Obama vs. Clinton: Electability isn't enough

It's hard to say who would make the best president, partly because we don't even agree on what a good president is. Jimmy Carter may have been the best person ever to be president, but many people consider him to have been the worst president until George Bush. Obama may not be the best person and he may not make the best president ever, but he has great potential. Hillary is a known quantity as in the formula: Hillary Clinton = John McCain = George Bush. Obama is an unknown quantity, a quantum leap, and therefore dangerous and exciting. To me it's not so much which candidate is electable, but is the electorate capable of electing the best president? Can we stop dragging our own best hope down into the mire? Can we dare to be inspired again? Can we say "no" to the bullys? Can we stop democratic devolution? Can we stop torture? Can we stop the war? Can we curb the greed? Can we save the world?

"If it's according to them?" "They'll stick us with someone who's for staying the course in Iraq and for attacking Iran but who couldn't care less about what happens to us here at home." "And if we decide?" "We elect a president who'll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "And then what sort of world?" "It'll be up to us."

First we need a winner. The only reason Obama is in the race at this point is because he attracted new voters but, he can't carry the base. The winner will be the person that will appeal to moderates, someone that is a known factor. The public has been exposed to two of Obama's associates and they don't like them. What happens when the republicans expose the rest of Obama's friends? He's toast. McBush will continue to move to the left, at the end of october he will sound like a democrat and the moderates will choose him, a known factor, rather than risk what might be lurking in Obama's closet. Clinton can win the known factor, the blue collars, the females, catholics, in other words the base. She can win without the new voters that Obama has attracted and she can better fulfill the changes that are needed because she knows the players and process.

Democrats, for some odd reason, have a penchant for putting themselves into Zeno’s "Paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles" in which Achilles never manages to overtake the tortoise despite this speed. However, to solve this paradox is easy: Don't talk to a tortoise or he will frame the race in such a way that you will inevitably lose. Electability has nothing to do with who can beat McCain the tortoise. Don't go there. Electability is a matter of the candidate running his or her own race sufficient to persuade the majority to vote for them. But if Democrats let the tortoise 'frame' the race to November 08, it doesn't matter who we chose--we lose.

I find the electability argument hillarious. Why? Because if you have been elected to office you are electable. That is just common sense. Both Obama and Hillary have been elected to the senate so therefore, must be electable. Now, let's move from this false argument to the real issues of who can move the country back on the right path and who can break the 35 year cycle of divisiveness and staleness and mediocrity. Who can energize and bring in new voters to the party and make it strong again and full of new ideas and creativity.

I'm interested in the intergity of an individual, not sex or race. I could no more vote for Hillary because I'm a woman 56 years of age, as I could vote for Obama because I'm black. I'm voting for Obama because I look at the decisons made by both: Iraq war, this gas tax holiday crap, her vote for Homeland Security, the stance on Iran, these are things I find important. And their vote or position on these issues are what I'm more concerned about, not Rev. Wright, or Bill Ayers, Right now in this country we are running simulation drills for emergencies, I remember having these same drill right before 9/11, I think this numbnut is about to bomb Iran and then usher in Marshall Law, and call off the election, making him a dictator, I find these things a reason for great concern. Additionally, this gas tax holiday reminds me of what Bush is doing now, he has given most American $300 -1200, which you will probably be spent on gas (which goes to oil companies) or you'll spend it a Wal-mart (which goes to China) so how in the hell does this help our country? It all a gimmick, that we fall for and believe they are trying to help us, but we fail to understand they are the ones who put us in the position to begin with. If Obama has the most delgates the most votes and the most states won, but the nomination is given to Hillary I will vote for Nadar, and about 60% of the blacks in this country will not vote for her either, they will vote for someone else, and right now they are being courted by the republicans, the other 40% won't vote at all, so Hillary can't win. I don't think progressives or independents will vote for her either.

I can't figure "Hil O'Ree" as president, to my mind she's all over the map in her positions but the main theme that I pick up is that she's in it for her own glory and the rest of the country can go to hell -- kinda like B#%h in drag. She says what she feels she need to say to gain attention -- and for all she's said about health care, her statement in February 2006 is still the one truest to her intention: "...at the END of my second term..."!!!!! In other words, it ain't gonna happen. OH!Bama, is another issue and I feel the better choice of the two. But I have flash backs to Jimmy Carter (who I admire), like Jimmy though, I wonder if he has what it takes? Alas and alack that the ONE who in my mind could bring about the REAL CHANGE and direction this country needs is no longer in the race. I just hope that whoever wins has the good sence to appoint John Edwards as Attorney General.

All this discussion about the two candidates that have been pre-approved by the forces of greed leaves me uninspired. We all need to stop following the corporate media's guidelines and begin to discuss the candidates that speak for we Americans. These two corporate shills do not. There are other candidates that you may or may not have heard of that have been marginalized because they do not believe politics should be business as usual. Why is there no discussion of them here? Day after day all we get in the corporate media and at BuzzFlash is Hillary and Obama as if there are no other candidates. I thought that this is supposed to be a progressive site. What is so progressive about limiting our discussion to these two candidates? Not discussing the other candidates and their progressive ideas is a recipe for more of the same. And dismissing these candidates with the tired corporate media designed mantras is called "not doing our homework". It was different years ago when all we had was corporate-owned media but today there is no excuse to elect the wrong person. Let's do our homework.

My great concern about Obama is that he may not be tough enough as far as crushing Republicans. I don't want to be united. I want my President to look in the mirror and say "what can I do today to destroy the Republican party." The right causes EVERY problem in America, and getting them out of the way will automatically improve American lives. I'm not sure Obabma can do it. We know Mrs. Bill Clinton WON'T do it.

If you think that the majority of working-class, (bitter Americans who are clinging to their guns and religion) are going to vote for a man who sat in a church for 20+ years listening to his spiritual advisor and mentor who preached "God Dam America", dream on. You better believe electability is important. Obama has lost it. If the Democrats chose him as the nominee...we will have 4 more years of the Grand Old Party.

Electability cannot be determined during the primary process and the 2008 Democratic primary is a case in point. Obama refrains from using the "kitchen sink" strategy against Hillary because he needs her voters in the fall. On the other hand, Hillary is living "one day at a time" and is doing all she can to win now, ignoring the repercussions for the fall. And all the while the Republican right-wing echo chamber and its allies in the mainstream corporate media want to help Hillary win the nomination precisely because they believe she is the less electable Democrat. So she recklessly drives up Obama's negatives, increasing her own negatives in the process, making him appear to be less electable, while Obama and the Republicans constrain themselves from full scale attacks on her, even though she appears to be much more vulnerable than Obama because of unsavory associations, and questionable statements, by both her and Bill, not to mention the endless allegations and smears sure to come regarding the Clintons' personal lives. And all that means Dean's comments really do not make much sense.

The Democrats will lose whatever they do. Too much was placed on selecting their one and only candidate Obama. All others were forced out except Clinton. Obama has too many corrupt and unethical friends, that put him in the senate. The Republicans will destroy him. His mentor for 20 years will come back and haunt him even more. The better president is not Obama or Clinton. Either one will say or do anything to get the office. As a former Democrat until recently, my vote will go for anyone but the Democrats. The Democrats have shown their true colors by smearing and ripping apart everyone but Obama! The Democrats have become more like Republicans everyday, so I at least would just as soon vote Republican. At least we know what we are getting!

We must have someone worth electing. Sorry, but I'm not into labels. Calling a person liberal or conservative doesn't make him so. And anyway, I'm liberal and conservative -- like most decent Americans. Can't say I have any neo in me however. In Neoliberal and Neoconservative I hear nothing good. The neo seems to stand, not for "new" but for "not."

I'm with the late Molly Ivins. Hillary isn't worth winning with. She would be a disaster. McCain would be a disaster too, but probably wouldn't last as long.

Obama would restore our credibility abroad, and I believe that he can help us become a UNITED nation again. He hasn't played the divisive politics of his opponents. He hasn't resorted to lies and cheating as Hillary has often. Thus, I think he's worth winning with.

I think you judge Dean's comment as a statement of fact, but when I read it - not knowing the full context of the whole statement - I think he's speaking only to what the public ends up voting on: their perceptions.

He best of all knew it was Kerry's perceived electability that knocked him out of the nomination - by his own party don't forget. It was Kerry's Veterans who flooded Iowa and knocked Dean College kids out- before the scream.
While the country may have preferred Kerry, the Democrats just didn't want Dean and didn't put their backing behind him - regardless of the scream. They did the same to Dean that Emanuel and Schumer have done for the previous 12 years while in charge of the party coffers and campaign support-keep out any exciting new candidates who might rock their gravy trains.
My own party chairs here in Arizona looked at Dean as a rogue and an "outsider".

Kerry won the country over, but the war and Kerry's rightfully serious demeanor at the time just confused rather than inspired voters and deflated the young anti-war Dean voters from even showing up, and Kerry just didn't quite make it. A side note, many states were sick of the DSCC and DCCC shoving candidates down our throats that we locals didn't want. I heard that echoed all over the country.
My own district in Northern Arizona, Rick Renzi country, was a perfect example.
We received zero support from Emanuel to elect a Democrat - but suddenly came within inches in 2006, because Dean was on the scene instead of Emanuel, and that too is being repeated all over the country.

We need both- it's a cart and horse scenario. We need someone to lead that the non-political voters want and feel comfortable and safe with, yet are excited and are willing to jump on the wagon and sacrifice a little of themselves either in time or money and show their support by getting to the damn polls and casting their votes.

Only with both capabilities will, (a) the Democratic party be restored by a new influx of progressive blood to boost this pathetically weak Congress with a high enough level of power and influence to overcome the Republican's blockade, and (b) the Democrats in Congress will finally be the A-team a strong President wants at his back to forge new paths - into territories where no man has gone before!

VIVA OBAMA/ -RICHARDSON?MCCASKILL?CLARKE(Richard)?SHINSIKE? 2008!

Nationalism is not terrorism. And an adversary is not an enemy.