Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Responses to comments

I was responding to the comments on my previous post from Alex and decided it was getting too long and I'd better just post another topic. So here goes.

I agree that a Clinton-Obama ticket is more likely than the reverse, solely for the fact that 1. I don't think Obama would offer it (Hillary does less to make up for Obama than Obama does for Hillary.. for example, Barack's weakness appears to be experience, but John McCain would run on experience against Clinton too, because in comparison she has NONE) and 2. Hillary wouldn't take it.. I think it's all or nothing for her. I don't see her taking a back seat. The only reason why I can say that it's sliiiightly more likely for Obama to take the VP slot is because he's young and could say to himself that in 8 years he'd be poised to take the reigns. That said, the time is right for him. This year. It's his time.

Swing states that Obama won: Minnesota (unfortunately they talk of us as a swinger), Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado. Granted they are not Ohio, or Florida (which Hillary didn't really win) but the dems can win without those states. It can be done. What other swing states has she won? New Mexico (which McCain would win due to proximity), Arkansas, New Hampshire (again, they love McCain there). That's not many swing states. And as for winning the big states that the Dems need to win for the general election? California, New York. If those states go Republican I'll buy everyone who reads this post a nice four course dinner. The notion that winning those big states prove she'll carry them and Obama won't is ludicrous. Nonsense.

As for Obama staying away from the negative... You can criticize without being negative. At least by my definition, criticism is founded, negative attacks are not. There is substance to questioning what experience Hillary really does have (Obama's current line of attack which makes me very happy). There is no substance to saying in a low voice and dark room with sleeping children "Who do you want answering the phone?" No, that's a stupid leading question that has no substance. I think if you asked that to people without the theatrics people's responses would be split. So Obama can criticize, if its founded. The politics of new does not include baseless attacks. It can still include well reasoned arguments. Screaming at Ohioans saying "Shame on you Barack Obama" is theatrics. It's theater to her. Maybe that's why she seems more fake to me, because she seems like she's an actor.

To respond to Nick's comment - I think its a bit much to say "I hope Obama can rebound." It's not time for a rebound. Last night I may have said so too, but when the dust settled, Obama is fine. He is still up 96 delegates. She made up less than 10 last night. If they split every race from here on out (on average, obviously he'd win some and she'd probably win some) and the Super Delegates split from here on out he'd end with more overall, and enough for the nomination (that's without Florida or Michigan, and without the Super Delegates deciding it - notice how I said they would split the remaining Super Delegates, which would mean that overall Hillary would still be up 40 in Supers and would still lose the nomination, which means the Supers wouldn't have decided it). Retool, yes. Rethink strategy, some. Rebound, nah. He is in almost as good of shape as before.

Plus, if his margin holds in the Texas caucus (which counts for 1/3 of their delegates) he will win that third by 12, while Hillary won the primary by just 3. When you think about it, and do some simple math, she won 1/3 by 3 and 1/3 by 3, so 6 total, while Obama would win 1/3 by 12. 6-12 Obama. If that happens, how many pundits will be saying Obama won Texas? Watch for it. (Of course if his margin is erased this point is moot).

I am more hopeful than last night. Still cynical when it comes to the voting public (until people vote with their heads and not their fears, I'll reserve my right to doubts), but hopeful about Obama's chances. Besides, today he looks as strong - or stronger - than ever, smartly criticizing Hillary on points she is weak on.


Nick N. said...

I meant "rebound" in the sense that he needs to regain some momentum. I realize that he's still in good shape delegate-wise, but Hillary really put herself back on the map with the three victories last night. Obama needs to gain some steam going into Pennsylvania, because he's got an uphill battle there. The demographics in that state slant strongly toward Hillary.

Alex said...

South Dakota and Oregon will go way for Obama. He has plenty of time to gain ground in Pennsylvania. Texas Caucases still looking good. Obama's ahead in Indiana and North Carolina. Things are looking good.

Devin E said...

yeah i get what you mean about rebound that is true to an extent. and he does have an "uphill" battle in pennslyvania, but he had an uphill battle in ohio and texas too. on super tuesday (a month ago) he was down 20 in each state. he lost by 3 and like 9. he's down only 9 or so in PA, and has a month and a half. uphill, sort of, but he's got time, and time almost always has an obama skew.

Devin E said...

good points alex. (btw this is alex my brother, different from the other alex commenter, my good friend from bu)

he will take wyoming too. its a caucus. and mississippi no question.

Nick N. said...

There are too many Alexes on this planet.

Anonymous said...

You both need do more "What Grinds my gears" posts. The political analysis is golden but a nice comical insert every now and then would be much appreciated.


Otis Nixon

Alex E said...

"There are too many Alexes on this planet."

Says someone named Nick. Actually I agree and I have lost a lot of time writing "Ellsworth" on assignments because of multiple Alexes in those classes.

Also, Obama should do two things imo.
1. Hammer through the point that Hillary voted for the war and he spoke out against it. 2 candidates that both voted for a war which 70% of Americans oppose is not representative democracy in the slightest. And if Hillary is the nominee the GOP will tear her to pieces for "flip-flopping" on the war like they did with Kerry. Among other flip-flops (national health care comes to mind). The war is the biggest and most significant difference between them, and Obama has the better position.
2. Give a number of long, boring speeches to small crowds detailing his positions and planned policies. Somehow, the Hillary campaign has managed to make eloquent oration a bad thing, even with 7 years of embarrassing Bushisms making the world think we are morons. So Obama should tear down the portrait of him as someone who can say pretty things but will get into the oval office and breakdown once he realizes the president has to do things. He could accomplish this with these long speeches where he outlines exactly what he will do as president in great detail. He could also put up huge articles on his website to show he has substance. If Hillary can't accuse him of being all talk and no action, she has nothing on him.