Obama cannot win in November. We've tried this before--in 72 and 86--both elections we should have won. Obama is from the far left of the party, routinely considered the most liberal member of congress. The repugs are going to hammer away on guns, the death penalty, etc. like they did to Dukasis. At this time in 86 Dukasis, the candidate with "new" ideas and "a plan" for the future was 15 points ahead of Bush elder in national poll. That Bush's main thematic concept was, "Stay the course."

"Let's change Washington" is a familar tome, nice in theory, but The "old" way of doing things worked pretty well until Bush came along. Our republic survived civil war, came to grips with slavery and its almost as ugly Jim Crow aftermath (look at Bosnia or Rwanda for what could have happened), survived really bad, even criminal presidents.

What Bush is doing is not the "old way," but a new dangerous new way. He has eviserated the constitution like no other president. He expropriated powers no president has. Our great republic, beacon of democracy and envy of the world, slid down a slippery slope towards facism.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it was our failure too. Fox News (requirement number one for building a fascist state) and a compliant MSM delivered the narrative, "If you're not with us your're against us. Criticizing the COC during war time encourages the enemy and is prima facie facism. War against Oceania (Irag) because of X (weapons of mass destruction) becomes war against Europia (Islamic Extremism) because of Y (bring democracy to Irag). It's not torture because I say it isn't. Members of the executive branch do not have to respect congressional subpoenas because I told them not to talk."

Do you really think that things will be the same whether Clinton or McCain are elected? Did you even leave your parent's basement long enough to vote for Kerry in 04?

Couldn't we have used more of the "same" in 2000 with Gore instead of the change with Bush. Do you really believe that that election made no difference, that Clinton would be the same as Bush.

With help from Josh, Arianna, Jane, Murray and others for finally exposing the emperor's deformed and diseased genitalia, we stopped the slide in oblivion in 06, but even then our newfound hopes were dashed on the rocks. The democrats we elected turned out to be sheep (or worse elephants in lions clothing) instead lions.

However, it now more important than ever that we take back the White House. I was for Biden, then Richardson and now Clinton. Obama cannot win. He will lose huge. The popular vote will be around 57-43, and he will win less than 10 states, probably less than 5.
O

And before you bring up 04 as evidence these young people will stay home in 08 I will say Kerry was in no way the same politician as Obama.

Also if your argument turns out to be true we are screwed either way. I think Clinton is going to lose the same as Kerry did in 04. Because of the situation and the "impression" people have of her campaign she will lose much of the black vote and most of the new voters, as well as many indipendents who are so taken with Obama.

Good question, thoughtfully stated, so here’s your answer.

Clinton is a fighter; she is dedicated to winning – as any politician must be when they feel that they have great potential to do good things. They must win first. For the naïve and overly-sensitive, this seems to be some sort of cardinal sin – as the rabid indignation of many Obama people show. For the realistic, it is the only means available to winning the presidency.

I laugh my head off every time I read somebody whining (including you, alas) about unsavory methods or cynical tactics. Politics IS unsavory method and cynical tactic; this is not a parlor game. Anyone believing otherwise is a fool, pure and simple. And the tactics in this campaign have been actually pretty mild, comparatively. Anyone who doesn’t think so must have been comatose with Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry (not to mention the old days of ’68).

The Repugnant Party will destroy Obama and eat him alive should he become the nominee. His Jesus image is going to come back and allow him to be beat to a pulp (so to speak), and the Repugnants are going to be the ones doing it. Personally, I don’t feel that Obama believes his own rhetoric in the slightest. He is using the public’s almost tangible disgust and contempt for ‘gridlock’ and ‘partisan bickering’ to sway all the dunderheads and the great, unwashed naïve. Again (as any realist will tell you), politics IS fundamentally partisan bickering and polemic and arguing and, well, simply a nasty, ugly process of elimination. If you don’t believe in your stance enough to fight mean and dirty for it, then you are useless.

While Obama’s fighting abilities are questionable (the unifier, the ‘reach across the aisle’ man, the ‘end the divisiveness’ man), he has, by emphasizing so strongly the hope and unity themes, painted himself into a corner as the Second Coming, thereby doing two disadvantageous things simultaneously: inviting himself to be mocked, and in essence severely manacling himself. Once you raise yourself to a certain degree of iconography, it is soooooooooo much easier for your opponent to stand there and just punch you to pieces.

Hillary has not exposed herself to the Repugnants to that degree. Everybody knows what and who Hillary is. She has not climbed up on a sanctified self-righteous pedestal and made a defenseless target of herself. She will beat the repubbies with their own stick as hard as they beat her; she will get down in the mud and pull hair and screech and claw. Nobody will like watching the process, and nobody will like her, much; but they will respect her and she will win.

In short, Obama has made himself a wimp and the Repugnants are going to use his self-righteousness to take him up on the fact. With Hillary, they can’t.

I also think Hillary has much more experience than Obama in the ill-defined, intangibles of international elbow-rubbing and schmoozing – an experience that is much more important than it looks, and more critical than can even be explained. It is the essence of politics and relationships. Hillary spend years n that world while Obama taught and was a state senator – not very impressive credentials. He was a senator for ONE year before getting bored and restless and deciding that his window was open to be president. We just had seven years of a moron who under-appreciated the office and over-appreciated his own merits.

And lastly, Hillary’s medical plan is more inclusive than Obama’s; and she is correct in saying that all Americans must be covered – by one means or another – for the costs of that inclusiveness to be feasible.

I just posted this reply on another thread with a imilar question.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-i-support-obama-and-not-hi.php

Since that thread disappeared from view I'll repost it here.

Our views on every count are totally divergent. I don't know if I'll have time to address everything but I'll do as much as I can. I'll start with inspiration. I don't find Obama inspiring. Different strokes for different folks I guess. The more "inspiring" he gets the more bored i get. I'm just not into pep rally type politics.

But even if I found him inspiring it wouldn't matter or affect my decision in any way. Inspiration cannot last when real policies are implemented. You can't inspire someone to act contrary to their perceived self interest. The coalition he's building by inspiring people is inherently unstable. Republicans, independents, and progressives do not share the same policy goals. If he follows a progressive path he will lose the republicans and independents and therefore the power to make the changes he supposes will come from his grassroots support. His best bet to maintain that support would be to chart a moderate course and convince the progressives to accept it. That might work but it would not be acceptable to me.

I disagree with his stance on meeting without preconditions. First, you seem to be implying there is a choice between meeting without preconditions or not talking at all. This is a false dichotomy. There can be negotiations and diplomacy without presidential meetings. That's what Hillary is suggesting. She suggest a presidential meeting may happen but only after agrees upon preconditions.

Now I want you to know that I'm not just repeating Hillary talking points. This is something I've considered over the years as events or my reading sparked contemplation of the issue. The first time I considered the issue was when Nixon opened the doors to China. I read the discussions at the time and the pros and cons of his plan. The last time I thought about it was about 3 years ago. Juan Cole, a middle east expert of a liberal bent who writes a blog, informed comment, discussed the issue of opening connections with Iran.

He thought it was stupid for the US to not talk with Iran. He also thought it a mistake for the president to meet without preconditions. For Americans, we may not think a meeting between two presidents is a very big deal and for us, that may be true. After all Iran is barely the size of one of our larger states. But to countries like Iran a meeting with the president of the United States is a huge propaganda coup. It strengthens the power of that regime and therefore weakens the influence of those elements within the country that are agitating for greater freedoms and democratic reforms.

His opinion, and I agree, was to follow the Nixon model. He suggested a seemingly meaningless sporting event, like a soccer match instead of the ping pong match we had with china. Lower level diplomats would begin preliminary discussions behind the scenes with their counterparts in Iran. Then a series of cultural exchanges and intellectual exchanges, conventions with professors from Iranian and American colleges. All the while diplomats are meeting behind the scenes continuing discussions. Only when adequate preconditions are met would there be a presidential meeting.

At the very least there must be something like a public meeting between the president and influential leaders of the opposition seeking democratic reforms. That would help to balance out the propaganda coup of the visit to the leaders of the country. You might ask why can't Obama visit and while there meet with the opposition. There are no civil liberties in Iran. They will simply be put under house arrest for the duration of the visit and Obama by agreeing without preconditions would now have to give up something to buy the meeting with the opposition. This is how negotiations work.

Quite frankly, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Obama will ever agree to a presidential meeting without preconditions. It was a rookie's mistake and I think he knows it. He was asked a question and since he hadn't thought the issue through deeply and he favors negotiation he answered sloppily. In the last debate I watched him explain his position and it seemed to me he was rationalizing to justify the previous answer. Obviously he couldn't admit he was mistaken. If he hasn't already figured it out when he puts his team together the more experienced foreign policy experts will explain it to him.

Its a small mistake, but significant. The religious oligarchs who run that country are no fools and they are paying attention. I have little doubt they will instruct their figure head, Ahmadinejad, to publicly request a meeting with the president soon after he's sworn in. If obama agrees they get a free victory, greater popularity among the common people of the country, and can more forcefully deal with those agitating for freedom. If Obama refuses they get a victory because they can now say look, told you the Americans were deceitful. Increased distrust of America within Iran increases their power. So Obama can neither refuse nor agree, he must delay. And he must negotiate and give up something before the visit even begins. What, I don't know, it depends on how much Iran wants the meeting. They have the upper hand. (ever play chess?)

Its pretty obvious to me that Hillary is much more knowledgeable about policy issues. I was for Edwards and I watched the debate with the 3 of them, pulling for my guy. I was shocked and disappointed to see both Barack and Hillary make poor John look like a dunce. But Hillary was brilliant. Maybe its because she was hanging around the White House watching all the stupid mistakes Bill made and talking about them with the experts as they were happening. Bill was as inexperienced in foreign policy as Obama. Maybe its just because she's had 14 more years than Obama to study. Many of those 14 more years without a child to raise. Who knows. I certainly don't buy the my husband's experience is my own line. But its pretty clear to me that the depth, breath, and sophistication of hillary's policy analysis exceeds Obama's.

Since many people responded to me (the first comment), I need to apologize for not editing. I had to go home and watch Houston beat LA. It was 88, not 86, and I stopped counting typos at four.

I don't dislike Obama; I just don't think he can win. I was an early supporter of Dukakis. I cheered for I thought he was a great candidate. My political leanings are more in line with Obama than Clinton. I think he's younger, sharper and has Roosevelt, Bryan, Kennedyesque charisma.

I do not, however, ke a lot of the Obama supporters. After eight years of Bush and promises of more of the same from McCain, how can you not support Clinton? If Obama wins the nomination, I'll be down at the local party headquarters calling people or giving rides like I did in 2000 and 2004, hoping desperately that my now on the record 57-43 prediction will be wrong. I don't understand why you won't do the same.

Clinton was not my first choice this year. I volunteered for Tsongas, before Clinton torpedoed him, but supported Clinton later.

I'm also skeptical of the "new" voters. I'd love to hear their comments. Explain why you didn't vote in 04. Explain why you thought four more years of Bush wouldn't be a disaster. If this is the first time you gotten excited about a candidate, then you've never tasted defeat like I have.

To Redstateleroy - I do not believe Bush won in 04 because of anything but fear. I think most average Americans were still very shaken by 9-11 and every time they started to think about taking the bastard out of office the Republicans would run more vote Bush or die rhetoric.

I think when it came down to it people voted the devil they knew as apposed to the Devil they didn't know (not to say Kerry was a devil, just that no one knew what would happen with him). Also I think this thread has at least helped me get over some of the bitterness I have been feeling. I still support Obama, but if Clinton wins I will do what I can to make sure she takes Novemeber.

Pavina - No problem, I feel this party needs some unity, which means that people on either side need to stop being made to feel like they are under siege. I am very happy with the civility shown here. I know tomorrow we will probably go back to eye gouging and skull cracking, but maybe a few people will understand each other more at least. Where they are coming from.

" I have never trusted politicians, not Bush, not Bill Clinton, not W. Bush., not Gore, or Kerry. So I never expected to see a politician that I felt I could trust on at least some level."

I'd like to respond to this as well. People trust Obama because he has never had to do the dirty dancing. He hasn't accomplished anything difficult. If he waited 8 more years either he'd have no significant accomplishments or he'd be soiled by the fights and compromises he'd have to make to get something important done. Politics is brutal and ugly. Its not us who make it that way. Its them! That's not gonna change. Look at what's happening to Obama now. This is what happened to Bill and Hillary for 8 years.