Sunday, January 27, 2008

Another reason to not want Obama...

Senator Edward Kennedy is going to endorse him as well, which is not surprising considering that Caroline Kennedy is now comparing Obama to her deceased father. I fail to see the comparison, JFK was more substance than hype. He inspired greatness but he did more than just talk the talk. The depressing reality is we are here on the verge of another presidential race that will most likely be Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama. It's hard to get excited about that, I feel as if I did when it was John Kerry as the candidate.

It will come down to who ends up being the Republican candidate and many who are being honest when it comes to electability state that Obama as the candidate will create a larger chance for a Republican win than Hillary. The Republicans are going to have a field day with Obama if he ends up the Democratic candidate and as we've seen before? They know how to spin and there are people out there that believe it, our last presidential election results should more than prove that.


mark skeldon said...


I don't see the similarities between Kerry and Obama, except maybe that you're not fan of either one.

I agree that Obama's past will be questioned. However I think that what happened to Kerry was largely his fault. The swift boat stuff was bunk, and he let it hang out there for a few weeks before addressing it, and even when he did, I don't think he showed the proper amount of anger with the charges. Hopefully all of the Democracts have learned from this and will be more proactive in shooting down damaging stories.

As to electability, I can see a way where Obama would be the most electable of the three dems. If he gets the nomination and the support of a united democratic party, I believe he can actually get young people and African - Americans out in larger numbers than ever before. That is what Kerry was supposed to do, but did not. However I think even though you don't like Obama, you'd have to agree that he will motivate said groups in a way that Kerry could not. I would be in the 18-34 demographic (although sadly not much longer) and Kerry did little for me, while I find Obama to be motivating. The polling numbers support this as well.

It will be a close race no matter who runs, and I'm curious as to what block of voters Edwards would either motivate to come out to vote that have not in the past, or who he would get to change their minds. One of those things would have to happen otherwise the Republicans would win again.

Lisa Renee said...

Mark, it's the electability factor, many of us knew that Kerry would face problems beyond just the swiftboating. It's the same thing with Obama and that's not part of the discussion. If you consider that Obama is supposed to be "new" most of those who are supporting him are part of the problem we have in the Democratic Party right now.

mark skeldon said...

I'm not sure what you mean by "new". I support him, and don't consider myself to be part of any problem. The Republicans have been good at getting behind whichever canditate their party endorses and that's one reason why they've won more presidential races lately. They have constitutional republicans, religous republicans, national security republicans etc..., but they realize that while they may not get the exact republican they want every election cycle the one they get agrees more with them than most democrats, so they come together and support the candidate that the party picks, and focus more on why their goals are better for the country than democrats.

It seems like you've just shrugged off all of the stuff I posted and said that I'm part of the problem and that's just the way it is.

I thought the blog was supposed to be for discussion. I'm actually looking for your opinion about why Obama is not electable and why Edwards is more electable. I'm sure that you have reasons why you think these things, and I'm just curious as to what they are? I'm not looking to argue every point with the you, just trying to see why you think what you do. Maybe you've posted some reasons in the past, but I just started reading this blog, and since my comments related to what you posted I think they're appropriate.

Lisa Renee said...

Mark, I'm sorry if you thought I was blowing your comments off, I'm not. To be honest I'm still in sick mode so I'm not anywhere close to my usual self in providing rational discussion and this post last night stemmed from the disappointment of knowing that a) the candidate I liked most would most likely not make it again and b) that the old school Democrats who have not made things better are part of the problem and if they endorsed Hillary? I'd be posting the exact same post, except it would read "Another reason to not want Hillary". someone who calls themself a liberal because of JFK, and who has spent hours and hours and hours reading his speeches, knowing his history, etc., comparing him to Obama doesn't work for me, just as it didn't work when John Kerry tried to. We really could use a JFK right now, problem is none of the top candidates right now are anywhere close to that.

One of the things about those of us who put our heart and soul into politics is there are moments of hurt, disappointment, excitement, etc. We get passionate in our disagreement then end up trying to pull together to elect someone that we might not have wanted. This blog for me is where that happens, since I try to keep things at Glass City more of an unbiased non-partisan role for myself. Here, I can be me, I can be frustrated, I can vent, and I'm probably wrong here more than there, but that's okay too.

Now, as to the electability, you raised some good points, however, you are basing this on the assumption that the young people will get out and vote, which is where Kerry failed and in living with four of that particular age group, Obama does not appeal to any of them. Nor has he appealed to any of their friends, only one of mine is a hard core political junkie like her mother, and she's more liberal than I am. She's supporting Hillary (which was a shocker).

It's the white moderate voter that wins a presidential election, that's how Bush won and it is going to be very hard for Obama to win that particular group because they are susceptible to the fear factor. I hope I'm wrong, but it worked before and I do not see huge numbers of people becoming more informed. Look what the Republican Party and their side groups did to Robin Weirauch, they used fear...and it worked. What will happen to Obama from a campaign standpoint will pale in comparison to what was done to Weirauch. The only way it will not work is if they do to it to an extreme and overkill it. The sad reality is most of white moderate America is barely ready to elect a woman as president, I don't think they are ready to elect a black president which is the whole next level of electability questions. You can't say you won't elect a black president if asked, because then people accuse you of being racist, but the ballot box is secret, and many people may not say it publicly but they are saying it privately...Race could unfortunately also be an issue in the electability factor.

Lisa Renee said...

I'd also have to add this makes it harder for Obama to state that Hillary is the "status quo" candidate when those like Kerry and Edwards endorse him. It could actually hurt him much more than it will help him with those moderate voters out there that really take issue with both of the Senators from Mass.

As a last moment fantasy, it could help Edwards, however, it seems that most people are buying into the hype that it's over for him and that it's now down to the two.

mark skeldon said...

Thanks Lisa,

I hope you feel better soon.

I agree that the country may not be ready to elect a black president, but I'm not sure of it. It's a chance that I think is worth taking if you believe he is the best candidate.

I really do see Obama being able to pull more young voters. Most of the thirtysomething people that I talk politics with support him. They may not be junkies, but I think most of the electorate are not junkies either, so he doesn't have to go after the junkie group in order to win.

I now see what you mean about being able to be more opinonated here. Kind of a blogers therapy.
I also understand your anger, as I felt a little of the same with Obama getting only 24 percent of the white vote in SC. This is an area where he'll need to do more work (like not being baited into racial arguements). My anger comes from whether white democrats are giving him a fair chance or not, especially when being compared to Hillary. I think he'll need to do better than that to beat Hillary.

Lisa Renee said...

I understand the anger, I feel the same way about Edwards not getting the type of support he should have to at least have this appear as voters have a selection.

I hope you are right about the young voters, in my interactions with many it does not seem as if large numbers are feeling motivated at this point.

Thanks on the feeling well, looks like it's turned into pneumonia...which is not fun.

Lisa Renee said...

Mark, if you have not seen this Boston Globe article, you might want to take a look at it. It outlines some of the concerns that I've heard mentioned.

mark skeldon said...

Thanks Lisa,

These are all things that I've considered. I would like to know more about his dealings with the slumlord.

I don't think that if I were him though I would hold a press conference and try to tell my side of the story. I think it would lead to more inquiry and statements being taken out of context. At this point I don't think it's hurting him that much, so he should leave it alone. I'd like to see more reporting on it though, now, if there is anything else to report, because I agree that if it's not done now it will be done by the republicans.

Not ever having a close race with a republican is not ideal, but certainly not something that can't be overcome if he surrounds himself with good people who have been in races like this before.

Finally, if you concede that Edwards doesn't have much of a chance now, what's the alternative.

Hillary arguably, faces just as big of a challenge getting elected.
She will motivate the republican base in a way that Obama will not. Most republicans don't like her, and even if they're not motivated to vote by McCain, they may be motivated by being able to vote against Hillary.

My support for Obama is not unconditional, if the slum lord story turns out to be legit, and I see something more than a bad judgment on working with someone, I may change my opinion. It's just that every election cycle stories like this surface and some are true, some have elements of truth, but are distorted, and some are outright lies. The Obama story seems to me to fall into the middle catergory, and I'm not ready to jump ship because of it.

I guess though one problem to me is running on fear of what the republicans might do. If we allow republicans to frame the way that we conduct our elections, then I think we're starting at a disadvantage.

For example last election cycle if you were for continuing the war in Iraq, you were staying the course, and if you were against it, you were cut and run, or pull out.

Staying the course on its own sounds strong, while cut and run or pulling out, sounds like your giving up. Maybe not to someone really paying attention, but to the average voter it frames the issue on the republicans terms.

The game is set up for them to win right now, and I think playing it on their terms perpetuates that.

Just a thought, but maybe this cycle Obama consistently uses the term "making good choices" when referring to the situation in Iraq. He says this over and over, and in that way it becomes part of the debate. Forcing people to see that the republicans (in my opinion) didn't make very good choices, in how the war was executed.

A little off the point, but part of what I like about Obama is that he seems like the candidate that wants to reframe some of these partison issues that Democrats have been on the losing side of the last two elections.

Lisa Renee said...

Mark, one of the few good things about our primary not being until March is I am not yet at that moment where I have to decide do I vote my conscience or vote politically.

I have thought about it though because in 2004 I was in the exact same position. I supported Dean, who dropped out before Ohio, then supported Edwards and I just could not bring myself to vote for Kerry, even though I did not want Bush either. It's clear however that protest voting for a third party candidate does not do anything to change the political process.

A lot could happen between now and March 4th, but at this point if I could not vote for Edwards, I'd probably select Clinton since I think she has a better chance of beating whoever the republican candidate will be. I think she and her campaign would be better able to deal with the type of campaigning the Republicans are going to hit the Democratic candidate with.

However, considering the latest news that John Edwards fundraising is actually increasing...maybe there is a groundswell of people who are starting to look at the bigger picture.

Obama's position on the war in Iraq is not one of his strong points, I think the best one he had was the change factor which now of course with all of the "status quo" candidates supporting him is going to be harder to sell. He can try to continue the unity message since people are really tired of the infighting but again, if his campaign continues to duke it out with Clinton, that message will not resonate either. It's going to be interesting to see what all three campaigns are going to do next.