Home / Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

All along I’ve said that Hillary Clinton will have a much better shot in the general election than Barack Obama, and I’m surprised by the number of people who claim to disagree with me. I’ve read some opinions that indicate people think race is easier to overcome as an “issue” than gender, but I don’t think Obama’s problem is that he’s biracial (or even that he has an Arabic middle name). For instance, if Colin Powell were running for president I’d say he might have a shot. It’s Obama’s politics that are going to be difficult to sell to the general public when the competition expands beyond average Democrats and extreme-left-leaning Democrats.

I asked two registered Republicans who they think will be the easiest candidate for McCain to beat, and they both said Obama. I know that doesn’t constitute a study (though it often suffices for the sake of Internet squabbles), but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Still, my reasons for thinking Clinton has a better chance against McCain aren’t anecdotal in nature. Obama doesn’t have any ammunition with which to spin his progressive ideas into something that will look more similar to McCain’s. Politics is a game of appealing to the masses – and Clinton is going to be much better positioned to pull that off in the end.

Clinton was a big part of her husband’s administration. A variety of women might have had Bill’s you-know-what, but by all White House accounts Hillary had his ear when it came to policy issues. And Bill Clinton played a large role in two very conservative pieces of legislation: NAFTA and Welfare-to-Work or, as I like to call it, “The War on the Children of Impoverished Single Women.” When competing against McCain, the Clinton campaign will play up her role in this process in an attempt to appeal to more moderate and conservative Democrat and independent voters. They are only playing it down right now while she’s trying to appear “leftier than thou” against Obama.

Another advantage she’ll have over Obama in the general election is that she voted to go to war initially. Remember, for all the Americans who are wondering when we’re ever going to discover an exit strategy now, the majority were highly in favor of the war in the wake of 9/11. Not that I think that was a good choice on her part, but she is in a much better position to portray herself as mainstream, practical, and experienced than Obama is.

I know it’s disappointing to Obama supporters and to people who have bumper stickers that say both “U.S. Out of Iraq” and “Free Tibet” (and lack the ability to see the irony therein), but the fact is the majority of Americans are not in favor of socialist policies modeled after those in Canada and Europe. There’s a reason the majority of labor unions have endorsed Clinton. Even those liberal voters who feel that if the CEO of their company can make $85 billion this year, surely the company should be able to afford to pay its workers a fair wage with good benefits, are generally opposed to collectivism. When Clinton stops trying to act like she’s a hundred miles left of the far left to compete with Obama, she’ll go back to being about a foot left of center right along with the majority of the rest of the Democrats, a number of independents, and even a few good Republicans.

And here’s where all my left-leaning idealistic friends (i.e. those who are nicer than me) say, “See! That’s why we hate her! She just says anything to win!”

I’m sorry to say this to those who don’t get it, but she’s a politician – that’s her job. And I know this news will make some weep, but Obama just says anything he’s told to say in hopes of winning, too. As does McCain. Sadly, in political elections we have no choice but to vote for a politician – unless you want to write in Frank Zappa. You may not like Clinton’s politics, but don’t tell me she isn’t good at her job.

Clinton is a smart cookie; she’s been in the business of politics a long time and if she wins the nomination she’ll give McCain a run for his money that Obama just won’t be able to do. Remember, once Obama’s out, Clinton will get most of his supporters. (Maybe even Oprah!) She’ll get the yellow dog Democrats. About ninety percent of black voters tend to vote for the Democratic candidate whether it’s a white man, a black man, a man who isn’t black enough or what have you – they’ll probably vote for a woman, too.

Furthermore, I don’t think there’s a danger that the most progressive segment of the Democratic party, which has been supporting Obama, is going to decide that if they can’t have him they’ll go ahead and take McCain instead. On the other hand, if Obama wins the nomination, there’s a good chance a significant portion of the moderate Democrats (and independents), who are supporting Clinton would vote for McCain. McCain is pretty moderate himself, as far as Republicans go – you might recall he’s not conservative enough to please James Dobson.

In the end, McCain might take it regardless, but if we nominate Obama we might as well just give it away. Clinton will make the Republicans work for the win at least. I wouldn’t mind President Obama, but he’s definitely not our best chance to take the White House.

Powered by

About Staci Schoff

  • Conservative

    I’m a former Giulani supporter who is now unfortunately forced to vote for McCain (I originally was going to sit out the election).

    I completely agree that Obama will do a lot worse among the crucial independents than Hilary. Obama has the most liberal voting record in congress and is far to extreme. Hilary is much tougher on terrorism. All of Hilary’s negative have been hashed out years ago so they will have lesser impact. The media frenzy has built Obama into this saintly flawless figure which is incredibly easy to knock down.

    IMO McCain has no chance vs a dream ticket of Hilary president Obama vice, some chance vs Hilary, and a huge change and will probably win vs Obama.

  • MB

    I have to agree with Staci. Thank you for such an eloquent defense of Senator Clinton. What concerns me the most about Obama is that 60% of Ombama supporters say they would support Hillary in the fall but only 50% of Hillary voters said they would vote for Obama over McCain. My own Mother In Law, who has been a republican since birth, switched to Democrat just so she could vote for Hillary because she feels McCain is to old and unqualified.

    In addition, we have two states with large populations who are NOT being counted in what is a very tight race. Then, you have to consider that the states where they caucus are the states where Hillary is weakest.

    Caucuses are the least Democratic manner of voting I have ever heard of. When speaking to a Hillary supporter to reminder her of the upcoming caucus, a friend of mine was told that this supporter could not come to the caucus because she is handicap. Caucuses do not allow for absentee ballots and thus eliminate anyone homebound, who works at a time the caucus is being held, or who simply finds that it is not possible to leave the house at the designated time – ie-single mother with no money for a babysitter.

  • Good article Staci, but I’m still with Obama. I think Americans prefer straight talkers and Clinton will never be that. She exudes phoniness. I nearly gagged when I saw her down a shot in an effort to be “just folks.” Please. I prefer her as a boring policy wonk. She has been far too deliberate about strategy in this election. Certainly the other candidates are too, but she is the worst of them and it seems like she sold her soul to win this thing.

  • Dan

    dee, glad I was able to help you out. For further assistance you should know that it is Alquida, not the US who is killing Iraqi’s. They usually aren’t bashful about taking credit when they send in retarded women as suicide bombers. It’s Iraqi’s (our allies) who kill alquida. We help them of course.

    Tax cuts saved us from the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, and were partly responsible for the robust economy that we’ve enjoyed for most of Bush’s two terms.

    I’m happy to be part of the “20%” (so you say) who enjoy prosperity.

  • dee

    Dan, Thanks for the Al Queda, not Quida, reminder buddy… who let me remind you that had no connection to Iraq and were not in Iraq before our experienced leaders in Washington got us into a never ending, money draining retarded unneeded war… Iraq, an ally? holy s*it this has got to be the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard… What we have installed in Iraq is a Pro Iranian government… I hope that was the goal, it probably was one of the reasons Bushco used, they use every other possible justification.. and know your facts, al queda is a small small percentage of what we are fighting in Iraq, we are fighting and killing mostly Iraqis, not Al Quida as you like to call them.. Hillary is not the best chance, she has NO chance of winning… take my word… McCain can bring the country together is the 2nd dumbest statement ever… the guy is old and crazy, supports more war (YEAH MORE WAR), tax cuts for rich people who do not need them, and free trade deals that have hurt many many American families… no one is rallying around those policies except maybe you and the 20% or so that still support the worst president ever… the stupidity in this country just amazes me

  • Zedd


    I agree with most of what you said.

    Yes being among the elite in any area is a good thing. She addressed it as if it was a bad thing so I just turned her statement around to make her see that making the word “elite” evil is silly.

    I don’t however agree that the plain folks are that much more different then those who hold authority in our time. Everyone’s got the Internet and well, there are multitudes of George Bushes out there taking up space in the corner offices of metropolises all over the country. Don’t know what’s wrong with you Boomers but you messed up some how. The “greed is good” and intellect is for Liberals thing really screwed things up. Now you finally have the country to run and look at it.

  • Dan

    dee, we were at war with Iraq for about 2 weeks. Mission accomplished. We’re now allied with Iraq in a war against a common enemy, alquida. Remember them?

    Now that Obama has been exposed as a lying racist fanatic, Hillary is the best chance Democrats have.

    Although if left leaning Democrats were truthful about bringing the country together, (which they’re not} McCain would be the man. No polarized partisans like him.

  • dee

    “Dee thank you for providing proof that there people other than the intellectually elite who support Obama. If he wins the nomination that will be a stereotype we’ll need to quickly overcome.”

    Wait a minute… if I am not the intellectual elite as you allege, then I have to be supporting Hillary right??? B*tchface has the support of all the dumbies in this county, I cannot be unintellectual if I support Obama based on your logic…

    And seriously, what are you smoking when you claim that the war issue will actual help Hillary against McCain? This is the most rediculous assertion I have ever heard. Somehow Hillary’s dumb vote to get us into a war with a country that never attacked us is going to help her with her party. That’s just nonsense. I see why you support her. Hillary needs to die.

    Arch – suck it

  • The way I see it happening is through sweeping legislation limiting CEO salaries or tying them to employee salaries in some semi-arbitrary way.

    For example I’m a CEO in the same sense that you are. I’ve got 4 part time employees. If my salary were limited based on what they earn it might well be set so low that I wouldn’t be able to stay in business.

    Or what if salary were limited to a set percentage of gross? My salary is the single largest expense of my company because I do almost all of the work.

    My point is that the same formulae which would work to restrict CEO salary for the top 500 or 3000 companies would be disastrous when applied to the 500,000 small companies which are below that level.

    That concern aside, the truth is that in the vast majority of cases CEO compensation is entirely reasonable given the size of the company and the number of workers the company has. There’s no need for government regulation. CEOs are answerable to their boards and stockholders and if they aren’t complaining then the government has no business stepping in.

    All talk about the ‘relationship’ between CEO compensation and worker salary is meaningless because that relationship doesn’t exist. You could cut the CEO salary to 0 and the workers would not get paid a single cent more because the two types of salary are set based on entirely different criteria. The CEO is paid based on what the board thinks his performance is worth. The worker’s salary is set entirely based on the prevailing market wages for that sort of job.

    The minute you see someone talking about a relationship between CEO salaries and worker salaries you know they aren’t qualified to make any kind of decision on how those salaries are set and especially not to impose wages through government fiat.


  • Cindy D


    I am not so sure that measures taken against the highest paid publicly traded corporations will have fallout on people making 100k.

    By definition, I am a CEO. I own a C corporation and have two employees. I make about 62k per year. I don’t see how making those at the highest levels of compensation accountable to their shareholders is going to hurt me.

    How do you see this fallout happening?

  • I’d like to see your references for that figure. Here is what I find:

    The median total compensation for all CEOs was $2.079 million; for CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the median was $8.847 million.

    Based on The Corporate Library’s study, which included companies in the Russell 3000 index.

    My source is the BLSs data which includes all companies not just the top 3000 publicly traded companies, so it averages in the relatively low salaries of a huge number of CEOs from hundreds of thousands of small companies. Plus the figure I quoted was for salary, not total compensation. Very different things. Even your Russell 3000 companies are a tiny fraction of the businesses in the US which remains a primarily entrepreneurial society.

    My fear about CEO salary fearmongering is that measures taken against the highest paid CEOs will have unintended fallout for the small business owners earning 6-figures and too small to lobby to protect themselves.


  • Dave, obviously I just picked an exaggerated number since it had nothing to do with the point I was making — the point is that labor unions exist to ensure corporations compensate their workers adequately for the services they provide. I was only making the point that union members don’t tend to support socialism.

    Bliffle, I see your point. But how exactly do you suppose the U.S. government might force China to leave Tibet? By sanctions that would starve the Chinese people, as in Cuba? Or by bombing China? Either it’s ok for the U.S. military to impose its will on others around the globe or it isn’t.

    You can’t have it both ways. Some people (including some Iraqis) feel that the U.S. liberated Iraq from a vile dictator. It’s complicated, yes, and it obviously can’t be worked out in an online comment section.

  • bliffle

    Sometimes Archie and Al sound so alike I can’t tell them apart. Are you two bunkmates?

  • bliffle

    oops. That was Archie with the childish language.

  • bliffle

    “U.S. Out of Iraq” and “Free Tibet” are not contradictory premises at all: war and occupation are not the solution for problems in Iraq or Tibet. In fact, both premises are encompassed by “Occupiers out of Iraq and Tibet”.

    Just a small point, but it illustrates the shallow and illogical thinking of some BC participants, accented by Mssr. Bargers violent and abusive rant, above.

  • Cindy D


    I’d like to see your references for that figure. Here is what I find:

    The median total compensation for all CEOs was $2.079 million; for CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the median was $8.847 million.

    Based on The Corporate Library’s study, which included companies in the Russell 3000 index.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Dee thank you for providing proof that there people other than the intellectually elite who support Obama.”

    No doubt Staci.

    Obama has the hippy, hooka smoking college kid vote locked.

    He’s got the support of Hammass, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc… and all of their sympathizers in this nation.

    He’s got the Nation of Islam vote locked up.

    He’s got the white liberal steeped in guilt for slavery vote locked up.

    He’s got the “look at me I’m a white liberal voting for a black man….am I not the most open minded person you’ve met” vote locked up.

    Yet despite all of this support he will still never get anywhere near the white house.

    Fuck Barack Hussein Obama and fuck all of his supporters.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor. Arch, that kind of remark is not in keeping with the spirit of brotherly love we wish to foster at BC, so knock it off!]

  • “actually BC doesn’t prefer a lot of outside linking in articles, so I didn’t do it.”

    If you double check with the political editors, I don’t think they will have a problem with you linking to a few sites that support your points. They do.

    But then again I don’t see how they prove your points in the future. They are snapshots of the moment and fluid. None of the respondents are locked into their positions, so just because a Democrat says right now they will vote McCain doesn’t guarantee they will in November. If McCain listened to polls seven months ago, would he still be running?

    I don’t see how pointing out the flaws in your arguments makes one a Obama supporter, but you are wrong about that as well.

  • And in that average, are you including the CEO and owner of Uncle Walt’s Pizza Shack, who barely covers his operating costs and misses mortgage payments with unhealthy frequency?

    C’m on, Dave. You know that when people talk about fat cat CEOs, that’s not who they mean.

    Oh, and you can stop being Mayor Barry now. You remember how that whole Vox Populi thing went…

  • Bjork

    The country needs Hillary.


    To continue the Washington game of sweeping problems under the rug and pandering to the uneducated.

    Elect Hillary (or McCain) and they will continue to perpetuate the games politicians play with our lives and money.

    Clinton’s (and McCain’s) proposal to suspend the tax on gasoline for the summer months when use is highest is a stupid idea at best. It’s surprising that anyone with intelligence would fall for it.

    They are dishing out the same old crap to fool the people.

    It’s pure gimmick.

    The gas-tax proposal would be doing what the Bush Administration has done since 2001 — offer ineffective solutions, disguise problems, hide them or delay the consequences.

    You can bet the oil companies would not freeze gas prices so the cost per gallon would continue to go up. The 18.4 cent tax totals about $30 for the average consumer for the entire summer. Big Deal!

    Those proposing the gas-tax suspension are showing ignorance of the sources of high prices. In 2002 the price of oil was $26 a barrel. Now it’s well over $100. Why? Could it be the war in the Middle East which McCain wants to expand and which Hillary voted to allow Bush to start?

    Anyone with intelligence can see that Barack Obama is right about not backing the gas tax suspension. We need “change” — not the same old crap that Washington likes to dish out.

    It’s past time for change in Washington.

  • CEO’s make 85 billion a year now? I had no idea.

    The average CEO in the US actually makes $90K a year. That’s thousand, not billion.

    And in those few cases where CEOs make billions, if their salary were divided among their workers it would add only pennies to their weekly pay.


  • El Bicho,

    I may or may not be lazy, but actually BC doesn’t prefer a lot of outside linking in articles, so I didn’t do it.

    What I was pointing to at RCP is that it shows Clinton beating Obama by a greater margin.

    What I was pointing to on Gallup was a poll showing that 28% of Clinton’s supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

    As I wrote in the first place, I know that the majority of Americans do not support the war now. However, the majority of Americans DID support the war when Clinton voted for it. It will be a non-issue between Clinton and McCain – or to Clinton’s advantage because she will be able to present a view more in line with the general public (Obama opposed initially but approved off and on later when it suited him, and McCain still approves). Between Obama and McCain it won’t be the only issue that matters – and McCain will get the 27% who DON’T think the war was a mistake right off the top.

    Ralph Nader can’t even get support among the people who voted for him in 2000 (myself included) so I doubt anyone is shaking in fear for what he might do. Nobody is interested in HIS “shenanigans” anymore, frankly.

    I’m not exactly sure what your point or problem is, but if it’s that you think Obama is some kind of a saint compared to Clinton or McCain, try reading what Ralph Nader’s running mate has to say about his voting record and his ablility to talk out both sides of his mouth — you can find it on the CounterPunch website titled The Obama Craze by Matt Gonzalez.

    You might want to get a handkerchief first.

  • Here in Indiana, we are getting mailers from Barack and Hillary pretty nearly every day. Barack’s are bigger and have pretty pictures of His Awesomeness.

    Today, however, Hillary sent us a nice flyer about an actual issue – Barack’s record on guns. Not like the NRA would endorse Hillary, but she is credibly running to the right of him on this issue. I’m guessing that there were similar mailings in PA. We’ve got Kentucky and West Virginia coming up.

    Yup, us bitter hillbillies are clinging to our guns. Do no underestimate the importance of gun issues in these particular primaries -and then in the general election.

  • Just so I have this straight, you are too lazy to offer any proof of your assertions and expect others to do it for you? All right, even though the value of polls at six months out is no guarantee as the primaries have already shown.

    At RCP, you only want us to paying attention to the polls that has Hillary beating McCain and not the ones where Obama beats McCain. Is that right?

    The current numbers at Gallup have both Hillary and Obama with statistical errors of tying, so I don’t see how that gives one candidate more of an edge.

    btw, Gallup had this: “The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds 63% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point.”

    so your pro-Hillary point “Another advantage she’ll have over Obama in the general election is that she voted to go to war initially” is proven false by the numbers.

    “about the same number of people who voted for Ralph Nader — big deal.”

    You must not be up on your recent history. The numbers Ralph got in 2000 were a big deal, and he will be more appealing to many than he was in 2004 if Hilary gets the nomination through perceived shenanigans.

  • Dan, you’re right that a lot of people just “don’t like” Clinton — but I’ll be truly sad for her if the media find one more thing with which to beat her up. Still, if they do, I know she won’t whine about it, so I won’t whine on her behalf.

    As for Bill’s comments — he didn’t inhale either — I agree that it’s hypocritical, but I don’t know that it will make a lot of difference at the polls.

  • Clavos

    The majority of people are not intellectually elite

    That is elitist.

    Yes, it is, but it’s also true.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong in being elitist.

    Also, these politicians have not been high brow and super intellectual in making their pleas

    They can’t be. They’ll turn off (and bore) most of the voters.

    In the words of one of our great philosophers, H. L. Mencken:

    “No one in this world, so far as I know… has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”

    Notes on journalism, Chicago Tribune
    [September 19, 1926]

  • Thanks Al, I suppose if I can’t get anyone else to agree with me a rightwing nutjob will do. 😉

    Sadly, the Democrats have not historically been averse to election year suicide…

    What good are principles if you can’t gain the power to implement them?

  • Baronius, I can’t really argue that point based on anything factual, but I’m not convinced that black people would stay home and let McCain win in protest. I suppose there’s a chance you could be right, but I wouldn’t bet my last dollar on it.

  • As a rightwing nutjob, I’m hoping for Hillary to get the nomination, primarily on grounds that I’d much rather actually have her for president if the country turns out bound and determined to elect a damned Democrat. Look – Ann Coulter, Al Barger and Richard Melon Sciafe can’t ALL be wrong.

    But Machiavellian Republicans at this point are totally rooting for Obama. Just imagine POW McCain vs the friend of the Weather Underground. Oh. My. God. Barack on the top of the ticket might be enough to turn the whole frickin’ Congress back over to the Republicans – and NO sensible person wants to see that.

    I have to think that Hillary’s going to pull out the nomination, cause I find it hard to believe that the Democrat Party is that suicidal. Hear me now, believe me later: If the Democrats nominate Obama, by fall they’ll be wishing they’d nominated George McGovern again.

  • Umm, Zedd, by definition the majority of people can’t be elite. Sorry — I didn’t write the dictionary, so don’t blame me.

    I have never suggested that Obama lacks intelligence or character or that his ideas are bad. In fact, I like him. I have only suggested that he doesn’t have as good of a chance at being elected president of the United States as Hillary. You don’t have to defend Obama to me. He’s a good smart dude — I get it. Thanks.

  • Zedd

    The majority of people are not intellectually elite

    That is elitist.

    Also, these politicians have not been high brow and super intellectual in making their pleas. I find it regrettable that people overstate their intellect because of their experiences.

    What makes Obama smart is not his ability to speak in prose pontificate on the social maladjustments in a manner that sends the mind spinning, it is that he can get to the heart of the matter rather quickly and simply. That is intelligence. The fact that he was caught articulating the strategy by which to reach a population that would under normal circumstances be considered impossible for him to reach and he was able to look BEYOND race and hit the nail on the head, they are frustrated and feel hopeless (bitter if you will) and that madame is the truth. That is intelligent. Talking down to and about people signifies a “missing it”.

    Hillary basically said, “you are beneath Obama and he is talking over you. It takes me to explain that to you”. Now some who may be intellectually deficient missed that and agreed. Many others said “no we get what he is saying and and he is right”.

    However simply because you have taken time to read up on the issues or you may have gone to college or have had certain experiences, it doesn’t give you the right to make such broad sweeping comments about the American populous. Especially after having written this article. However, I will assume that you are young and forgive.

  • Baronius

    “Furthermore, the people who might stay home rather than vote for Clinton are about the same number of people who voted for Ralph Nader — big deal.”

    Staci, normally I’d agree. But it wouldn’t just be ultra-progressives who would stay home if Clinton gets the nomination. At this point, if Clinton finagles the nomination, it would alienate a large chunk of the party, including the black base which votes 90% Democratic.

  • Dan Miller


    And now former President Clinton is quoted as having claimed in West Virginia,

    “The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” he said. “In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it.” (emphasis added)

    I wonder how ironic that statement, particularly the part about “different rules” will be viewed, by voters and super delegates as well.


  • Dan Miller


    I am, obviously, concerned that you may be correct. As things now stand, I am convinced neither that the DNC will have the intestinal fortitude and lack of judgment to give Senator Clinton the nomination, nor that even those members of the electorate who like her now would take kindly to her following the general election campaign.

    There is, more than likely, a whole giant manure pile in her her Augean stable which Senator Obama has not tried to muck out and put on public display. Somehow, I doubt that Senator McCain would have comparable reservations. Even if most of the muck is imaginary, which I somehow doubt, there are enough conspiracy theorists around to mold it into horrors sufficiently credible to convince many voters that there must be something there, even if they don’t know quite what.

    There is just something about her.

    I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
    The reasons why I cannot tell.
    But this one thing I know
    and know full well,
    I do not like thee Dr. Fell

    I can’t off hand remember the name of author the little poem, but it seems to fit Senator Clinton quite well.

    There have been many times when I have thought that something unfortunate would happen, and have been very happy to have time prove me wrong. This time, I shall be happy to see a general election campaign between Senators Obama and McCain. Perhaps others are also tired of the constant and predictable spins, and agree that we deserve, and are capable of having, something even just a tiny bit better.


  • El Bicho — Hopefully this won’t kill me, but one can never be sure – you can refer both to realclearpolitics.com or gallup.com for information that backs up my assertion both that Clinton will fare better against McCain AND that a significant number of Clinton supporters will take McCain over Obama.

    Furthermore, the people who might stay home rather than vote for Clinton are about the same number of people who voted for Ralph Nader — big deal. And won’t it be such a grand statement and good for progressive causes everywhere if they are so so so very good that they stay home and help McCain get elected. Grow up.

  • Considering the intellectually challenged nature of your post you really aren’t one to cast aspersions at commentors. There are so many problems with this article it’s hard to know where to start. We’ll skip over the fact that like Clinton all you have is conjecture, such as how he will do in the general election. Would it killed you to have included one poll from anywhere to back you positions?

    “You may not like Clinton’s politics, but don’t tell me she isn’t good at her job.”

    Yes, Clinton is such a great politician that she was a lock to win the nomination the day after Kerry lost, yet she can’t beat a one-term Senator. She’s losing so don’t tell me she is good at her job. btw, how is lying about what happened in Kosovo being good at her job?

    “Another advantage she’ll have over Obama in the general election is that she voted to go to war initially.”

    When have you heard Clinton trumpet that accomplishment in a speech? If you think that’s going to be a positive, you might want to talk to more people than two registered Republicans.

    The progressives aren’t em masse going to vote for McCain, but I wouldn’t expect them all to show up at the polls.

  • Baronius, that’s a good point. I think the DNC will ultimately play to win — so we’ll see how it goes.

  • Zedd, it’s only sort of a good thing. 😉

    The majority of people are not intellectually elite and they won’t vote for someone they can’t relate to (in most cases).

    Really though, I was just pointing out the intellectually challenged nature of one particular comment on this thread.

  • Dan, I appreciate your comments and I don’t disagree with you entirely. I appreciate people like Obama and people who climb trees to prevent them from being cut down and such, but the presidency is going to go to the person who wins over the majority of the people — that’s what democracy is. It’s better to have someone in there who is on your side, even if they’re limited in terms of the extreme to which they can push your position.

    This is a U.S. presidential election — it’s not the Bolshevik revolution. Obama isn’t going to be able “change” a whole hell of a lot even if he gets elected (and I don’t think he will). We need someone with sense and experience who understands the art of negotiation and compromise.

    It IS a little “sad,” but that’s the best we’ve got to hope for in a democratic nation.

  • Zedd

    intellectually elite = a good thing

    Is it me????

  • Baronius

    Staci, isn’t the election over? Unless Clinton can earn more assigned delegates than Obama, her party would have to overthrow the results of the caususes and primaries. They *can*, because of the superdelegates, but do you think they would or should?

    That’s a pretty ugly road to go down. Let’s face it, there are people who don’t think Bush’s presidency is legitimate despite the Florida Secretary of State’s verification, the Electoral College vote, and the Supreme Court’s decisions. A Clinton nomination would reek of back-room cigar smoke. While I don’t think Obama’s race affects his electability, if he were turned away by the party’s officials, it would be seen in racial terms. The damage to the party would be incalculable.

  • Dee thank you for providing proof that there people other than the intellectually elite who support Obama. If he wins the nomination that will be a stereotype we’ll need to quickly overcome.

  • people who have bumper stickers that say both “U.S. Out of Iraq” and “Free Tibet” (and lack the ability to see the irony therein)

    Outstanding and significant observation, Miss Staci – particularly for someone from the left side of the aisle. Thank you.

  • Dan Miller


    As I understand your article, Senator Clinton should get the Democrat nomination because she is better adept at appealing to the masses, has a better chance of spinning her ideas to look more similar to McCain’s, and when she stops trying to act like she’s a hundred miles left of the far left . . . she’ll go back to being about a foot left of center. . . . And, of course, she’s a politician – that’s her job. You also state that Senator Clinton was a big part of her husband’s team when he worked so very hard for NAFTA, which she now claims (at least before labor audiences) to oppose and says that she never really supported.

    I get your point, but it is a sad one indeed.

    Senator Clinton has, with the help of former President Clinton, created a very disturbing sense that she is not trustworthy, and that she will lie (no matter how stupid and easily refuted the lie may be, see, e.g., her Bosnia Moment), and do whatever else seems expedient to get back into the White House, regardless of her actual substantive views. The sense that that’s the way she is, in addition to being widely held, is consistent with my personal observations.

    The picture which you paint is hardly an appealing one, and it certainly is not one which would encourage me to wish her well. True, all politicians do these things. It is also true that a big dish of ice cream with lots of yummy chocolate sauce tastes good and is fattening. I hope that few would vote for her because of the extreme politics to which she stoops, just as I hope that few would strive to become obese. Modest quantities of politics as usual (or even worse than usual) may be palatable. Too much is too much.

    Senators Obama and McCain have their own problems; to me, either would be far preferable to Senator Clinton as the President of our country.


  • Mooja

    CEO’s make 85 billion a year now? I had no idea.

  • bliffle

    There are several weak premises in this argument, one of which is the supposed residual pro-war sentiment of many US citizens. I think the pro-war sentiment is decreasing every day, altho many formerly pro-war people may publicly support the war, nevertheless in the privacy of the voting booth they will express their antipathy to the war. That’s the way it was with Vietnam.

    And Hillary bears an extra burden on this issue because she not only voted for the war she didn’t perform due diligence before the vote. She was careless and reckless and, at least seemingly, chose the most politically efficacious vote.

  • Andrew McDerry

    Good article. I am definitely voting for Clinton. She is the one who is promosing the most comprehensive health care plan out there people.

    It might be nice if some people supporting Obama would stop their ferocious diatribes just because the Messiah can feel the ground shaking beneath his feet. Obama is a good man but I just don’t think he is president material.

    No offense, but I would seriously consider voting for McCain in a match up with Obama. McCain is already not a far-right nut job like Bush, and if he can propose a good program, I might just prefer that over a stale “yes we can” and Mr. JR “the Bombastic” Wrighteous…

    Gees, how did he stay in that church for 20 years and got married to a woman who said on national TV that she had never been proud of this country?? There is no way I am voting for Obama – no way…

  • Cindy D

    “Remember, for all the Americans who are wondering when we’re ever going to discover an exit strategy now, the majority were highly in favor of the war in the wake of 9/11.”

    I think these same American’s are likely to hold their representatives to a higher standard (as insiders) than they hold themselves. After all, the average American relied on what they heard and saw. Their representatives being insiders in the political process would be expected to guide them and protect their interests (based on their greater knowledge), I would think.

    Time will tell if people are disillusioned enough with the “mainstream” and with ideas that are “similar to McCain’s” to want something better.

    I don’t have very much faith in people to overcome the lifetime of indoctrination we have all experienced that leads to voting for media-elected front-runners. But, at some point people will have had enough and maybe we’ll have a change.

    Maybe there are enough of us now that are opposed to the direction we are heading.

    I’m voting for Obama.

  • dee

    Just want to point out a couple laughable things in this rather dull piece of writing… the title I found funny, Democrats are already choosing who they want, and so far they have chosen Barack… the only way Hillary gets chosen, is in an undemocratic way, with the party as*holes, excuse me, party elders, GIVING it to her via the superdelegates, to try to claim that she will be chosen if she is given the nomination is quite laughable… as far as who has the better chance of winning I think you are way off… no one with negatives as high as Hillary has or can win the general… its that simple… she got us into Iraq also, I can’t vote for her on that issue alone… you try to claim that that will be a positive for her… give me a break… Hillary was a big part of her husband’s administration?? what the f*ck is that crap? You sound just like the Hildebeast herself! There is absolutely no evidence of her doing anything in her husbands administration except to push for the passage of NAFTA that ultimately kills American jobs and hurts Americans… hardly the type of “experience” that we need or that I would cite as a positive… Don’t just claim something, back it up with evidence… Also, because two republicans you talked to think that Obama will be easier to beat then that should influence us to pick Hil? What kind of logic is this? Who cares what registered republicans think, they are dummies… I will note vote for Hillary if she gets the nod through shady means, but Barack will definately get my vote… I’m an independent. Go away Hillary, no more of these dynasty families… Save the country, vote for Obama… can’t wait to see Barack debate old angry man McCain..

  • McClum

    Unfortunately Frank Zappa died several years ago leaving an empty space of creativity unfilled.

    In tough times like this we need to go in a new direction and elect leaders who are willing to risk their political carriers by opening our minds to the possibilities of a future that other politicians are not willing to talk about for fear of losing an election.

    Only one candidate is taking the risk of being thoughtful and honest with us. Only one candidate respects us enough to not shy away from being as honest and thoughtful as he can.

    I’m ready for a change in the tone and the quality of our national discourse. I’m ready for a leader that thinks on a grand scale. Someone who does not try to buy my vote with stupid little tax cut ideas.

    Let’s vote like adults so we can get our country back on track. Think people, where do you want our country to be in 20 or 50 years?

    Barack Obama is the best candidate to lead us in a new direction.