comment #1

EOTW says ...

what to say? None of the candidates from any party strike me as anyhting I want to vote for. that being said, I will NOT vote for either HC or BO, and I'm a Democrat (used to be liberal and consider myself more a traditionalist now). I don't think any candidate has what it takes but I will vote for neither one of these people. They both scare me.

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to EOTW: Obama actually scares you? You scare easy, man. In other words, you intend to do what you can to get Fred Thompson or Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney elected? That's the good old Democratic let's-shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot spirit that I've known and loved in years past.

comment #3

Walter Sobchak says ...

God I love Paglia.....

and she's right on about Hillary...

I've got more respect for someone like Ralph Nader than I do her... at least Nader believes all that wing-nut babble he speaks

If Bush's ratings were in the 70's right now (and all else was the same), she'd be bragging about how well she works with him and how much they agree on a number of topics...

comment #4

Nate West says ...

I like this game. I, for one, will NOT vote for either Guiliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson, and I'm a Republican. In fact, I used to be a far-right, flag-waving, God and country, pro-school prayer conservative but now, for the purposes of this post, I'm a traditionalist. I don't think any person on earth, short of Mr. Jesus Christ, has what it takes, but I will vote NEVER vote for any Republican who is actually running. They all scare me.

comment #5

Breedlove says ...

All fair points, and well said...and yet I'm still leaning towards Hillary. I feel like Clinton is a brilliant guy who had the potential to be a truly great president. His second term got sidetracked by all the bullshit. I'm intrigued by what the Clintons could accomplish given another shot...I understand the concerns about Hillary but the Clintons are tough, experienced, and smart. If it wasn't for term limits Bill would probably still be president and we'd all be way, way, way, way better off...god, after the last 7 years Hillary would be fucking Lincoln or FDR or Washington in comparison.

comment #6

EOTW says ...

EOTW to Wells: Obama is scary because he has NO experience to be President. None at all. All he seems to do is make odd remarks about things he has little knowledge of (re: his comments not long ago about how US forces "bomb civilians." Yeah, that's all we're over there to do.).

I think I went on record saying there is NO ONE I want to vote for next year, including ALL The GOP and Dem candidates. Face it: Whoever should be president isn't running and that makes this election scarier than anything previosuly seen.

I might've been a Dem in the past, but I can't identify with the Dems, or any political party anymore. they are just all too extreme for me now.

Either way, I think BO and/HC would be so bad for this country, and since that is going to be the likely tix for the Dems, it's doubly sad indeed.

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to EOTW: There's no school for Presidents, bub. JFK was slightly younger than Obama and probably "ill-prepared" when he took office, and Richard Nixon was probably "better qualified," but look what happened when Nixon was finally elected -- some good foreign policy moves were made, but he derailed his administration with paranoia, amoral combativeness and feelings of low self-esteem, and brought the country into a Constitutional crisis. Look at Bush's character and qualifications when he was elected, and look at what's happened since -- an out-and-out-disaster for the country. Character counts for a lot in any realm or undertaking, and in my judgment JFK came through admirably during his first and last 1000 days. He grew into it. Mistakes were obviously made, and yes, political timidity played too great a part in his reasonings and determinations as far as civil rights legislation was concerned, but character comes to those who want and seek it. And for all his inexperience, Obama is unquestionably made of stronger bedrock values and has more in the way of profound internals than Hilary.

comment #8

christian says ...

what the fuck was george bush jr. qualifications?

comment #9

Chris Willman says ...

What doesn't "work" abot Hillary is hard to nail, but I think Paglia finally nailed it.

Anyone else hoping the complete lack of attention paid to Bill Richardson is the run-up to a late "hey, here's somebody we're not sick of" pulling ahead?

comment #10

Walter Sobchak says ...

Am I the only one having a hard time believing that Nate West was ever the Republican he says he was?

comment #11

Walter Sobchak says ...

And how do these Republican nominees "scare" you?

(other than them simply being Republicans)

comment #12

Mr. Muckle says ...

All due respect (not much) please permit a counterpoint: What does anyone think Camille Paglia knows about being a non-elitist, not overly-conceptualized, non-snobby, ordinary person?! Good God, she's looking in her own mirror here. In the spirit of her criticism of Hillary, Paglia is a dried-up old ivory-tower lesbian crank. I don't begrudge for a minute Hillary's refusal to verbally support Paglia's apparent gay agenda, which appears to be her own singular core value. And how friggin trivial is that unless you're grotesquely off-center yourself. The seriousness of what HC is involved in exceeds by orders of magnitude anything Paglia has yet undertaken.

comment #13

Griff says ...

Just have ask: "an out-and-out-disaster for the country"? Really?

Details? Numbers?

comment #14

Walter Sobchak says ...

The economy, Griff! How do I know that the economy is awful? Because a CBS poll says that most people think it is! What more do you need?

Those people around during the great depression were lucky compared to us!

Oh, and because Lou Dobbs says that there is a "war on the middle-class!!!"

comment #15

EOTW says ...

"Obama is unquestionably made of stronger bedrock values and has more in the way of profound internals than Hilary"

He has yet to show this at all, if he indeed has it. Ask the average American if they feel he has what it takes and I know most people don't think so. I've heard this time and again in various states while traveling this summer. People are just not thrilled by him, or by any one candidate, no matter the party.

I think that in this election, people are going to get to the poll and not sure who they want to vote for, and not wanting to really push for anyone, they're gonna ote for the person who might do the least damage. Grim idea, but it just seems to be how people are feeling.

There's a political malaise afflicting this country as of late and it's been going for years now, and not just because of Dubya.

comment #16

Pinko Punko says ...

Jeff, I pretty much would try to see any artistic or aesthetic point you'd try to make because I actually respect you. However, I cannot endorse the phrase "brilliant Camille Paglia." She's a complete buffoon with a high thread count dictionary, as the denizens of HE might describe her particular hackery. She is a pathetic excuse for a "public intellectual."

comment #17

Ian Sinclair says ...

Camille Paglia speaks for educated women of her generation the same way Britney Spears speaks for MENSA.

comment #18

Dave says ...

I'll cut Paglia some slack. She's smart, although I often disagree with her, because she's like Jeff: she has opinions that she will never, ever budge from, no matter the contrarian evidence.

Any author who complains at least ten times a year that Dianne Feinstein has no interest in running for President is, let me say, a little isolated from reality (Yeah. . . Feinstein Fever, catch it!).

As for Jeff's sweet, sweet Obama-crush. . .

Listen, I don't like Hillary either (two "L's" pal-- she's only been around for, what, fifteen years of American life?). But I also don't like Democrats. Which means if I have to perform political triage, and determine which candidate on your side of the aisle is most acceptable/least unacceptable to me, I'm going with Hillary.

Not because experience matters-- her experience is awful. Not because she's got amazing ideas-- her ideas, like all of the big guvmint identity politics anti-capitalist faux populism pap in the Democratic platform, are stale. And certainly not because I trust her-- as a wise Democrat (Bob Kerrey) once said, Hillary and her husband are *uncommonly good* liars.

And, of course, her negatives are insanely off the charts-- everyone has an opinion about her, and roughly half the country will dislike her no matter what happens.

That all said, there is one advantage to Hillary that no other Democrat has, paradoxically simultaneously her biggest DIS-advantage: she's a total and complete political animal.

Which means, of course, that she will follow polls like dogs follow firetrucks. Whatever the "American people"-- as determined daily by a consortium of Gallup, Reuters and Jimmy Zogby-- want, Hillary! will provide.

Isn't that what you Democrats want? You've spent years screaming about how our President doesn't listen to you, he never apologizes, he never changes course, etc. Well, if what you want most is a President who, like *Bill* Clinton once did, doesn't even take a freakin' vacation without polling how it appears, then by all means, Hillary! is your candidate.

Honestly, her slogan should be: Hillary! She'll give the American people exactly what they want, when they want it (or at least 55% of them, with margin of error of +/-3%).

Methinks America in 2008 may be tired of "leadership by gut instinct," and want to get back to government-by-polling for a while.

comment #19

Ford_Fletcher says ...

Well, at least we didn't have to hear about Americans not voting for Obama because of racism this time. The only reason Obama is being supported so heavily is BECAUSE he's half African American, so it's ironic to hear that it's such a detriment to him securing the nomination. Take away the race card and what is Obama besides a more vague, slower to the draw, neutered John Edwards?

And news flash Obama, as a Democrat who'll vote in the primaries, I don't want your biggest qualification for President to be that you play well with Republicans. They're a primitive bunch of corporate stooges and hate mongers who are wrong about almost everything and I don't want to see a Democrat President and Congress compromise with them about Stem Cell research, the Iraq War, Global Warming, Health Care, the War on Terror, relief for the middle class, and alternative energy. I want them to be drug into this century and forced to adapt.

The Republicans will make potato salad out of that fly weight in the exact same way they did fellow pussies John Kerry and (at the time) Al Gore. And the big push for him over Clinton seems to be mostly for electability reasons. To choose Barack Obama over Hilary Clinton for electability reasons is like choosing the Hindenburg over the Titanic for safety reasons.

comment #20

muteprotest says ...

Wow... Never thought I'd be saying this, but props to Ian Sinclair for that comment. Nicely put, that.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

gruver: "Wells to EOTW: Obama actually scares you? You scare easy, man."

Well he did beat the war drums for Iran, but I'd imagine he'd be less likely to push the button if elected than Hillary.

"You scare easy, man. In other words, you intend to do what you can to get Fred Thompson or Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney elected?"

The Republicans are gonna lose by default in '08. They probably won't get another chance to win until 2012; though I'd be happier if it's never again.

Breedlove: "His second term got sidetracked by all the bullshit."

His second term got sidetracked by his need to drop bombs on Bosnia and Iraq, his effort to deny Hawaii's state right to marry gay people, and his plan to gut social services in order to appeal to conservative voters and "balance" the budget. Plus he never gave us the universal health care he promised us and took away quality manufacturing jobs by signing NAFTA.

EOTW: "Obama is scary because he has NO experience to be President."

At least he can read a map.

"re: his comments not long ago about how US forces "bomb civilians." Yeah, that's all we're over there to do.)."

The families of those one million dead Iraqis would probably agree with him on that one.

Muckle: "Paglia is a dried-up old ivory-tower lesbian crank."

I'm not sure what her being a lesbian has to do with her comments.

Griff: "Details? Numbers?"

Did you actually listen to Petraeus and Bush regarding the Iraq war? That, after the four years and billions they've spent, even they admit they're barely getting anywhere there! What else do you need?

Ford: "Well, at least we didn't have to hear about Americans not voting for Obama because of racism this time."

I'll be happy to continue that argument, Ford.

"The only reason Obama is being supported so heavily is BECAUSE he's half African American,"

Um, no. He's being supported, because he was a nobody in Illinois who became a success story overnight, and people are hoping it'll carry over into the Presidential election. It's Republiscum who pick people, just because of their skin color. (See Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales.)

I'm guessing Colin Powell was just a fluke, because as soon as he started showing some backbone on Iraq, those imperialist assholes kicked him out of their club, and he was forced to lie for them to be allowed back in again. Ironically, he was the only one of them who fought in Vietnam or any war, for that matter, too.

"Take away the race card and what is Obama besides a more vague, slower to the draw, neutered John Edwards?"

Yes, why can't he be impulsive and kill 3,700 American soldiers for an illegal war like Bush?

"They're a primitive bunch of corporate stooges and hate mongers who are wrong about almost everything and I don't want to see a Democrat President and Congress compromise with them about Stem Cell research, the Iraq War, Global Warming, Health Care, the War on Terror, relief for the middle class, and alternative energy. I want them to be drug into this century and forced to adapt."

I agree with you there, but I think Obama's the closest we're gonna get in that direction-unless Kucinich gets better coverage.

"The Republicans will make potato salad out of that fly weight in the exact same way they did fellow pussies John Kerry and (at the time) Al Gore."

Kerry and Gore didn't even try to sound different from the Republicans. Plus they didn't even bother fighting for the votes which were stolen from them.

"To choose Barack Obama over Hilary Clinton for electability reasons is like choosing the Hindenburg over the Titanic for safety reasons."

Less people died on the Hindenburg...

comment #22

Nate West says ...

As an essayist, Paglia continues to be a marvel, writing like a free-associating coke maniac. In her most recent piece for Salon, she segues from speculation about the coming Bush-Cheney bombing of Iran to, in short order, Britney Spears at the VMA, Larry Craig, the fresh brilliance of "Absolutely Fabulous," and the resurrection of the Byrds!

"I've been startled and delighted to hear Byrds music returning to radio after a very long absence. This aboriginal California folk-rock group has unfortunately been overshadowed by its cofounder David Crosby's epochal later work with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. The Byrds have always been dear to my heart: Their ecstatic, silvery lyricism permeated my early college years in the mid-1960s.

"The Byrds' masterpiece, "8 Miles High," released in 1966, crudely stereotyped them as hippie-dippie druggies smuggling pot into the Los Angeles airport. But as a non-drug taker, I indignantly protest: "8 Miles High," with its eerie earthquake rumble and seductive, melismatic, sitar-flavored riffs, is about the clash between nature and culture, seen from a height through the visionary power of art."

Ha!

comment #23

Mr. Muckle says ...

DZ: "I'm not sure what her being a lesbian has to do with her comments."

Well, in her brief criticism, Paglia did manage to bring up the fact that Hillary refused to comment on the morality of homosexuality. From one point of view, a public official refusing to comment on private morality is an exemplary, rare, and refreshing change. But Paglia, being a lesbian with what appears to be the typical gay agenda, cannot see it that way and condemns her for not outright getting into that ridiculous argument. Private matter.

comment #24

George Prager says ...

The President was praised for having "core beliefs" (whatever that means).

comment #25

WhiteRiver says ...

I have a couple of runs of old movie magazines. It's interesting to look back at the covers and see all the flavors of the week that have come and gone.

That's Obama's problem. He has a flavor of the week quality. No gravitas. Too much media gush when he first announced. Jeff would recognize the phenomenon instantly in a cover boy actor, but sounds like a school girl in love when he talks about this politican.

Whatever her faults, Hillary has at least endured. Rightly or wrongly, when they're chosing presidents, that's a quality a lot of Americans value.

comment #26

Sergio says ...

Preach Camille Preach! God I love Camille! She is so dead on point. Look let's be blunt here, NOBODY likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't really like her. What they really gives them a hard-on (or their panties wet) is the idea of Bill being back in the White House calling all the shots with Hillary as his mouthpiece.

As Chris Matthews once said on his show in a rare moment of truth: "She's Dukakis in a dress."

comment #27

christian says ...

"Well, in her brief criticism, Paglia did manage to bring up the fact that Hillary refused to comment on the morality of homosexuality"

hillary has been able to get away with outrageously stupid non-answers such as her being "agnostic" on nuclear energy and her admital that she has "problems" with homosexuality but won't go further -- which at least edwards has tackled publicly. edwards is in fact the only next to kucinich really stepping up and his plan for a global terrorism force is more than the others have said besides hillary's psychotic desire to keep nuclear weapon use on the table. otherwise she's just agnostic about nuclear energy.

and paglia is right about her but she's still a sputtering joke.

comment #28

christian says ...

"Well, in her brief criticism, Paglia did manage to bring up the fact that Hillary refused to comment on the morality of homosexuality"

hillary has been able to get away with outrageously stupid non-answers such as her being "agnostic" on nuclear energy and her admital that she has "problems" with homosexuality but won't go further -- which at least edwards has tackled publicly. edwards is in fact the only next to kucinich really stepping up and his plan for a global terrorism force is more than the others have said besides hillary's psychotic desire to keep nuclear weapon use on the table. otherwise she's just agnostic about nuclear energy.

and paglia is right about her but she's still a sputtering joke.

comment #29

Ogami Itto says ...

Those damnable gays and their "GAY AGENDA". How dare they demand the equal rights and protections the rest of us have?! How dare they expect not to be treated like moral degenerates?!

comment #30

christian says ...

oh, and here's noted a left-wing kook alan greenspan telling right-wing kooks what we already knew years ago. right walter?

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

comment #31

Josh Massey says ...

The question, Wells: If Hillary is elected president, will you start spelling her first name correctly?

comment #32

foxnewsisfake says ...

The Republican Party have proven they cannot be trusted to effectively govern the United States of America.

Milton Freidman himself said, "Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change." When will the Republicans again have this much power to implement "conservative" policies? They've had their crisis, they've had their "change" opportunity and, given the keys to the kingdom for the past seven years, what do they have to show for it? Massive, MASSIVE, debt, a World against us, a disastrous foreign occupation, a city under water, rampant corruption and cronyism, richer rich and poorer poor, and on and on and on and on...

Do you realize that every single, leading light of the "conservative" movement has had a crack at administering their "conservative" policy under the Bush Presidency? Every one of them -- and every, single, fucking one of them has failed. Utterly failed -- ALL OF THEM.

There's no need to debate theory any longer. "Conservatism" has been implemented and it has been proven to be a massive, fundamentally flawed, money-sucking, Republican ponzi scheme that has put a once glorious Nation on the fast track to decline and decay.

comment #33

Ford_Fletcher says ...

D.Z., what I meant by vaguer, slower on the draw, neutered John Edwards (and I think it was already pretty well layed out in the next couple paragraphs) is that Edwards had been more specific and beat him to the punch on almost every issue. Edwards has plans and I have a good idea of what his Presidency would look like. Obama comes off as goofy and better with a photo-op than a tough question. His point of emphasis so far has been that he's a Uniter that will work well with Republicans. Jesus Christ, what don't you just run on saving the whales?

Obama is the People Magazine Presidential candidate, and has been more of a spoiler (siphoning votes and money away from Edwards so Hillary can win) than a real contender.

comment #34

christian says ...

an accurate summation of the situation.

i hope america has woken up from its bush swamp fever dream.

comment #35

Nan says ...

Jeff,

Camille Paglia is a crockpot, another Ann Coulter.

Give it up. Barack Obama is not going to get elected president.

People like you are "feel good liberals". You want to vote for Obama because it will make you feel good to vote for a black guy. Much like the people who voted for Ralph Nader. Because it made them "feel good" to vote for a pure leftist. I saw Susan Sarandon on TV during the 2000 election talking about how her conscience wouldn't allow her to vote for Gore. It was all about her.

The fact that Obama is not qualified for the job is besides the point in your view. You like the idea of a black guy for president and it will make you feel good.

So you link to crackpots like Paglia ranting and raving about Hillary. Paglia is a lunatic. She gets her "news" from Drudge and Rush and is proud of it. You treat her like she is a credible person.

comment #36

Nan says ...

"We seem to be the hardest sell for her right"

Here's a clue Camille. Nobody has been elected president pandering to women like you. You are one demographic Hillary, or any sane presidential candidate, wants to stay away from. Your support for a candidate is electoral poison. If the "Camille Paglia demograpric" supports a candidate you know for sure that candidate is doomed.

Hillary is a smart woman. She knows that the last thing she needs is the support of Paglia type women. She is not after the votes of Paglias, Dowds, Sarandons. She is after the votes of waitress moms, suburban women, carpooling moms, grandmothers. They decide elections.

comment #37

Nan says ...

"And the big push for him over Clinton seems to be mostly for electability reasons."

BTW, where are the polls showing Obama is more electable than Hillary? She does as well and recently better than him against GOP candidates. This idea that Obama is more electable is a fantasy.

Obama is running as an independent. His message boils down to "both parties are to blame", "why can't we all get along". This is not the message of a would be JFK.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Muckle: "Well, in her brief criticism, Paglia did manage to bring up the fact that Hillary refused to comment on the morality of homosexuality. From one point of view, a public official refusing to comment on private morality is an exemplary, rare, and refreshing change. But Paglia, being a lesbian with what appears to be the typical gay agenda, cannot see it that way and condemns her for not outright getting into that ridiculous argument. Private matter."

Perhaps, but you have to look at the likely reason she asked it: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which has led to qualified gay linguists getting kicked out of the Armed Forces, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which Bush is trying to turn into a constitutional amendment.

Sergio: "What they really gives them a hard-on (or their panties wet) is the idea of Bill being back in the White House calling all the shots with Hillary as his mouthpiece."

Yeah, I really want another economic bubble which leads to corrupt fucks like Ken Lay being able to rip off their own employees.

foxnews: "The Republican Party have proven they cannot be trusted to effectively govern the United States of America."

They could, until Nixon came along. Although even Reagan knew when he was wrong.

Ford: Fair enough, but Edwards has all that baggage of supporting a dead-weight like Kerry. In addition, whether or not he has a plan, the fact that he chose to follow lock-step with the Democratic "centrists" means it's a matter of "too little, too late" for him.

christian: "i hope america has woken up from its bush swamp fever dream."

They did last year. It's Congress which hasn't woken up yet.

Nan: "Camille Paglia is a crockpot, another Ann Coulter."

Wake me up when she says journalists should be attacked by terrorists and vets were to blame for losing Vietnam.

"People like you are "feel good liberals". You want to vote for Obama because it will make you feel good to vote for a black guy."

No, it feels good to vote for some new blood of any color, not some has-beens who had their chance, but chose to be complicit to an illegal occupation.

"Much like the people who voted for Ralph Nader. Because it made them "feel good" to vote for a pure leftist"

Actually, many of his views are a lot more conservative than those of both parties put together. For example, he's against any trade which takes away jobs.

"The fact that Obama is not qualified for the job is besides the point in your view. You like the idea of a black guy for president and it will make you feel good."

Yeah, why can't he have the experience you can only get from being hand-picked through cronyism like Mike Brown?

"Hillary is a smart woman. She knows that the last thing she needs is the support of Paglia type women. She is not after the votes of Paglias, Dowds, Sarandons. She is after the votes of waitress moms, suburban women, carpooling moms, grandmothers. They decide elections."

Actually, she's after the church-going woman who supports war and the banning of gay marriage, not most women. If she was for the latter group, she'd be talking about issues like them not being paid the same as men for the same work, or glass ceilings.

"Obama is running as an independent. His message boils down to "both parties are to blame", "why can't we all get along". This is not the message of a would be JFK."

Yeah, JFK was not a uniter who didn't try to work with both parties.

comment #39

Abbey Normal says ...

Paglia has been a gaseous, overrated windbag for decades. Frankly, I could care less what she has to say about Clinton, or anything else for that matter.

comment #40

Nan says ...

Obama is no JFK.

JFK was a war hero who had achieved things and been tested before running for president.

comment #41

Nan says ...

A post in openleft sums up the Obama candidacy.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=EB07F0E8D8AB8929B25398E96A9AC3CF?diaryId=1307

Obama never was an organic candidate unlike, the self made Bill Clinton, who masterminded and managed his own social and political network for the presidency from his time in university onwards. For good or for ill, Clinton was his own campaign manager and tirelessly plodded and plotted towards the presidency. Obama on the other hand is something of a petri dish creation. Grown in an incubator of assorted interests drawn from a coalition of Chicago's monied leaders, disgruntled ex-Clinton administration types and African-American aspiring middle classes and elites. Obama was the prize horse and his backers were sure he could take the prize away from Hillary Clinton with the black vote as their secret weapon. Obama unlike Bill Clinton did not have to scrap, beg, seduce, cajoal, triangulate his way to the presidency, Obama just had "to be" like a GQ model or show horse, all Obama had to do was to strut his considerable stuff. Others would ensure the money, publicity and support flowed in. In a way, as a candidate, Obama was always a bit spoilt, a bit of a diva. Languidly elegant in crisp white shirts, he never seemed to pound the pavement in threadworn shoes and threadbare clothes like the 1992 Bill Clinton in New Hampshire who played Willy Loman eager to close the next sale as if his life depended on it. Obama is not prepared for the grim dull slog of running a campaign, he expected and still does, to be hoisted on the shoulder to easy victory by the black vote. The big shock though and a puzzle to Obama and his supporters is that a majority of the black vote has not yet significantly broken his way. The seemingly easy calculus of denying and defeating Hillary with the black vote does not appear to have panned out and in some respects has taken the wind out of Obama's sails. Obama, in other words never really had a deeply pressing urgent agenda that he would bust his guts to see done as president. He was just there. A promising candidate in the right place, at the right time, and that was good enough for him and his backers. Unfortunately voters can smell lack of urgency, or fire in the belly or whatever you want to call it. Especially blue collar, lower income workers both black and white, who litteraly cannot afford Obama as a "feel good" candidate. They want someone who they percieve will fight for their interests till the last dog dies.

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

Nan: "JFK was a war hero who had achieved things and been tested before running for president."

Bush is a draft-dodger who doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite. Anyway, I guess being a black candidate is the new Catholic in American politics.

"A post in openleft sums up the Obama candidacy."

Anyone who praises Clinton is not really "left", especially when comparing Obama to a lab specimen.
Plus they're ignoring the fact that he was a nobody who was considered unable to lead, too.

"For good or for ill, Clinton was his own campaign manager and tirelessly plodded and plotted towards the presidency."

Clinton won, because Bush Sr. just didn't have the same energy or charisma as Reagan, which is what the public wanted. That, and he made a bold promise none of the candidates offered, which was universal health care. Also, Bush Sr. had the misfortune of the S+L scandal, the Exxon crash, and the L.A. riots during his presidency.

"Languidly elegant in crisp white shirts, he never seemed to pound the pavement in threadworn shoes and threadbare clothes like the 1992 Bill Clinton in New Hampshire who played Willy Loman eager to close the next sale as if his life depended on it."

This conveniently ignores Hillary's corporate image.

"Especially blue collar, lower income workers both black and white, who litteraly cannot afford Obama as a "feel good" candidate. They want someone who they percieve will fight for their interests till the last dog dies."

Yes, and Hillary's lack of support for universal health care or an end to NAFTA clearly shows her support of our interests.

comment #43

D.Z. says ...

him=Obama

comment #44

Nan says ...

"Bush is a draft-dodger who doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite."

That is a pretty low bar. Saying someone is more qualified than Bush isn't really saying much.

"Yes, and Hillary's lack of support for universal health care"

Edwards is the only candidate with a universal health care plan. Hillary is supposed to present her own universal plan soon. Obama's plan does not cover everybody.

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

"Saying someone is more qualified than Bush isn't really saying much."

But that's the point. Most active voters in American politics don't care about whether the candidate's qualified, but about the image they project. Gore and Kerry were clearly better experienced than Shrub, but they lost the popularity contest. Hillary might appeal to the sycophants, but clearly won't win with the rest of us.

Besides, if Hillary's more qualified than Barack, then how come he was smart enough to call the war a quagmire before it even happened?

"Edwards is the only candidate with a universal health care plan."

Too bad it's three years too late.

"Hillary is supposed to present her own universal plan soon."

Will it end up being another watered-down "compromise" which benefits HMOs at the expense of consumers for 15 more years?

"Obama's plan does not cover everybody."

That might be the case, but at least he's addressing the issue head-on, instead of waiting until nearly 50 million people are uninsured.

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care
:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is unveiling a sweeping health care proposal Monday that would require everyone to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage."

That's basically the Republiscum proposal.

comment #47

Walter Sobchak says ...

Great to see that after a brief absence the D.Z. Quote-O-Matic is back up and running again!

comment #48

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Great to see that after a brief absence the D.Z. Quote-O-Matic is back up and running again!"

Interesting how you can be so flip, Walter, what with U.S.-sponsored, Reagan-trained death squads still running rampant throughout the third world.

Posted by: D.Z. at September 17, 2007 09:46 AM

comment #49

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

That's not very nice, Walt. He was *just* about ready to send that!