I've come to the following conclusions, and I've never been wrong on the subject of presidential candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton is highly unlikely to win the general election if she is nominated.
2. If Barack Obama is nominated, his victory is guaranteed, and almost certainly by a landslide.
3. In the unlikely event of a Clinton presidency, it will be the result of a narrow victory with few coattails for the party and no political mandate.
4. Barack Obama is following the tactical examples of both FDR and Ronald Reagan by running a broad campaign with relatively few specifics, which will, as in both cases, allow him broad leeway to radically reverse the policies of his predecessor.
5. While both candidates are open to working on a bipartisan basis, Hillary would do so from a position of weakness and concede far too much, whereas Obama would approach negotiations with a historic mandate, magnetic personality, significant majorities in both houses of Congress, and untouchable credit with the media. He would concede little or nothing to Republicans while projecting the image of bipartisanship.
6. Aside from a handful of programs, the ultimate goals of an (again, highly unlikely) Clinton presidency would be a limited set of static, superficial reforms that engage little to no systemic change, and would be compromised even further than their initially modest aims. The outcome would be similar to the Carter administration - i.e., keen attention to detail unable to translate its agenda into working legislation or policy, exactly as occurred with her original White House experience in heading the healthcare task force.
7. The likelihood of her retaining office is exponentially lower than of obtaining it in the first place.
Ultimately, you have to judge candidates by who they are more than their positions on an issue checklist, because leaders (or at least good leaders) are people, not robots. It's their personalities that ultimately shape their leadership, not what they claim during campaigns. Ask yourself how Barack Obama - a one-term Senator with no other assets beyond his eloquence - has virtually erased Hillary Clinton's stratospheric lead most places in the country. What could the Democratic party do with someone like that in the White House? Hopefully you'll agree, the answer is "Far more than it can do with another machine politician."
Hillary loses ground every day because she never won it in the first place - it was hers by virtue of association with Bill Clinton, and it erodes consistently the more exposure people have to an alternative. Follow the trend lines for every month of the campaign, they're utterly consistent - if Super Tuesday were moved back two months, she wouldn't even be in the race by the time of the first vote. So just imagine she wins the nomination for lack of time to lose it - there'll be plenty of time for a Reaganesque figure like Romney to chip away at it.
The exact opposite is true of Obama - he gathers more votes and money from all over the country every day, inside and outside the party, and yet he's more liberal than Hillary according to their respective records and her own (rather revealing) accusations. He gains, and gains, and gains - a Terminator reprogrammed to help Democrats. So, it's simply not true that either Democrat can win - Hillary has little chance of becoming president, but Obama cannot be defeated by a Republican. But first Democrats have to prove our brains haven't melted in our skulls from years of groveling and mediocrity - we have to recognize the opportunity before us and seize it.
P.S.
As an afterthought, I would just like to note (with no small degree of amazement) that Barack Obama is smarter than I am - vastly smarter. And while I don't know if that means anything to either of you, that's a first for me outside of academia. As far as I can see, there hasn't been a starker choice of futures since 1932. Not 2000, and not 2004. He is as far above Hillary as she is above Bush. That's how it appears to me, and the picture doesn't change no matter what angle I view it from.
The amusing thing is that I can't really dispute any of that.
I line up slightly more with Clinton than I do with Obama. I like Obama a lot and will have no problem supporting, volunteering and voting for him.
However, I think there has been a bit of a swing with Hillary over the past few months. I think people are warming up to her and despite Obama picking up steam, Hillary still seems to be leading in all of the Super Tuesday states other than Georgia. She's even leading in Alabama currently which I find to be amazing.
We'll see what Super Tuesday holds. I think Hillary is electable. Especially with Obama as a running mate. I don't think it's as much as a slam dunk as Obama might be, but I think she can (and will be elected). At this stage of the game I like them both so much that I have to go to with the issues - and there I line up better with Clinton.
Grande alberino! Ringraziamenti per richiedere tempo scrivere qualcosa che sia realmente degno lettura. Trovo troppo spesso l'Info inutile e non qualcosa che sia realmente relativo. Ringraziamenti per i vostri duri lavori.
I wanted to say that it's great to know that somebody else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same information somewhere else. This was the first place that told me the answer. With thanks.
Several of the points related with this weblog post are generally beneficial nonetheless had me personally wanting to understand, did they critically imply that? One stage I've acquired to say is your writing experience are excellent and I will be returning back for any brand-new weblog publish you come up with, you may probably possess a brand-new supporter. I guide marked your weblog for reference.
Comments (13)
I've come to the following conclusions, and I've never been wrong on the subject of presidential candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton is highly unlikely to win the general election if she is nominated.
2. If Barack Obama is nominated, his victory is guaranteed, and almost certainly by a landslide.
3. In the unlikely event of a Clinton presidency, it will be the result of a narrow victory with few coattails for the party and no political mandate.
4. Barack Obama is following the tactical examples of both FDR and Ronald Reagan by running a broad campaign with relatively few specifics, which will, as in both cases, allow him broad leeway to radically reverse the policies of his predecessor.
5. While both candidates are open to working on a bipartisan basis, Hillary would do so from a position of weakness and concede far too much, whereas Obama would approach negotiations with a historic mandate, magnetic personality, significant majorities in both houses of Congress, and untouchable credit with the media. He would concede little or nothing to Republicans while projecting the image of bipartisanship.
6. Aside from a handful of programs, the ultimate goals of an (again, highly unlikely) Clinton presidency would be a limited set of static, superficial reforms that engage little to no systemic change, and would be compromised even further than their initially modest aims. The outcome would be similar to the Carter administration - i.e., keen attention to detail unable to translate its agenda into working legislation or policy, exactly as occurred with her original White House experience in heading the healthcare task force.
7. The likelihood of her retaining office is exponentially lower than of obtaining it in the first place.
Ultimately, you have to judge candidates by who they are more than their positions on an issue checklist, because leaders (or at least good leaders) are people, not robots. It's their personalities that ultimately shape their leadership, not what they claim during campaigns. Ask yourself how Barack Obama - a one-term Senator with no other assets beyond his eloquence - has virtually erased Hillary Clinton's stratospheric lead most places in the country. What could the Democratic party do with someone like that in the White House? Hopefully you'll agree, the answer is "Far more than it can do with another machine politician."
Hillary loses ground every day because she never won it in the first place - it was hers by virtue of association with Bill Clinton, and it erodes consistently the more exposure people have to an alternative. Follow the trend lines for every month of the campaign, they're utterly consistent - if Super Tuesday were moved back two months, she wouldn't even be in the race by the time of the first vote. So just imagine she wins the nomination for lack of time to lose it - there'll be plenty of time for a Reaganesque figure like Romney to chip away at it.
The exact opposite is true of Obama - he gathers more votes and money from all over the country every day, inside and outside the party, and yet he's more liberal than Hillary according to their respective records and her own (rather revealing) accusations. He gains, and gains, and gains - a Terminator reprogrammed to help Democrats. So, it's simply not true that either Democrat can win - Hillary has little chance of becoming president, but Obama cannot be defeated by a Republican. But first Democrats have to prove our brains haven't melted in our skulls from years of groveling and mediocrity - we have to recognize the opportunity before us and seize it.
P.S.
As an afterthought, I would just like to note (with no small degree of amazement) that Barack Obama is smarter than I am - vastly smarter. And while I don't know if that means anything to either of you, that's a first for me outside of academia. As far as I can see, there hasn't been a starker choice of futures since 1932. Not 2000, and not 2004. He is as far above Hillary as she is above Bush. That's how it appears to me, and the picture doesn't change no matter what angle I view it from.
Posted by Brian von Altmeyer III, Esq. | February 4, 2008 5:31 AM
Posted on February 4, 2008 05:31
-----The amusing thing is that I can't really dispute any of that.
I line up slightly more with Clinton than I do with Obama. I like Obama a lot and will have no problem supporting, volunteering and voting for him.
However, I think there has been a bit of a swing with Hillary over the past few months. I think people are warming up to her and despite Obama picking up steam, Hillary still seems to be leading in all of the Super Tuesday states other than Georgia. She's even leading in Alabama currently which I find to be amazing.
We'll see what Super Tuesday holds. I think Hillary is electable. Especially with Obama as a running mate. I don't think it's as much as a slam dunk as Obama might be, but I think she can (and will be elected). At this stage of the game I like them both so much that I have to go to with the issues - and there I line up better with Clinton.
Posted by Stephen | February 4, 2008 7:53 AM
Posted on February 4, 2008 07:53
-----Has anyone used this site before. It looks great and simple to use.
Posted by Ardelle Usie | March 16, 2010 6:46 PM
Posted on March 16, 2010 18:46
-----Cheers mate, do you happen to have a tweeter i can follow up? would be interested.adios
Posted by Guillermina Drozdowicz | October 9, 2010 5:40 PM
Posted on October 9, 2010 17:40
-----Grande alberino! Ringraziamenti per richiedere tempo scrivere qualcosa che sia realmente degno lettura. Trovo troppo spesso l'Info inutile e non qualcosa che sia realmente relativo. Ringraziamenti per i vostri duri lavori.
Posted by Pink Friday | November 21, 2010 6:47 AM
Posted on November 21, 2010 06:47
-----I wanted to say that it's great to know that somebody else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same information somewhere else. This was the first place that told me the answer. With thanks.
Posted by how to cure toenail fungus | November 23, 2010 9:23 AM
Posted on November 23, 2010 09:23
-----Mate. This website is cool. How did you make it look this good ?
Posted by Hockessin | November 24, 2010 12:33 AM
Posted on November 24, 2010 00:33
-----Thank you for your post, and i think it helps me a lot.
Posted by garden pest | November 24, 2010 5:02 AM
Posted on November 24, 2010 05:02
-----You made a few good points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found a good number of persons will agree with your blog.
Posted by make money at home | November 24, 2010 2:16 PM
Posted on November 24, 2010 14:16
-----Several of the points related with this weblog post are generally beneficial nonetheless had me personally wanting to understand, did they critically imply that? One stage I've acquired to say is your writing experience are excellent and I will be returning back for any brand-new weblog publish you come up with, you may probably possess a brand-new supporter. I guide marked your weblog for reference.
Posted by http://tourdelanostalgia.com/2010/09/acapulco-diamante | November 24, 2010 4:09 PM
Posted on November 24, 2010 16:09
-----Appreciation for yet another fantastic post. I've got a speech next monday, and I will be on the lookout for this type of information.
Posted by my site | November 24, 2010 4:46 PM
Posted on November 24, 2010 16:46
-----wonderful web theme and also good posting.thanks this is superb information and facts
Posted by webblog | November 26, 2010 6:42 PM
Posted on November 26, 2010 18:42
-----pussy sucked Obama is a whole lot worse
Posted by Cadeo | November 29, 2010 5:52 AM
Posted on November 29, 2010 05:52
-----