, I guess I'm thinking more about past record than current policy. Clinton is left leaning in her record, but Obama's state and national senate record would make Noam Chomski blush.

But you're correct, in current policy, they are almost identical.

[Jason1]

This has been discussed at length but in case you missed my opinions before...

I think Obama has a much better chance of beating Mcain in the general election, and I know I saw someone on CNN say awhile back, and I quote "The Republicans are secretly praying that Clinton wins the primary" Not that this necessairly gives my views any more credibility, but I tend to agree.

[Professor S]

Here is why Obama is a dead man in the general election:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

Specifically the part where he voted to not have medical care given to abortions that survive. Essentially, that opinion states that even when a child is out of the womb, and still living, it is not a human being and may be left to die because the INTENT was to kill it. So intent is what matters, not the reality that if this were a premature baby of the same developmental stage, every effort both mandated by ethics, morality and LAW would be made to save it. Its an enabling of infanticide through negligence and is disgusting.

Can you imagine the mental picture made when national ads are broadcast about this issue? How many centrist Obama supporters would run from his campaign?

He's a dead man in the general election, IMO.

[Jason1]

Specifically the part where he voted to not have medical care given to abortions that survive. Essentially, that opinion states that even when a child is out of the womb, and still living, it is not a human being and may be left to die because the INTENT was to kill it.

So? I agree with that. And I think any normal Pro-Choice viewing person would also.

This is America, abortions are legal, and conservatives need to just stop whining about it.

[Professor S]

So? I agree with that. And I think any normal Pro-Choice viewing person would also.

This is America, abortions are legal, and conservatives need to just stop whining about it.

Actually, you're wrong on several accounts, and not just on moral and logical grounds which I won't address on this post.

1) All abortions are not legal, and partial birth have been happily outlawed for a few years now.

2) Most centrist to right wing people are against late term abortion when specifically asked about it, for obvious reasons. The partial birth ban was easily passed.

I'm center-right and I'm pro-choice as well, but late term abortuion makes me sick as I consider it legalized murder and the thought of a failed abortion or better named... a BABY..., LIVING ON ITS OWN outside of its mother's womb, on a doctor's table being left to die makes my stomach churn.

None of my thoughts on election outcomes are based on my affiliations, but instead of what has been a historically centrist voter base that has decided elections, and there will be MANY centrist independents who will be shocked and disgusted by Obama's voting record on this issue.

[manasecret]

I'm only posting on this article that Prof. S mentioned, which says --

Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Which, unless I'm reading it wrong, says that he only voted against it because the measure was worded in such a way that defined all fetuses as children, which would threaten the right to abortion.

The article is unclear, so I may be wrong, but from my understanding that seems to be the case.

[Professor S]

I'm only posting on this article that Prof. S mentioned, which says --



Which, unless I'm reading it wrong, says that he only voted against it because the measure was worded in such a way that defined all fetuses as children, which would threaten the right to abortion.

The article is unclear, so I may be wrong, but from my understanding that seems to be the case.

That is his explanation of the his decision, but like you, I don't know the exact wording of it. But considering his stance on partial birth abortion (a process that literally sucks the brain from a partially delivered late term child), I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

Regardless of his motivations, it will be quite easy for Republicans to have a field day with his decision on this.

[KillerGremlin]

Obama is starting to run out of steam, and Clinton is definitely putting her foot down by ripping apart his feel-good approach to the campaign. But is it too little, too late? After the half-ass job the Republicans did over the past 8 years, I think the democrats are going to win this election regardless if Hilary or Obama are running.

[Professor S]

Obama is starting to run out of steam, and Clinton is definitely putting her foot down by ripping apart his feel-good approach to the campaign. But is it too little, too late? After the half-ass job the Republicans did over the past 8 years, I think the democrats are going to win this election regardless if Hilary or Obama are running.

I would agree with you if it were anyone but John McCain. McCain does not have a heavy association with dyed in the wool republicanism/conservatism. Polls show the populace views him more of a rugged individualist, type. Because of this Dems will have a harder time labeling him with the past 8 years that is perceived as being so horrible to a large section of voters. Thats not to say that they can't hang George Bush around his neck, but it will be VERY hard for them to do so, especially with the well knwon dislike the two have for each other regardless of public pleasantries.

In the end, if the dialogue in the general election centers on whether or not we should have been in Iraq, the Dems will have the advantage. If it centers on current successes in teh region and dealing with it the ay it currently is, I think McCain will have a distinct advantage.

But with Clinton having a more nuanced opinion of the current war than Obama, and the fact that she was there when everything threw down, I think she has more credibility to offer in the dialogue.

It amazes me that no one has called Obama on his constant claims of "I was against the war from the beginning" by simply saying:

"You don't know what you would have been for or against. You weren't there. You saw none of the reports that I did, none of the evidence from foreign countries or intelligence agencies. You're just pandering based on your ignorance. Things aren't quite so black and white when your there, in the arena of consequence, swimming through miles of data that you never had the burden of dealing with or worrying about while commenting from the outside in. Now go play while the adults talk."

Its not enough to mention that Obama is inexperienced, you need to smear his face with it.

[Jason1]

I couldve sworn someone said Obama was a dead man in the general election...who was that again? Oh yea...

Here is why Obama is a dead man in the general election:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

Specifically the part where he voted to not have medical care given to abortions that survive. Essentially, that opinion states that even when a child is out of the womb, and still living, it is not a human being and may be left to die because the INTENT was to kill it. So intent is what matters, not the reality that if this were a premature baby of the same developmental stage, every effort both mandated by ethics, morality and LAW would be made to save it. Its an enabling of infanticide through negligence and is disgusting.

Can you imagine the mental picture made when national ads are broadcast about this issue? How many centrist Obama supporters would run from his campaign?

He's a dead man in the general election, IMO.

[thatmariolover]

Seriously. Do we really need to go back and rub stuff like this in?

[Jason1]

Seriously. Do we really need to go back and rub stuff like this in?

Im not really rubbing anything in, im just showing everyone the Professor included that I was right and he was wrong. There's more to come, stay tuned:D

[Professor S]

Jason, are you really this bored?

And by the way, I agree you were right on this election, but thats not through any special intellectual acuity on your part. If you throw paint against a wall long enough you'll eventually create the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make you an artist...

And this was well before the economic collapse that changed EVERYTHING.

[Dylflon]

I think Obama still would have taken it without the financial implosion.

[Professor S]

I think Obama still would have taken it without the financial implosion.

There is a decent chance that he would have won, but you have to admit that the race would have been much closer if the markets had remained steady and I think McCain would have had the upper hand, and the polls at the time reflect that as McCain was winning before the markets tanked. After the markets tanked, everyone forgot about the Saddleback forum, Obama's suspect personal relationships and the Georgia crisis, and all of those went solidly in favor of McCain. The economic crisis changed the entire dialogue of the campaign, and the social issues that would have heavily favored McCain became one questions footnotes in the debates.

There are more factors, including The Palin Effect that I'm going to write about in a separate thread, where I argue that Palin did more to hurt McCain's chances in the election, even though she energized the base. The fact of the matter is, the base of either party doesn't win elections...

But I think McCain would have lost regardless considering the current state of the economy. It sealed the deal for Obama.

[Dyne]

I think Obama still would have taken it without the financial implosion.

It's not an implosion - it's affecting everybody.

[Dylflon]

It's not an implosion - it's affecting everybody.

I'm aware. i'm just tired of using the word crisis or collapse. But considering the market collapsed on itself I think implosion is a fair word.

[Jason1]

I was watching CNN today and they ran some numbers, and they claimed that even if they eliminated the under 30 vote, as in hypothetically if nobody under 30 voted, the only states that woulve flipped would have been Indiana and one other, cant remember. Thats how big Obama won.