Heh - the republican electorate - this cycle's swing group.

Posted by: sherifffruitfly on January 31, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Will anybody in the blogosphere bother to point out that the claim that Hillary "agrees with [McCain] in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like" is a simple fabrication?

Didn't think so. Might have been nice if Steve Benen had remarked such a thing, but who expects that sort of honesty anymore?

As we all know, IOIYO.

Of course, if you say Obama was being meanly misrepresented in his talk about Reagan, that would be a very different story. We really can't say too much how malicious an unfair such a distortion might be.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I think the founders were very smart when they designated the three branches of goverment as non-military leaders. At this time in our history, a non-military leader would be the best. Clinton's background on the military committees is impressive, except for the fact that she keeps coming to the wrong conclusions. Sometimes when you're dug in with a particular perspective it's difficult to see the trees, as it were.

I like Obama's line from yesterday, "It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One -- you have to be right from Day One."

Posted by: Cyn2 on January 31, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced -- especially on matters regarding the military and national security -- a line he can't use against her

Hillary Clinton has exactly two more years of national elected experience than Obama has. two fucking years.

Posted by: cleek on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One -- you have to be right from Day One."

Yes, it makes me feel so comfortable to have a leader who obviously thinks he has been right about everything.

We haven't had firm, intransigent, unerring leadership like that since George W Bush.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Fine, Obama. As soon as you actually start compiling a voting record on Iraq significantly different from Clinton's, let us know.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton has taken the heat for decades, Obama has gotten a pass for the most part from the bloggers and from the media, I am going for tried and true.

Like them dislike them, the Clintons produced while being constantly attacked. Obama is bit arrogant for me. I think he would make a great VP, don't know if his ego would allow it though.

Posted by: LS on January 31, 2008 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

And the basic pitch from Clinton's perspective will be: She has better support independents and frustrated Republicans than the conventional wisdom suggests; McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced -- especially on matters regarding the military and national security -- a line he can't use against her; and the right may rally against her, but she knows how to deal with their attacks, persevere, and come out ahead. Can we say the same about Obama?

A couple of problems: The Clintons' ability to pitch anything is constrained by facts. And voters will have in mind the fact, otoh, of McCain's doddering performances and, otoh, Obama's relative youth, intelligence, and command of the language.

Hillary's team has, in short, had a difficult time contravening facts about Obama, except among its base and the credulous.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

"the right may rally against her, but she knows how to deal with their attacks, persevere, and come out ahead. Can we say the same about Obama?"

That's a crucial point. So far, Obama has been the media's golden boy, but that can't last forever and I'd like to know how if he can take a hit (fair or unfair, especially unfair) in the media without collapsing.

Dean couldn't (fortunately we found out in time) and Kerry couldn't (unfortunately we didn't find out in time).

His reaction to the very mild (all things considered) escalation by the Clintons doesn't make me optimistic.

Posted by: michael farris on January 31, 2008 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

"McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced -- especially on matters regarding the military and national security --a line he can't use against her"

I've never been clear on this bit of CW: that Clinton has military and national security cred that Obama lacks. I think she's done tremendously well at pushing that idea, which is very much to her credit, but in the reality-based community ... huh?

I understand that many in the BCM believe that wronger = stronger, but still. This is kinda silly.

Posted by: gus on January 31, 2008 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

The problem is that nothing demotivates the GOP base like the prospect of voting for John McCain, and yet nothing motivates to get out the vote more than the words President Hillary Clinton.

Advantage: Obama.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Obama is bit arrogant for me.

Came through loud and clear in his "You're likable enough, Hillary" response. Sometimes, no matter how tightly you glue your mask to your face, it slips.

I've sometimes wondered if there might be some like event on Hillary's side -- some unguarded moment when you see the purported ugliness of her personality shine through. I can only say that I don't ever remember hearing of such a thing. And I can't help but believe that I certainly would have, had it existed.

She's been in the public eye many, many more years than Obama. What does it say if you can't come up with such an episode?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

It's cut and dried that Obama will bring significantly more Democratic voting voters to the general election than Bill/Hill.
He will increase the House and Senate Democratic majorities over a Bill/Hill ticket and interalia, will thus be the superior leader for augmenting change in D.C.("Day One.")
Get down with the down-ticket candidate, Barack Obama.
--craig johnson--

Posted by: cognitorex on January 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

As it stands, I actually think this is a healthy development. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, and it gets tiresome to hear them argue about peripheral points. Having a GOP rival in mind should help focus the debate between them, with each able to make the case for how and why they can win the election.

Right. And the elections should be about who can win the election, not about "peripheral points" on policy that get beyond that abstract outlines of goals that anyone with a pulse will agree with to detailing what individual candidates actually would do to realize those vague outlines.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton says she has appeal to independents and moderate Republicanns? Are you on to her yet Kevin? That's classic Rove--claim for yourself your opponent's stregnth. Next she will be saying that HE has high, solid disapprovals.

!. Hillary hhas a disappproval rating of about 48% and it ti rock solid. Independents and moderate Republicanns hate her.

2. Yes she has stayed alinvethrouugh years of abuse and mudslinnging. But shhe has never won against the Slime Machine. If shhe had won, eithr the machine wouuld stop or thhe slime wouldnn't stick. The machine continues and the slime sticks.

How anyone can expect to get significant change by recycling the same old pliticians is beyond me. In HHillary's case not onnly was shhe a compromiser when we needed her to be strong, but now shhe is behaving exactly like Bush--telling one whopper after another as if lying changed facts.

Kerry frusrtated me but I never disliked him. I am really beginning to dislike Hillary Clinont.

Posted by: wonkie on January 31, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I've never been clear on this bit of CW: that Clinton has military and national security cred that Obama lacks. I think she's done tremendously well at pushing that idea, which is very much to her credit, but in the reality-based community ... huh?

Precisely, gus. This was kinda what I was saying. It's the "they'll say anything" accusation Obama has been making, no matter how far removed from reality that "anything" is.

The Clintons find a message, theme, a fiction to push (ready on Day One, thirty-five years . . .) and then repeat ad nauseam, hoping repetition makes it so.

I like Dallek's piece today on this "experience" business that puports to work to HC's advantage.

Two problems. She doesn't have much. And experience--even if you actually possess it in the requisite years--is no guarantee of wisdom. It's judgment. It's vision.

Expect Obama to be hitting on this repeatedly.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

"McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced -- especially on matters regarding the military and national security -- a line he can't use against her

Hillary Clinton has exactly two more years of national elected experience than Obama has. two fucking years."
Posted by: cleek on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Try being factually accurate as well as learning basic math especially when you are claiming something in such a declarative manner as fact when it obviously is not. Obama first wins national officet in 2004, Clinton in 2000. Last time I looked that is 4 years not 2 more on her behalf on the national stage as a elected national politician. Another way of looking at it is Obama has three years on the national stage to Clinton's seven in elected national office.

Posted by: Scotian on January 31, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

I've never been clear on this bit of CW: that Clinton has military and national security cred that Obama lacks. I think she's done tremendously well at pushing that idea, which is very much to her credit, but in the reality-based community ... huh?

If you have any sincere doubt on that point, I'd think that one way to deal with it is to look at her performance on foreign policy issues in the debates.

Who came across best? Biden. No surprise, given his level of experience. Who came in second? Hillary, without serious question. Who came in dead last? Obama, who floundered about terribly.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

"I've sometimes wondered if there might be some like event on Hillary's side -- some unguarded moment when you see the purported ugliness of her personality shine through. I can only say that I don't ever remember hearing of such a thing. And I can't help but believe that I certainly would have, had it existed.

She's been in the public eye many, many more years than Obama. What does it say if you can't come up with such an episode?

Oh, you've gotta be kidding.

How about her during her "human moment" where the tears flowed before the New Hampshire primary, and she still managed fire a pot shot at Obama, "Some of us are ready, and some of us are not....boohoo...."?

What tripe.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Like them dislike them, the Clintons produced while being constantly attacked.

No, Bill Clinton produced while being constantly attacked. Hillary Clinton failed spectacularly and took the luxury of withdrawing from the front lines—a luxury you have when your the wife of a politician who was detailed a temporary policy role rather than someone with the responsibilities of an actual office—and then shopped for a friendly comparatively friendly market to begin her own political career rather than running someplace she had any real roots.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0, you are sounding more and more desperate. Didn't you get enough butt whooping from TPM already?

I just hope you won't commit suicide if Obama wins the nomination.

Posted by: GOD on January 31, 2008 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

And another thing! Kevin, we of the leftwing blogshere bitch endlessly abouut how reporters serve as megaphones for the lies of politicians--failing to fact check or to balance lies with facts.

And hhere you just did that very thing. You report thhat Clinontis goinng to sell herself as the canndidate thatcan appeal to inndependents annd Republicanns--annd you don't mention that it just flat isn't true.

Also it contradicts the message of the Clinont's last week--remember how Obamawas supposed to be a closet republicann because hhe said thhe name "reagan" out louud? Are Hillary suupporteres going to scream with horror that thheir canndidate's claim to appeal to Republicanns?

We are righht back in frickin' Orwell times.

And you aren't helpong by being a megaphone for this crap.

Posted by: wonkie on January 31, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Quinn,

That's all you've got? Seriously?

All I can say is that you are obviously only projecting your own stuff onto that event -- clearly the majority of voters in NH saw it quite differently.

Is there anyone on earth, on the other hand, who can look at the cold, arrogant, dismissiveness of Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" response (immediately after she had paid him a fine compliment) without realizing that it showed a very nasty side of the man?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

The snake lady can't beat McCain. To beat the Republicans, the Democrats are going to need every ounce of charm, good looks, and likability they can get. I am not even sure a Barack Obama/John Edwards ticket can get it done. But at least, it will give the D's a fighting chance. The snake lady? She'll get trampled in the dust, along with her mendacious pet dog that pisses on all the furniture, by the so-called Straight-Talk Express.

Posted by: Al's left testicle on January 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think Democrats should pick their nominee based on who the Republican candidate turns out to be. That's a defensive, reactive game, which they've been playing and losing for the past couple of decades, it seems.

Pick the candidate you think is best, let the other side react for a change.

Posted by: dob on January 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0, you are sounding more and more desperate. Didn't you get enough butt whooping from TPM already?

Oh yeah, I'm so afraid of the crowd at TPM. God only knows how I could possibly defend myself from all the tired, irrelevant Obama talking points being thrown at me by the Children's Crusade there.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Frankly0 -

Clinton's Crying/Sideswipe as Obama fooled a lot of people, including you, apparently. A lot of people did comment on it though, perhaps moreso than Obama's "likeable" remark.

I have no problem with the fact that Clinton and Obama don't like each other, which is very evident. But spare me the notion that Clinton has never, ever let her ugly side out.

"And I can't help but believe that I certainly would have, had it existed."

You're wearing blinders then in regards to your preferred candidate.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Who came across best? Biden. No surprise, given his level of experience. Who came in second? Hillary, without serious question.

Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious".

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Is there anyone on earth, be it Hillary supporters or Obama supporters, who can look at the totally out of control, enraged obsession of Franklyo's posts without realizing that this man has traveled far into irrational loco land?

Posted by: Get a Fucking Grip. You're Not Helping Hillary on January 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious".

Your usual penetrating criticism, cmdicely.

You might try some day to move beyond ad hominem, though. There are other fallacies you can commit.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

I wasn't aware of it before, mainly because I read and post here somewhat infrequently, but I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

:Came through loud and clear in his "You're likable enough, Hillary" response. Sometimes, no matter how tightly you glue your mask to your face, it slips.:

I think about it everytime I see him now. And it doesn't help that I laughed when he said it. I wasn't raised to sneer at people (even privately at home, never mind in such an incredibly public forum) like that. And I can't forgive myself for the laugh, OR him for making the comment.

We've already got a causal-talking-frat-boy presidency. Do I have to live through another one?

Since the "You're likable enough, Hillary" comment he's gone on to snub her at the SOTU address AND in Kansas City a couple of days ago he kept the Democratic Mayor off the stage during his event.

Posted by: katiebird on January 31, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Here's what I found (in the NYT), quoting presidential historians Smith and Dallek after the August 2008 Dem debate. Obama quipped that he'd prepared for the foreign policy debate questions by riding bumper cars at the state fair. Now, this may be just me, but leaders with a sense of humor like this are also reliable (even great) in crises.

The group running for the Democratic and Republican nominations are a mixed bag on the foreign policy front with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator John McCain being the most credentialed, while Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the candidates talking the most about experience, in reality, comes up shorter, says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, author of "Thomas E. Dewey and His Times" (Simon & Schuster). Unless being first lady counts as a foreign policy credential, Mrs. Clinton does not have that much on her resume.

"There is this osmosis working for her, that she is seen as an extension of the first Clinton presidency," Mr. Smith said. "In lieu of more traditional experience, she benefits as being seen as the third Clinton term. There is an aura of competence about her."

Will any of this matter when the next president takes office? "Look at what's happened with Cheney and Rumsfeld," Mr. Dallek said, citing the well-credentialed vice president and former defense secretary whom historians blame for leading the charge into Iraq. "That's why I'm sympathetic to Obama. Does experience count? What really counts is judgment and what kind of judgment you have."

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

"Is there anyone on earth, on the other hand, who can look at the cold, arrogant, dismissiveness of Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" response (immediately after she had paid him a fine compliment) without realizing that it showed a very nasty side of the man?"

I can. I read that as dismissive of the premise of the question, not of Hillary. I thought it showed dry wit, not arrogance.

So there you go. Someone on earth who read one exchange differently. Any others you'd like me to interpret?

How about dialing down the hysterics?

Posted by: Trevor J on January 31, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Is there anyone on earth, be it Hillary supporters or Obama supporters, who can look at the totally out of control, enraged obsession of Franklyo's posts without realizing that this man has traveled far into irrational loco land?

And if you think that my arguments are so obviously out-of-control and irrational, don't you think they should be easy to refute?

So why do you resort to ad hominems rather than actual arguments? Cat got your tongue?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Trevor J,

You have refuted me. You are one person on earth who thought Obama was only showing dry wit, and that it was a very positive side of Obama being displayed.

Now I'm wondering if there are two such people on earth.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

McCain will make Obama look young and inexperienced

IF, McCain doesn't come off as bumbling and incoherent-which he will. That would contrast mightily with Obama's youthful intellect, IMO. A good strategy for the Dems (Obama or Clinton), would be to play up a geriatric scenario where the day-to-day work of the Presidency has to be done by "handlers". The voters have seen the results of the lights on, nobody home presidency we've got now.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 31, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'll add something that may not come up at the debate: McCain has proven he will say and do anything to become president. Can Obama say the same thing? I'm pretty sure Hillary can say that (though she may not say it out loud).

Posted by: Dawn on January 31, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

FranklyO,

As your longtime reader and onetime fan who caught your act over at TPM this morning, I agree with your detractors. You've become a legend in your own mind. You got demolished over there.

You don't engage substantively with commenters who gamely refute your rant-arguments, and the sole rhetorical arrow remaining in your quiver is the sneer.

Just stop.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Your usual penetrating criticism, cmdicely.

You might try some day to move beyond ad hominem, though. There are other fallacies you can commit.

Okay, now, that's just laughable and shows how far gone you are, frankly0. Whatever fair criticisms one might make of cmdicely's style and delivery, pretending that his criticism regularly lacks penetration just makes you look more foolish. No fair observer of your posts and his posts on this topic would fail to conclude that you really do attack anyone who disagrees with you on the subject of Clinton vs. Obama as fundamentally unserious. One could produce 100 frankly0 posts on this topic without even trying.

You're just swinging wildly now. Suggest you calm down and wait a while to post; you're making a prize ass of yourself with these hysterics.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

I refuted you on another point, frankly0, but you were too busy putting your fingers in your ears and yelling to notice.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

You might try some day to move beyond ad hominem, though. There are other fallacies you can commit.

That is not what ad hominem means.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Has everyone heard about the interesting vote results from the FL primary? It turns out that in FL Clinton took a vast majority of the 'early' voters (meaning those who voted before the primary itself), but Obama and Clinton were almost tied (50% to 51% respectively) in the primary itself. Also, a recent Gallup poll shows Obama just 6 points behind Clinton now instead of the 20 point spread of a month ago. It looks like Obama is picking up momentum.

Posted by: nepeta on January 31, 2008 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

You are one person on earth who thought Obama was only showing dry wit, and that it was a very positive side of Obama being displayed. Now I'm wondering if there are two such people on earth.

Count me #2. I knew how he intended it, but I thought it came off badly. Much like Hillary's MLK comments. Intentional misunderstandings on both sides have been a hallmark of this campaign.

Posted by: Dawn on January 31, 2008 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I can. I read that as dismissive of the premise of the question, not of Hillary. I thought it showed dry wit, not arrogance.

Agree, Trevor. I smiled at this sly, dry line. It underlined my previously unarticulated sense that, yeah, she's just that: likeable enough.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Obama was being generous:
The problem is that she isn't likable enough.

Most people see the snake in her right away.
That's why she is reviled by ALL republicans and HALF the independents and LOTS of democrats.

Such a hated creature has no chance of beating the charismatic, often times charming McCain. Get over your infatuation frankyo. You are backing a loser.

Posted by: No snakes in the White House! on January 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Kevin, I should have expressed my exasperation to Steve.

Posted by: wonkie on January 31, 2008 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Since the "You're likable enough, Hillary" comment he's gone on to snub her at the SOTU address AND in Kansas City a couple of days ago he kept the Democratic Mayor off the stage during his event.

Er, no. Sen. McCaskill of Missouri has been quoted that the reason Obama "turned his back" on Clinton was that he was turning towards Sen. McCaskill to respond to a question she asked him.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of both Obama and Clinton. Stick to them and avoid the chicken-shit, fabricated ones.

Posted by: DJ on January 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Whatever fair criticisms one might make of cmdicely's style and delivery, pretending that his criticism regularly lacks penetration just makes you look more foolish.

Sorry, when it comes to criticizing my own material, cmdicely quite often engages in ad hominem. And that's what I was responding to.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

That is not what ad hominem means.

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Here's cmdicely's response to me: Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious".

Tell me how "ad hominem" does not apply.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Is there anyone on earth, on the other hand, who can look at the cold, arrogant, dismissiveness of Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" response (immediately after she had paid him a fine compliment) without realizing that it showed a very nasty side of the man?

Yes I think so. Hillary lapsed into a feigned playground timeframe. As the moment unfolded she role-played the small petty games that take place in grammar school. Barack followed her into that timeframe. He pretended to be on that same playground. Two small children worried about being liked in grammar school. That's how I saw the moment unfold. I thought Hillary was very clever. And I thought Barack had fun with it to. They both showed themselves to be superior to the moment.

I was shocked when I saw that scene being interpreted otherwise at various sites the next day.

Which just goes to show you: Everyone has an agenda to grind. And sometimes, our agendas get in the way of reality.

Posted by: koreyel on January 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't Obama explain his 'likeable enough' comment in the debate itself? Wasn't it in response to a question to Hillary about her 'likeability' quotient? Or am I dreaming? I thought it was a brilliant remark in that while Obama was ostensibly defending Hillary as being 'likeable enough' to compete as a serious candidate in the election, it was limited to that particular circumstance and went no further.

Posted by: nepeta on January 31, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

The only thing that carries weight is the roadmap for endgame in Iraq. Both Obama and Hillary are vague on the subject, so I don't see a lot of advantage for him here.

Posted by: bob h on January 31, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, when it comes to criticizing my own material, cmdicely quite often engages in ad hominem.

Again, you don't seem to know what ad hominem means. It is when an argument is refuted not by addressing the substance of the claim, but by referring to a personal and often irrelvant characteristic of the person making the claim.

Example:

franklyo can't be trusted on Hillary Clinton becuase franklyo is in the tank for Hillary -- not an ad hominem, because it is getting to the valid issue of whether a partisan for a position can be an objective observer of that position.

franklyo can't be trusted on Hillary Clinton because franklyo is [obviously making this up solely for the purpose of an example] an unemployed redheaded card-sharp -- an ad hominem.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

The New York Post's endorsement of Obama contains a pretty succinct expression of what will likely be angry, old McCain's campaign theme:

His [Obama's] opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again -- a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency. Does America really want to go through all that once again? ... A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess? No, thank you.

Not saying it's right, just that we better expect it if HRC is the nominee.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

You know, it does seem to me that people here might ask themselves the question, what is it about frankly0's arguments that are so far out of line?

By any objective accounting, the number of vile things said about Hillary on this site and elsewhere in the blogosphere absolutely trumps anything I may have said about Obama. Yes, I most definitely don't like him. I point to examples that make my case. But do I engage in anything like the invective against him that one regularly sees here on Hillary? Why is it so permissible to dump on Hillary on this site with impunity, but heaven forfend that a persistent critic of Obama might show up?

You might think about that -- if you have some real capacity for independent thought. I'm sure there are some here who do, but a lot fewer than I might like.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Heh - the republican electorate - this cycle's swing group.

Yeah, maybe a few Republicans would vote for Hillary, and maybe a few Republicans would vote for Obama, but my bet is that by Election Day Republicans will vote overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate no matter what.

Posted by: Lucy on January 31, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0, did you even read what you copied from wikipedia? How's cmdicely's comment an ad hominem using that definition?

Posted by: GOD on January 31, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Tell me how "ad hominem" does not apply.

That's just snark, an insult, a denigration of your critical reasoning abilities. An insult is not by itself an ad hominem.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

If Hillary is the nominee, I might very well vote for McCain for Pres for two reasons:

1. Hillary will only further hurt the Democratic party long term. The future of the democratic party is not repug-light and being elected using pharma, insurance company, and hedge fund manager money.

2. McCain would further cement the incompetence of the Repug party. He would have to (not) deal with the situation in Iraq & Afghanistan, and he also would (not) deal with the economy with more brain-dead Raygun trickle-down bull puckey.

Vote for McCain and we could have a real progressive democratic majority for decades to come in Congress and beginning with the 2012 Presidency...

Vote for Clinton and we have Bill & Hill stories for 4 years and they get blamed for the economic meltdown and the failure of the terminal 'War on Terror'.

Posted by: Brian L on January 31, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, on the ~playground~ play-acting, which Clinton and Obama both reverted to with intelligence and wit. They were having fun with the notion of likeability (popularity). And making real-world points. Hillary's was the universal lament of the smartest girl in the room, "Can't you see how hard I'm working?" and Obama's reaction, "Yes, we can." Making it look easy.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

It figures that someone calling himself Al's left testicle would call Senator Clinton the "snakelady."

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

For anyone who has not already seen it, I encourage you to go to McCain's website and look at the short biographical film they have prepared on the Senator. Regardless of who John McCain really is in real life, the image in that film is who the Democrats will be running against in the general (if McCain gets the nomination, which he likely will.) And the guy in that film will kick the living shit out of Barry Hussein Obama. And probably Hillary too.

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Here again, is cmdicely's response, which you have simply ignored:

Here's cmdicely's response to me: Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious".

Please explain to me how that is not attempting to undercut my argument, not by any actual evidence, but rather by talking about supposed characteristics of mine. Hint: see how he uses the word "me"? Isn't that a pretty good clue that he's talking about me? And how can anyone deny that he's basically implying that I can't exercise any measure of objectivity? Take away that implication, and what is left of his remark?

I guess you would be another one of those famous people now giving me a "butt whipping", even though your claim is demonstrably false.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

You might think about that -- if you have some real capacity for independent thought. I'm sure there are some here who do, but a lot fewer than I might like.

This might be the most unintentionally funny and cringe-inducing post ever made at PA. Guy, seriously, take a little break and calm down. You'll be glad you did later on.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Whatever, shortstop.

I raised a point, about why outright and consistent Hillary hatred gets a pass here, but consistent criticism of Obama is not tolerated.

Your answer is your usual irrelevant, snarky bullshit.

I'm so surprised.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Brian L,

What the heck. We are supposed to try to do the right thing by the country, not the Democratic party.

John McCain is an ultra right-wing militarist who has consistently sacrificed principle to political expediency.

After the Democratic nominee is chosen, it will be time for a group hug among everyone determined to end Republican rule in this country.

Eyes on the prize.

Posted by: Lucy on January 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Bite me, Brian.

Like hell will a McCain presidency usher in a progressive majority for decades to come. All it means is four more years of pain for the American people. And if he gets to select one or more Supreme Court justices, the pain may linger for decades.

I hate Democrats who rationalize that voting Republican or 3rd party somehow advances liberal democratic values.

Didn't Nader in Florida in 2000 put an end to this little fantasy? Shouldn't 8 years of Bush have led by now to that progressive nirvana that's always just around the corner?

Jesus, you're clueless.

Posted by: Auto on January 31, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me how "ad hominem" does not apply.

How about this: you tell me how "ad hominem" does apply to a response which simply says that your statement is not true unless you redefine the terms so that it is tautological.

Please explain to me how that is not attempting to undercut my argument, not by any actual evidence, but rather by talking about supposed characteristics of mine.

Well, for one thing, it doesn't talk attribute any actual characteristics to you. It simply says that your statement isn't true under the normal definitions of the words.

Hint: see how he uses the word "me"?

The word "me" is part of a definition in quotes. It refers to any hypothetical Clinton supporter who would consider the veracity of the statement.

Isn't that a pretty good clue that he's talking about me?

Well, no. if you wanted a clue I was talking about you, it would be in the "you" that precedes the definition in quotes, though even that was intended in a generic rather than personal sense. Typically, in American English at least, one is regarded as being a bit odd if one uses "one", which would be a bit more precise, for that purpose.

And how can anyone deny that he's basically implying that I can't exercise any measure of objectivity?

I wasn't implying that you can't exercise any measure of objectivity, I was simply stating that there is no reasonable definition of "serious" for which it is true that there is no "serious" debate that Hillary's position on foreign policy in the debates was the second best behind Biden's.

(For that matter, the same goes for the premise, less key to your pro-Hillary advocacy, that Biden's position was indisputably the best.)

Take away that implication, and what is left of his remark?

Since that implication wasn't part of the remark, I'd have to say the entire substance of the remark is left.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

franklyo: Who came across best? Biden. No surprise, given his level of experience. Who came in second? Hillary, without serious question. Who came in dead last? Obama, who floundered about terribly.

Biden? Biden's big foreign policy gambit was the boneheaded imperialist Iraq partition plan that all Iraqis denounced. Couple that with his vociferous support of the bankruptcy bill and it's understandable why he never got any traction and dropped out after IA. The voters rightly decided we don't need Biden's irritated pomposity in the WH. Both he and Hillary are the same kind of politicians trying to sell us their failings as pluses. You do her no favors trying to favorably compare them.

Posted by: markg8 on January 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly0, we are honored to have a supporter like you. You evince a keen intelligence, bold independence, and critical analysis that is sadly unshared by literally anyone else on any progressive blog. Everyone else, and we do mean everybody but you, is quite simply stupid, sheeplike and too thick to find their way out of a paper bag.

Now would you mind shutting up? You're killing Hillary.

Posted by: Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

"I hate Democrats who rationalize that voting Republican or 3rd party somehow advances liberal democratic values."

On the other hand, I personally don't care much for the notion that voting for someone you really don't like just because they're a Democrat is advancing liberal democratic values either.

Instead of realizing that the Democratic Party needs to stop offering up names out of its good 'ol boy network, we start bickering and talking about betrayal. Not unlike the way the NOW folks were blasting Kennedy this week for supporting Obama over Clinton.

Candidates EARN my vote. I don't give my vote just because someone has a D next to their name and the cognoscenti claim that they are the "next in line" to be crowned.

Posted by: Quinn on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

One angle that isn't being discussed enough is the substantial base of poll data that shows that age is one of the greatest negatives a candidate can have. For better or worse, the public isn't fond of older candidates and McCain is looking increasingly tired and befuddled.

It looks very much like he has crossed the line from "wizened and experienced" into "can barely speak eloquently because he's on the point of exhaustion". This will only get worse as the election nears. Especially when he continues to refuse to commit to 8 years.

This helps both Hillary and Obama. Frankly, I think that the GOP's choice of McCain is going to end in disaster for them if we choose Obama. Hillary, not so much.

Posted by: Nobcentral on January 31, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'll try one more time, franklyO.

You wrote that you "raised a point, about why outright and consistent Hillary hatred gets a pass here, but consistent criticism of Obama is not tolerated.

You assert facts not in evidence here and further assume widespread agreement with your conclusion about PA "Hillary hatred."

My pov is that most of us (not the campaign operatives, obviously) are working out our views in real time and good faith as stuff happens, making our own individual cases for or against the candidates, sometimes sharpening our views as we argue here and elsewhere. You're rants, btw, are bolstering Obama's candidacy.

Being opposed to Hillary Clinton, or to the case being made for her candidacy, is not Hillary hatred.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

If it is a Clinton v McCain show-down in Nov, 2008, I don't know what I'll do. It will almost certainly involve large quantities of alcohol before I head to the polls. For me the election may come down to a choice between gin and rum. Or maybe I'll choose a third candidate, vodka.

frankly0: "I raised a point, about why outright and consistent Hillary hatred gets a pass here, but consistent criticism of Obama is not tolerated."

...the funny thing is that from my perspective WM is a pro-Clinton site: Criticize Clinton at your peril. On the other hand, I've seen lots of criticism of Obama.

Maybe it is the nature of the criticism. People seem to be willing to use all sorts of derogatory language to describe Clinton, language that is specific to being female, and I agree that it is deeply disturbing. But then people who simply want a fair playing field, push back.

It is easier to criticize Obama for inexperience and a rather aloof manner than find equivalent derogatory terms. I don't think the English language has as many derogatory but still publicly acceptable words for someone like Obama, but it clearly has many, many for women.

Posted by: PTate in MN on January 31, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

in Kansas City a couple of days ago he kept the Democratic Mayor off the stage during his event.
Posted by: katiebird on January 31, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Funkhouser is a Democrat. Who knew?

Folks I am going to stay away from these discussions until the Democratic nominee is selected. Both have strong points. Both have weaknesses. Both have strong supporters. Both have strengths and weaknesses the strong supporters tend to blow up all out of proportion to reality.

Folks, I'll still vote for the winner over any Republican in the field. For me the choice is generational. Can the boomers hold on one more election before they pass the torch? At some point they will. Obama is the best politician I have encountered since Bill Clinton. He represents the younger generation. Hillary is a worthy representative of the older generation, so long as she keeps Bill on the porch. When the debate devolved into Bill v. Barack the last couple of weeks they overshadowed Hillary and she lost.

I will gladly support either Hillary or Barack, but I have a hunch that sooner or later youth will be served.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 31, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Please explain to me how that is not attempting to undercut my argument, not by any actual evidence, but rather by talking about supposed characteristics of mine.

What supposed characteristic? Remember, for an ad hominem it has to be a supposed personal and irrelevant characteristic independent of the substance of the argument. Criticizing your poor choice of words and/or lack of logic is not criticizing any supposed characteristic of yours, it's criticizing your failure to build a convincing argument.

Hint: see how he uses the word "me"? Isn't that a pretty good clue that he's talking about me? And how can anyone deny that he's basically implying that I can't exercise any measure of objectivity? Take away that implication, and what is left of his remark?

Again, observing that an open partisan for a particular candidate cannot reasonably be trusted to exercise impartiality when championing that candidate isn't an ad homimen remark -- it's simply elementary logic. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

And the guy in that film will kick the living shit out of Barry Hussein Obama. And probably Hillary too.
Posted by: Pat

Well, I'm sure McCain has a good media team and all that, but a promotional film is an artifact not a person. It's never going to have to answer questions at debates, for example.

Posted by: cyntax on January 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

corpus juris: Funny isn't it. I didn't know either. But he was there, just on the stage.

Posted by: katiebird on January 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

(sigh) Just NOT on the stage....

Posted by: katiebird on January 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

All liberal Republicrats.

Posted by: Luther on January 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Folks, I'll still vote for the winner over any Republican in the field. For me the choice is generational. Can the boomers hold on one more election before they pass the torch? At some point they will. Obama is the best politician I have encountered since Bill Clinton. He represents the younger generation. Hillary is a worthy representative of the older generation, so long as she keeps Bill on the porch. When the debate devolved into Bill v. Barack the last couple of weeks they overshadowed Hillary and she lost.

I agree with this broadly, corpus juris, but would quibble about the generational thing, as mr. paxr is a self-described boomer precisely Obama's age, 46.

To the extent that Obama is perceived as not-a-boomer, that's good for his campaign. But the fact remains that he's part of the postwar demographic boom of babies born between, what, 1946 to 1964.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Quinn,

I appreciate what you're saying, so why not ignore party politics and answer a simple question.

Who would be worse for the country--Obama, Hillary, or McCain?

No contest; Obama or Hillary are preferable to an old and sickly mega-hawk who's still fighting the Vietnam War and who caved on torture and habeas corpus by voting Aye on the Military Commissions Act.

Posted by: Lucy on January 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

clearly the majority of voters in NH saw it quite differently.

Even if we assume that every NH voter that voted for Clinton disagreed with the assesment that the assessment that Hillary's "human moment" with its potshot at the rest of the field was arrogant (which is, itself, an invalid assumption, rather than something that is "clear"), that gets you only up to 39% of the voters in the Democratic primary there, which is far short of a majority. Making the no less valid assumption that every voter that voted against Hillary did see that moment the way Quinn describes, you would get an overwhelming majority on the opposite side of the "clear majority" you claim.

Really, though, you can't draw any valid inference about the perception of a single event from those votes, because they aren't a referendum on any single event.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's relative youth, intelligence, and command of the language..... paxr55 at 10:36 AM

While the ability to read ghosted speeches over a teleprompter is more impressive than Bush's, it hardly shows authenticity. In the meantime, the youth factor will be a huge liability.

McCain: "I was serving America while you were _________ in highschool."

It is hard to recall any Democratic potential nominee with less experience and a skimpier resume than Obama. In fact, his campaign is one of the most content-free in memory.

.... words President Hillary Clinton. Advantage: Obama. Quinn at 10:39 AM

Not necessarily. His ratings aren't all that much better and she has more gravitas.

...It's judgment. It's vision. Expect Obama to be hitting on this repeatedly.paxr55 at 10:49 AM

I expect that to be the case since so many of the 'bamabots seem to be working for the campaign, but judgement? 17 years with Rezko being his main financier even after his illegal activities became known? Don't think so.

.... where the tears flowed .... Quinn at 10:55 AM

Gee, no tears, but there was that SOTU snub of Obama's. There's maturity for you; boorish and childish, but iokiyo. "You're wearing blinders then in regards to your preferred candidate."

....every ounce of charm, good looks, and likability ....Al's left testicle at 11:00 AM

Those all seem to be in the eyes of fans, not the candidate. He comes across as arrogant, entitled and aloof. That shows an uncaring euphonius balonious pol who's in it for his ego.

....but leaders with a sense of humor like this are also reliable (even great) in crises..... paxr55 at 11:13 AM

High praise indeed. Tell it to McCain.

Didn't Obama explain his 'likeable enough' comment in the debate itself? ....nepeta at 11:37 AM

As we have seen repeatedly, explanations from Obama and his army bots, are subject to the Humpty Dumpty standard.

The New York Post's endorsement of Obama .... Econobuzz at 11:42 AM

There's an endorsement that comes with tons of irony. You can be sure, the Murdock media will endorse the person they regard as the weaker. Posted by: Mike on January 31, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I'm sure McCain has a good media team and all that, but a promotional film is an artifact not a person. It's never going to have to answer questions at debates, for example.

Posted by: cyntax on January 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Point taken. I guess my cynicism is on display, but I don't feel enough voters make their judgements on debate questions vs. image to carry the day. McCain scares me too because he will attract independents and crossover voters. His weakness is (I think) the conservative base. And I think he can right the ship with those guys.

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2008 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely and Stefan,

Since obviously everything has to be explained to you, let me do so.

Why is dicely's remark an ad hominem?

Let's look at it again, OK?

Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious".

For this to be an ad hominem, it would have to be attempting to "refute" a claim by imputing some negative characteristic to me.

Well what is the claim in question?

Obviously this: "Who came in second? Hillary, without serious question."

Now suppose one actually wished to refute that statement. What I would expect is that an argument would be assembled to show that any number of people who had no dog in the fight (eliminating of course either Hillary supporters or Obama supporters) believed that someone other than Hillary or Biden showed the same degree of mastery of foreign policy. The reason I asserted otherwise is that to the best of my knowledge, it was pretty much the consensus of objective people that Hillary was the most knowledgeable of the candidates (perhaps Richardson might have been preferred by some, I suppose -- but mostly that's irrelevant)

Now, you see, THAT is an actual argument.

What do I get from cmdicely instead? Again, "Only if you are using "serious" in the sense that "anyone who disagrees with me is, ipso facto, not serious"." Now that is quite obviously NOT such an argument. It is doing little more than suggesting that my claim can't be true because I lack any objectivity in applying the term "serious". It is trying to refute the claim by appealing to alleged personal characteristics of mine, and nothing more. There is no further logic to the "refutation" than that, because it doesn't even address what the correct definition of "serious" is, and try to show that it's false: it simply disparages my use of it on the basis of my supposed lack of objectivity. Take away that clear imputation and there's nothing left -- not that there was anything important there to begin with.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

It would be useful for people to note that I most certainly did NOT begin the barrage of personal attacks on this thread. As usual, I start criticizing Obama, and personal attacks on me ensue.

Given that people come on this blog all the time and trash Hillary in the nastiest possible terms and with nary a peep from our minders here, one wonders how that dynamic might be explained.

My explanation? The blogosphere and the MSM have simply adopted the mindset that criticism of Obama is pretty much unforgivable, but the vilest vituperation against Hillary is just peachy-keen. And many people on this blog -- who seem to lack the capacity for independent thought -- can't step out of their own mindset long enough see that this is so.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 31, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

paxr55,

Nixon and Kennedy were contemporaries. Both were WWII vets. Nixon was attractive to the older generation and Kennedy attracted the young. Youth won.

I will always remember when Kennedy visited the Truman farm (Truman Corners) all those years ago. The crowd was enormous. Young men and women came out by the thousands to see history. I had never seen so many people.

Both Barack and Hillary attract those kinds of crowds. Barack attracts the young. Hillary attracts the more mature.

That visit to Kansas City katiebird mentioned above took place in an indoor arena filled to overflowing. Right after that event Obama had to make a second appearance before the overflow thousands freezing in the park across the street. Hillary has had similar events. McClain, not so much. The 2008 Presidential Election is next Tuesday. Don't forget to vote.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 31, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I guess my cynicism is on display, but I don't feel enough voters make their judgements on debate questions vs. image to carry the day. McCain scares me too because he will attract independents and crossover voters.

Oh, I think you're right about image being a huge factor in making decisions about candidates, but I think the contrast of Obama with McCain will be one that favors Obama. Take a look at this article by George Lakoff, if you haven't seen it already. It makes some interesting points about how non-wonky types (people other than most everyone on this thread) tend to make decisions about political candidates:

In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him.

Now Lakoff of course goes on to say that what Reagan did with this trust wasn't good for the country, but the point about how Reagan was able to connect with the populace is worth considering. I think it reflects well on Obama's chances but you might see it differently.

Posted by: cyntax on January 31, 2008 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Biden's big foreign policy gambit was the boneheaded imperialist Iraq partition plan that all Iraqis denounced.

Ok, this is laughable. Iraqis may have denounced it, but guess what? A partitioned country is exactly what they have there now! Like it or. No one wants to admit it, of course. If you see a different picture, you ain't lookn' hard enough...

Posted by: elmo on January 31, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

It would be useful for people to note that I most certainly did NOT begin the barrage of personal attacks on this thread.

Perhaps not (the first seems to be from "GOD"), but your first attacks weren't directed at anyone who attacked you first in the thread, and once you got out the gate with yours (starting in your 10:59am post), you've been firing them off non-stop in every direction and at everyone who disagrees with any of your posts, whether or not their disagreement included any personal attack.

"Someone else did it first" isn't an excuse, especially when you aren't exclusively targetting the one(s) who did, in fact, do it first.

As usual, I start criticizing Obama, and personal attacks on me ensue.

Actually, the attacks on you began after you (either deliberately or from gross lack of reading comprehension) distorted other poster's posts in order to make ludicrous "rebuttals" of their arguments, starting with your first post in this thread where you respond to an argument about the importance of a candidate being right from day one with an irrelevant emotional bleating based on the harm of a candidate thinking they are right and refusing to consider conflicting information.

Given that people come on this blog all the time and trash Hillary in the nastiest possible terms and with nary a peep from our minders here

What "minders"? If you mean the moderators, no one is being subject to action by them for criticizing Hillary or Obama, so your suggestion of inconsistency appears misplaced because no one has hit by the "minders".

If you mean posters in general, there is vigorous criticism and rebuttal from critics and supporters of each candidate. Sometimes, the same critic for more than one of the candidates, since many of the critics are committed to neither Obama nor Hillary. So, again, your suggestion of inconsistency would appear misplaced.

If by "minders" you mean Hillary critics, yeah, Hillary critics don't generally object to criticism of Hillary categorically, though some Hillary supporters may have nuanced positions and object to particular criticisms of Hillary. So, in that case, your suggestion of inconsistency might be properly placed, but kind of dumb.

My explanation? The blogosphere and the MSM have simply adopted the mindset that criticism of Obama is pretty much unforgivable, but the vilest vituperation against Hillary is just peachy-keen. And many people on this blog -- who seem to lack the capacity for independent thought -- can't step out of their own mindset long enough see that this is so.

In the only sense in which the effect you are trying to describe is arguably true (as discussed above) this explanation is almost entirely unrelated to it. Even if it was true in the sense you seem likely to have meant it (which would seem to be the second one I describe and reject above), it wouldn't justify this explanation, which would need further support of its generality throughout the blogosphere and throughout the MSM to be warranted, and, really, to think that the MSM is universally pro-Obama and anti-Clinton would take as highly selective interpretation of what is "mainstream" as your earlier claim about the debates did about what is "serious".

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Nixon and Kennedy were contemporaries. Both were WWII vets. Nixon was attractive to the older generation and Kennedy attracted the young. Youth won.

Yes. Exactly. And youth will win again, IMHO, against older rivals Clinton and McCain.

My quibble was only that Obama is formally a boomer. Post-culture wars, to be sure. All to the good. But still a boomer.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 31, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Now suppose one actually wished to refute that statement. What I would expect is that an argument would be assembled to show that any number of people who had no dog in the fight (eliminating of course either Hillary supporters or Obama supporters) believed that someone other than Hillary or Biden showed the same degree of mastery of foreign policy.

Um, no. See, you made the assertion that a broad consensus including all serious commentators exists that Biden was best followed by Hillary. Before evidence is needed to reject it, you need to provide evidence to support it. You've presented no evidence that there is any such consensus in the first place, which would be needed before a rebuttal would need to provide evidence of some dispute with the consensus.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

wow, exactly what dems need in a general election: a POW vs. the wife of a perceived draft dodger.

how could this not be yet another chapter of boomer angst, relitigating the vietnam war?

hillary clinton is the perfect proxy to dredge up the politics of the '60s; something that has never bred political advantage for the dems. the party doesn't need to abandon its johnson-era achievements, just its '60s tsuris handwringing.

a lot of dems don't realize this now, but I don't think they or the rest of the electorate has the stomach to revisit the fights of the clinton years.

with the bush admin's trainwreck of conservative governance, this is an historic moment to make the case for liberalism, probably the last one for a generation. and what we as a party don't need is nostalgia for clinton's '90s or another bite at trying to convince america we didn't lose vietnam. we need something, someone, new.

Posted by: mencken on January 31, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

New and different. Such as a candidate whose on video tape calling for the decriminalization of pot? That is certanily different.

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

After reading over this thread, I'v decided that
I already miss Edwards (and Kucinich and Dodd and Richardson and...)

Back to the topic at hand...Election 2008: McCain vs. Clinton and Obama:

McCain now has a narrow advantage over Obama 45% to 43%. Prior to this latest poll, they had been tied at 44%. Both men have now been within four points (the margin of error) of the 45% mark for seven consecutive individual polls. Using a three-poll rolling average, McCain leads Clinton by five percentage points, 47% to 42%.

Maybe y'all (mostly in this thread meaning you, frankly0) should consider focusing on the Dems' likely opponent in the general election than engaging in the heated Clinton versus Obama lovefest that I've been reading in the lefty bloggysphere.

I thought it was the Republicans who were eating their own this election cycle. This bickering serves no good purpose.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 31, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

It is doing little more than suggesting that my claim can't be true because I lack any objectivity in applying the term "serious". It is trying to refute the claim by appealing to alleged personal characteristics of mine, and nothing more.

Jesus -- WHAT PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS???? You've babbled on and on, but beyond repeating this you've yet to point out where cmdicely made any reference whatsover to any supposed personal characteristics of yours. I'll make it simple: the alleged personal characteristic of yours that cmdicely supposedly alleged was....what, exactly? Because without that, you've got no ad hominem.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

I think a few points are in order here. One, Obama has raised more money in January than McCain has during his entire campaign. McCain is already looking tired, and hasn't even gotten to the general against an energized Obama with loads of money and dedicated, enthusiastic supporters. The Republican base doesn't even like McCain.

I don't see a single advantage to nominating Clinton, thereby motivating Republican voters to the polls, and in the best case continuing dynastic politics. Despite all the naysayers and cynics, Obama has kicked ass and proved the doubters wrong time and again.

Posted by: tractor on January 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is beloved by reporters, unlike Hillary and Barack. McCain will say to voters, choose me if you want victory in Iraq; choose him/her if you want defeat and by the way, what do you think of the Clinton wheeling and dealing, i.e. those favors for which Mr. Giustra paid millions, only the most recent of shady deals, or an inexperienced black man if it's Obama. I think that the undecided middle will rally behind O much more than C; I have had enough Clintons in the White House.

Posted by: erewhon on January 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is bit arrogant for me.

Can't have dem uppity negroes taunting our white women, can we?

frankly0, the cleaners called -- your sheets are ready for pick-up.

Posted by: Disputo on January 31, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0, the cleaners called -- your sheets are ready for pick-up.
Posted by: Disputo

Come on. That kind of snark isn't called for.

Posted by: cyntax on January 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, that's uncalled for. He just needs to chill out a bit.

Posted by: GOD on January 31, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta agree with cyntax and GOD, Disputo.

frankly0 hasn't provided any reason to assume that his overwrought, increasingly incoherent and quite irrational hatred of Obama is race-based.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I see that the Rasmussen Reports says that McCain beats both Obama and Clinton. Wow, too bad. What could have been an easy shoo-in to the White House for Democrats this year will fail.

This primary campaign has been sickening. The vicious smearing of Hillary by Obama supporters and the media will not be forgotten by older women like me.