<p>For a while now, I have been thinking that the “differences” between Obama and Clinton as perceived by Democrats are much ado about nothing. Kluge is right. The political and policy differences between them are so small that their personal differences (i.e. gender, race, rhetorical skills, etc…) seem to be huge. But take one of them out of the race and put him or her against a candidate with real political and policy differences, and the Dems who apparently “hate” Obama or Clinton now, will find some things to like in the general election.</p>
<p>A simple, probably inept, metaphor. I’m a vegetarian who eats fish but not poultry or beef or pork. If there is a menu that offers me a choice of salmon or shrimp, I will become overly picky and deliberate over the small differences between the two seafoods in order to make the best choice for myself. But if you give me a choice between shrimp and bacon, suddenly there is no choice at all because I won’t eat the bacon no matter what. I think a lot of Dems are in this position, BUT take one of our candidates out of the race, and the angst will dissolve and the more vast differences between McCain and Obama or Clinton will seem like a no-brainer. We just need to be patient until this interminable primary is finally over.</p>
<p>“In fact, if Gore had won West Virginia in 2000 as Bill Clinton had in 1992 and 1996,”</p>
<p>If Al Gore had won his HOME state…oh never mind.</p>
<p>Still surprises me that that with 109 mil in the bank, mansions, Ivy degrees, undereducated, poor people ‘feel’ a connection to HRC and Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>I can see why people see Bill as “common people.” He had humble beginnings in Arkansas and comes across as a Bubba at times. Hillary, not so much.</p>
<p>“Substitute “she” for “he” and it could just as well apply to the female candidate you support,”</p>
<p>Not really. The He Clinton ran the country as a centrist. We want Clinton Act II. We want stable economy, we want million new jobs, we want low un-employment, we want 100,000 new police officers, we want low crime rate, we want low interest rate and booming stock prices, we want balanced budget with surplus.</p>
<p>Frankly, many of us very mad at the venom that latte neo-libs have thrown. They have painted Clintons as mass murderer to racists. Good luck in November.</p>
<p>“Substitute “she” for “he” and it could just as well apply to the female candidate you support, unless the $30 gas tax holiday makes her the opposite of a neo-lib (I assume you mean it in the economic sense?)”</p>
<p>The “gas tax” holiday was the most elitist proposal to yet come out of the campaign. $28-$30 subsidy for working, lower income folks. HUNDREDS of dollars in subsidy for rich folks with multiple SUVs, and boats on the lake.</p>
<p>As for Clinton II, I could do without more genocide, more disenfranchising of black males, more lying and deceit. I do NOT claim that is what we’d get with Hillary (but I wouldn’t vote for wife of a genocidal murderer of children, unless she could prove she was Gandhi.)</p>
<p>People label Obama as an elitist because he is too “cerebral” for them. He wants people to think. He wants there to be discourse, logical assessment, reconciliation and mediation. He wants to talk to our enemies and to our allies (not at them or not at all). </p>
<p>Clinton and McCain simply want to bomb anyone that disagrees with U.S. policy back to the stone age. They are “tough”, they are fighters, they won’t talk to the enemy, as if that is some sign of weakness. It’s us vs. them and they need to do it our way or die.</p>
<p>Further, by her own assessment, Clinton’s base is uneducated/undereducated blue collar white folks-translation the only issue/position they get is the bomb ‘em to the stone age mentality (and I ain’t votin’ for the black guy) and this is apparently quite present in WVa.</p>
<p>What Clinton also wants to ignore is that the past electoral map is no longer truly in play as Obama has made serious in roads into states such as Colorado, for exampe, which have previously been Republican. Obama can “win” with a different electoral map then Clinton can and so the 5 electoral votes in WVa may well not matter.</p>
<p>As also noted above, there have been many states where Obama has captured significant portions of the “white” vote (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota etc.). Perhaps though that was earlier on, before Clinton made race an issue and has clearly pandered to that.</p>
<p>Ultimately though, as indicated by the Congressional race yesterday in Mississippi, I think Obama’s color is going to be ignored by most and the focus will be on green (as in I ain’t got any green after 8 years of the Republicans in power) and on red (as in enough blood has been spilled in Iraq over a feigned enemy).</p>
<p>I wouldn’t read too much into either that Mississippi win or the Louisiana one. The guys on NPR were talking about it and one of them pointed out that a Democrat in either of those states would be a Republican in Connecticut.</p>
<p>“a Democrat in either of those states would be a Republican in Connecticut.”</p>
<p>Yeah, and a Republican in Mississippi would be a weirdo fringe kook in Connecticut. The issue is that an overwhelmingly Republican district chose the Democratic option. He may be a conservative, but he’ll caucus with the Dems, and voters know that. To put it another way, voters in Mississippi decided to decrease the power of Republicans in Washington. Voters in Mississippi were also not scared off by a candidate’s association with Obama. It’s big, if you ask me.</p>
<p>Good thing I’m not a Republican in Mississippi or I might take that personal. Plus I voted for my Democrat representative and my Democrat mayor. Some people vote for the person they think is best for the job and don’t care which party they’re in. They vote for the person they like.</p>
<p>Fair enough, but that particular Mississippi district has quite a long streak of “liking” the Republican better. And that’s true even though the Democratic candidates tend to be social conservatives.</p>
<p>Who is …we? I sure want no part of such despicable circus. </p>
<p>And it seems that the country is on my side on this one. Picking a rather unknown candidate over the self-anointed entitled is a sure sign that the country wants no part of a Clinton Act II led by someone who sole qualification is being the wife of a former President and having spent eight years in the White House. One joke circulating on the internet compares that to calls to bring Brett Favre’s wife to training camp for the Packers or Dick Morris quip about the pastry chef of the White House being more qualified because he has been there forever. </p>
<p>To the majority of Democrats who rejected her, you need to add all but a few Republicans to get to your Clinton Part Deux endorsement: not even one-third of the country. </p>
<p>Actually the best comparison I’ve heard is that if being the President’s wife makes/made Hillary the most qualified, then Robin Givens (ex-wife of Mike Tyson) should then be best qualified to be heavy weight champion of the world.</p>
<p>As was once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts… a concept the Clintons just don’t get and has been their undoing with the majority in this campaign (also the ultimate undoing of the Bush Admin.).</p>
<p>Hmm… moderators didn’t like it last time I said it, but no president has ever been elected who isn’t male (last time I worded it as no president has ever been elected without a ****). So if Clinton’s WV argument is valid, then so is mine.</p>
<p>1) He was a community organizer before he went to Harvard Law School. After law school his community service is more sparse.
2) His net worth is “low” but it’s high for someone his age. Comparing a 70 year old McCain to a 46 year old Obama is not exactly a reasonable comparison.
3) Anyone graduating with two Ivy League degrees is likely to be called elitist (and in reference to the average American, they are).</p>
<p>1) He was a community organizer before he went to Harvard Law School. After law school his community service is more sparse.
2) His net worth is “low” but it’s high for someone his age. Comparing a 70 year old McCain to a 46 year old Obama is not exactly a reasonable comparison.
3) Anyone graduating with two Ivy League degrees is likely to be called elitist (and in reference to the average American, they are).</p>
<p>People who graduated from ivy league are blessed/lucky/etc but not necessarily elitist. Elitist are someone who flaunt their talents/upbringing/etc… some ivy leaguer are elitist and some elitists are ivy leaguers there is no equality among the two</p>
<p>I’m tired of class bashing. It’s not productive to bash the people from the Rust Belt-even if they are not educated-similarly, politicians should not bash the educated for driving hybrid cars, or choosing a coffee with milk instead of cream. Most of us pay taxes; all of us care about our country.</p>
<p>“Historically, Dem. congress and Dem. President are the worst for economy and stock market.”</p>
<p>Simba, you continue to perplex me by saying that you support Hillary, but posting things like the above. Can you blame me for suspecting that you are really a Republican provocateur?</p>
<p>“His net worth is “low” but it’s high for someone his age. Comparing a 70 year old McCain to a 46 year old Obama is not exactly a reasonable comparison.”</p>
<p>Obama could have made huge money at any top law firm in New York. He also could have gotten a clerkship with a Supreme Court Justice, a ticket to the top in legal academia. I don’t know why he chose not to do those things, but I can tell you that the elitist grads from Harvard Law Schools do those things.</p>