Obama=McGovern?

[madanthonywayne]

Obama has the lead in the Democratic primary, but he can't seem to close the deal. Meanwhile, Hilary keeps winning more primaries, but not by enough to overtake Obama. An analysis of the election results from the recent Pennsylvania primary where Obama lost by ten points despite spending twice as much as Clinton shows a troubling weakness. Whereas he initially presented himself as a moderate who could unite the nation, the steady stream of information and comments from him and his supporters is revealing him for what he is. An extreme liberal, able to attract the votes mainly of minorities and the far left. In short, the McGovern coalition.
Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.

But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.

I wonder whether Obama's gaffes and his suspect associations--whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko--began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined

Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c

[Tiassa]

An extreme liberal ....

Further evidence of the rightward drift of American political discourse: Obama is an extreme liberal.

As to the McGovern proposition: maybe. I think it's kind of fun watching GOP advocates scramble to recall every Democratic Party. And beat their chests about Republican triumphs. Hell, McCain himself is reaching all the way back to when Republicans were liberals—radicals—at that, and even pretending that Reagan, a Hollywood elitist master of passive aggression, was a pillar of civilized and rational discourse.

There is always a possibility that the majority of participating voters will endorse another four years of lying, corruption, and warmongering. And in a Chinese proverbial sense, interesting times would certainly follow as we discover daily what that choice would cost us.

If those attributes that raise the name "America" to mythical greatness are too expensive for the people, they will certainly reject Obama.

[countezero]

I posted this elsewhere, but this link sort of echoes part of what Anthony's post states.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3803520.ece

I think Obama could be a tricky proposition in November. A few months ago, I bet an editor that McCain would beat Hillary by 8 or 9 points but lose to Obama by 4 or 5. I may have to recant that, though I can't undo the bet. Obama's failure to win big states that are important to the Dems doesn't bode well for him. Can he win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in the General? Maybe, not. What's telling is that he is losing to Clinton in states such as those, then wins — or is projected to win — places like North Carolina, which probably will go GOP in November.

[ElectricFetus]

What is an "extreme liberal"? Is it possible not to reduce people to implied insulating terms and actually talk about the policies?

[countezero]

When has the Democratic campaign ever been about policies?

[clusteringflux]

What is an "extreme liberal"? Is it possible not to reduce people to implied insulating terms and actually talk about the policies?

"If you refer to a domestic terrorist as "friendly", you may be an extreme liberal."

-Foxworthy (I think.)

[ElectricFetus]

When has the Democratic campaign ever been about policies?

lots of times, your just blinded by bias. All the candidates (on both sides) talk about policy, it just policies often bore people, now bickering that gets people all worked up, so that is most of what they say and all everyone really hears.

[ElectricFetus]

"If you refer to a domestic terrorist as "friendly", you may be an extreme liberal."-Foxworthy (I think.)

Who said they were "Friendly"? and why does it have to be group under "liberal"? I would think "extreme liberal" would be classified under Green party or "libertarian" or something.

[clusteringflux]

Who said they were "Friendly"? and why does it have to be group under "liberal"? I would think "extreme liberal" would be classified under Green party or "libertarian" or something.

That would've been an Obama campaign official. A claim that Obama, himself, did not deny when asked most recently by George Stephanopoulos on national TV.

[ElectricFetus]

That would've been an Obama campaign official. A claim that Obama, himself, did not deny when asked most recently by George Stephanopoulos on national TV.

I would love to see a quote.

[countezero]

lots of times, your just blinded by bias. All the candidates (on both sides) talk about policy, it just policies often bore people, now bickering that gets people all worked up, so that is most of what they say and all everyone really hears.

So you agree that non-substantive, policy-oriented issues are "most of what they say," but I am biased for making a quip about the lack of serious discussion in the Democratic race? Sure, OK.

Policy may come up in the debates, which I stopped watching months ago, but on the trail it rarely is discussed. It's all about the attack of the day, the bogus talking point of the day — and in Obama's case, "Hope" and "Change," sentiments that are never specifically articulated with policy.

As for Obama's extremity, consider his voting record, which is very much to the Left of American politics. Or his numerous associations.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0423ss.html

[spidergoat]

Obama's policies aren't that different from Clinton's. Far left my ass, why is he winning?

[countezero]

He is winning for a combination of reasons, most of which can't be quantified with stats and data. I mean, you have heard of Obaminia, right? People passing out at rallies, etc?

And yes, it's true that Obama's policy proposals don't differ all that much from Clinton's, but I don't think many would argue that Obama is further to the Left than Clinton. And some suspect his centrist drift of being electorally motivated. His voting record is what it is — and it's to the Left of Clinton's. So are his associations...

[ElectricFetus]

He is winning for a combination of reasons, most of which can't be quantified with stats and data. I mean, you have heard of Obaminia, right? People passing out at rallies, etc?

And yes, it's true that Obama's policy proposals don't differ all that much from Clinton's, but I don't think many would argue that Obama is further to the Left than Clinton. And some suspect his centrist drift of being electorally motivated. His voting record is what it is — and it's to the Left of Clinton's. So are his associations...

See the problem here is no one is defining how one is to the right or left, if you say he is to the left of clinton, how? exactly what policies and decisions and speeches he has made has made him "to the left of Clinton"?

[joepistole]

Republicans including Mad, seem to think hillary is the weaker canidate becuase of all of her admitted baggage. And rightly so.
So we have this odd teaming of the extreme right with the clintons...who would have though! If Obama wins, the Republicans will certianly loose. That is why Republicans, including Mad, are crossing the lines to vote for hillary in the primaries. That is why the Republicans are running nasty and untrue and missleading ads agains Obama. The ugliness has begun. The attempts to mislead the American electorate is on. Let's see if they win again and we get more of the same...which is what they want.

[madanthonywayne]

Who said they were "Friendly"? and why does it have to be group under "liberal"? I would think "extreme liberal" would be classified under Green party or "libertarian" or something.Green Party, fine. But a libertarian is a classical liberal, which is more like an extreme conservative than an extreme liberal. Take Ron Paul, you'll note he ran as a Republican although he was formerly a member of the libertarian party.

Furthermore, I agree with him on basically every issue except Iraq. I even think McCain should name Ron Paul as his VP.

[joepistole]

What is liberal any way? It has come to mean anything not main line Republican. Is that bad?

[madanthonywayne]

Republicans including Mad, seem to think hillary is the weaker canidate becuase of all of her admitted baggage. And rightly so.
So we have this odd teaming of the extreme right with the clintons...who would have though! If Obama wins, the Republicans will certianly loose. That is why Republicans, including Mad, are crossing the lines to vote for hillary in the primaries.
Initially, I did believe Hilary to be the weaker candidate. Now I'm not so sure. But the motivation behind crossing party lines is not to secure the nomination for either candidate, it is to prevent either of them from doing so. This way they keep fighting and beat the hell out of each other all the way to the convention. Once there, it may be 1968 all over again.

Meanwhile, the Republican nominee can sit there and appear the noble statesman. Not only that, the Democratic candidates are forced to waste money running ads against each other while McCain can run ads promoting himself for the general election.

[ashura]

Take Ron Paul, you'll note he ran as a Republican although he was formerly a member of the libertarian party.

Furthermore, I agree with him on basically every issue except Iraq. I even think McCain should name Ron Paul as his VP.

Just to clarify, Paul has been a Republican since the seventies. He only registered as libertarian for the '88 race.

Also, there is no way in hell McCain would choose Ron as veep. None. That would put a non-interventionist as second in command if number one drops, and McCain, along with the rest of his neo-conservative flock, has demonstrated a considerable fondness for intervention.

[synthesizer-patel]

Green Party, fine. But a libertarian is a classical liberal, which is more like an extreme conservative than an extreme liberal. Take Ron Paul, you'll note he ran as a Republican although he was formerly a member of the libertarian party.

Furthermore, I agree with him on basically every issue except Iraq. I even think McCain should name Ron Paul as his VP.

I have a bit of an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian streak in me so I did find some of the things he said quite intriguing - however as soon as the fatal words "faith based initiatives" spewed out of his gob I immediately wrote him off as yet another right wing religious wacko :yawn:

I wasn't too keen on his policy of reducing educational choice by offering education vouchers either


not that it matters really I'm not american so I couldn't vote either way

[LORD_VOLDEMORT]

Initially, I did believe Hilary to be the weaker candidate. Now I'm not so sure..

Hilary is a sneaky little bitch and the american people are not falling for it.Chris Matthews who i respect greatly for his versatile views said itr yesterday.Clinton is indeed playing the kitchen sink strategy because she knows as a black man Obama cannot pounce on her credibility as she does him,he risk his image being aligned with the angry black male stigma.This is why a top black adviser who was with the Clintons said today that the Clintons are playing cruel and playing race and turning off many people because there sneaky ways are becoming all to obvious.Its desperate for a win,its why more and more superdelegates slowly but surely swift there way to Obama.He loses Pennsylvania and since then Hilary has picked up only 1 superdelegate and Obama has picked up 3,he continues to snatch superdelegate numbers and is inching toward her quickly.Obama is all out more powerful,the media plays these games of controversy to attract people,controversy brings in big bucks.Hilary is wasting her time,she is weak at debate were she prefers the old cut you off,uncivilized strategy that most people today who want change are disgusted with.She catches feelings quickly and overexaggerates,she let ABC's Gibson and effanoupolous(whatever his name) pounce on her political brother about issues that the american people do not give a flying fuck about,she is a liar.She is all out weak,she is desperate.

[spidergoat]

This is America, sneaky and underhanded is the only way to win, it's not an election for the president of MENSA.

[madanthonywayne]

Also, there is no way in hell McCain would choose Ron as veep. None. That would put a non-interventionist as second in command if number one drops, and McCain, along with the rest of his neo-conservative flock, has demonstrated a considerable fondness for intervention.
I wouldn't consider Paul a likely choice, either. Hell, I doubt he would accept if offered the spot. But it would energize McCain's campaign and offer the chance to see Paul as president.

[clusteringflux]

(Hillary) is a liar.She is all out weak,she is desperate..

Everyone knows this but it's always great to hear it from democrats. ;)

[ElectricFetus]

Hilary is a sneaky little bitch and the american people are not falling for it.Chris Matthews who i respect greatly for his versatile views said itr yesterday.Clinton is indeed playing the kitchen sink strategy because she knows as a black man Obama cannot pounce on her credibility as she does him,he risk his image being aligned with the angry black male stigma.This is why a top black adviser who was with the Clintons said today that the Clintons are playing cruel and playing race and turning off many people because there sneaky ways are becoming all to obvious.Its desperate for a win,its why more and more superdelegates slowly but surely swift there way to Obama.He loses Pennsylvania and since then Hilary has picked up only 1 superdelegate and Obama has picked up 3,he continues to snatch superdelegate numbers and is inching toward her quickly.Obama is all out more powerful,the media plays these games of controversy to attract people,controversy brings in big bucks.Hilary is wasting her time,she is weak at debate were she prefers the old cut you off,uncivilized strategy that most people today who want change are disgusted with.She catches feelings quickly and overexaggerates,she let ABC's Gibson and effanoupolous(whatever his name) pounce on her political brother about issues that the american people do not give a flying fuck about,she is a liar.She is all out weak,she is desperate.

Little? she a midget? I think the evidence has it that nearly half off the voters have fallen for her "lies". I would not say she is weak at debate, very strong, especially when the debate moderators are in her favor. Desperate, that probably does not even come close to describing her state, Hillary at this point would likely sell her soul, her families souls, and give the devil a blowjob on top of all that if it would give her the presidency. But weak she is not, she is very, even scarily, powerful.

[ashura]

Andrew Sullivan's blog had an interesting post that suggests a possible reason why Clinton is doing as well as she is despite some of her failings:

Almost all working class folks have about the same knowledge of politics as you and I have about cars. Which is to say, on one level, quite a lot, but it's not what they devote their lives to understanding. So, as we do in the case of cars, they turn to other mechanisms, such as brand loyalty, to make their decisions.

What they know about Clinton is that she was a part of the Administration that spent eight years talking about issues that were important to them and presiding over an era of peace and prosperity. So what they are going on here is familiarity and positive experiences, the same thing that I do when I buy only Japanese cars. This is a perfectly reasonable way of going about doing things even if I might make a mistake and select a very high quality Japanese car (Hillary in this analogy) instead of a surprisingly better this year in spite of lack of experience American car (Obama). They are not are suckers who are fooled by Hillary's Crown Royal shot (perhaps if it had been JD) or whether Obama's "bitter" comment represents the totality of his views any more than I am a sucker who is fooled (or influenced at all) by television advertisements for cars.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/the-working-cla.html

That makes a lot of sense to me.

[iceaura]

On the one hand, if everyone says that they themselves are for something but those other bad guys will never allow it (Obama's race), that thing is in trouble.

On the other, Obama does pretty well at picking up actual votes. People not only say they will vote for him, they do. Hillary loses big and wins small - even the home town advantage and last minute gun nut panic (think those guys will be voting for Hillary in November ? ) didn't get her over 10% in the center of her base, down from 26% or so just a couple of months ago in a place with ideal demographics and first class local organization on her side.
They are not are suckers who are fooled by Hillary's Crown Royal shot (perhaps if it had been JD) or whether Obama's "bitter" comment represents the totality of his views any more than I am a sucker who is fooled (or influenced at all) by television advertisements for cars. And the guy who tracks customer preference and its relationship to advertising just smiles and nods.

There are people who are immune to advertising. But you can't win an election with those numbers - not for dogcatcher.

[Cazzo]

Obama's policies aren't that different from Clinton's. Far left my ass, why is he winning?

Don't you mean why is he barely winning ?

And why is it the radical left-wing element of the democratic party has a hard-on for Obama, while the moderates are for Hillary ?
As far as I know, Clinton doesn't have domestic anti-American terrorist friends like Obama, and an anti-American pastor. Like I said, the reason this is a "non-issue" with Obama followers is because they empathise with anti-Americanism. They are radical-left.

[Cazzo]

Hilary is a sneaky little bitch

LOL :)
Poor Hillary.

[pjdude1219]

Don't you mean why is he barely winning ?

And why is it the radical left-wing element of the democratic party has a hard-on for Obama, while the moderates are for Hillary ?
As far as I know, Clinton doesn't have domestic anti-American terrorist friends like Obama, and an anti-American pastor. Like I said, the reason this is a "non-issue" with Obama followers is because they empathise with anti-Americanism. They are radical-left.

what are you smoking obama is the one getting the moderates.

[countezero]

See the problem here is no one is defining how one is to the right or left, if you say he is to the left of clinton, how? exactly what policies and decisions and speeches he has made has made him "to the left of Clinton"?

I'm not going to get into the pointless debate, taken up often by Iceaura, about what Left and Right is. The definitions tend to be slippery and relative. However, in this case, I don't think the task is all that hard.

Obama's voting record, which was posted by Anthony somewhere a few weeks back, is much more Leftist than Hillary's. Take two easy ones. Hillary voted for the War. Obama said he would vote against it. Hillary voted to classify the Iranian Security Services a terrorist group. Obama, if I'm not mistaken, voted against it. Siding with the Hawks is siding with people more closely aligned to the right than to the Left.

And Hillary and her husband both seem more to the Right on trade issues than Obama.

And then there's the whole thing about how Obama hangs out with Leftists Clinton would never seriously rub shoulders with.

[LORD_VOLDEMORT]

Little? she a midget? I think the evidence has it that nearly half off the voters have fallen for her "lies". I would not say she is weak at debate, very strong, especially when the debate moderators are in her favor. Desperate, that probably does not even come close to describing her state, Hillary at this point would likely sell her soul, her families souls, and give the devil a blowjob on top of all that if it would give her the presidency. But weak she is not, she is very, even scarily, powerful.

Billary is very powerful at debate compared to others.But the fact is the Clintons have met there match and Obama irritates them because he is like steel,he does not budge,at debate,he does not lash out,he has a natural connection to the young generation and people who want change,Hilary nor Bill are matches for Obama at a civilized debate without Clinton trading insults with her opponent.If Obama unleashes his darkside (everyone has a boiling point were you lash off)he controls it much.Its usually the humble individuals that can be the most powerful,cruelest,nastiest fuckers to mess with if provoked.Obama totally decimates Hilarys entire insults toward him during his speeches to people in such a professional tone that is humorous,laughable and usually dead set on the facts.He has a psychological understanding of the Old establishment style of debate politics and has mastered not falling for there foolishness,though they are persistent as fuck at trying to break him.Obama is just way to powerful,his firm fanbase is not budging at all and he is steady recruiting many more as the weeks go by.

[LORD_VOLDEMORT]

LOL :)
Poor Hillary.

I feel sorry for the poor thing.I dont think she is racist at all,however she has turned me totally off using this race thing as a reason to attack Obama with insults being totally aware due to his race he places his reputation in jeopardy by totally biting her head off with that aggressive black male anger in defense.

[madanthonywayne]

what are you smoking obama is the one getting the moderates.Did you read the link in the OP? He got moderates at first, but since the statements by his pastor, his wife, and himself have come out. Since his association with domestic terrorists, since his financial connections to a shady guy in Chicago has become known.................he's lost the moderates.
In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Obama has lost support among men, women, White voters, “Independents”, and “Moderates”, while Clinton has gained support in all those categories.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28). http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_sour_apples_to_apples_part_two
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2438280143_53058d6103_o.png

[Cazzo]

Did you read the link in the OP? He got moderates at first, but since the statements by his pastor, his wife, and himself have come out. Since his association with domestic terrorists, since his financial connections to a shady guy in Chicago has become known.................he's lost the moderates.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2438280143_53058d6103_o.png

I'll give Obama credit though, he's very charismatic, and we need a charismatic president. He's personable too.
Too bad we couldn't put Hillary's brain inside Barack's head. :)

Oh, I'm going to get a lot of flack for that one................:eek:

[LORD_VOLDEMORT]

I'll give Obama credit though, he's very charismatic, and we need a charismatic president. He's personable too.
Too bad we couldn't put Hillary's brain inside Barack's head. :)

Oh, I'm going to get a lot of flack for that one................:eek:

Yes the hell you are for acting as if we need the brains of a sneaky little bitch in Obama,causing him to lie about ducking bullets outside airports(OH MY GOD Billary cracks me up when i see that video clip of that speech)Just trying to cheat his little way to being the Democratic nominee.:rolleyes:

[nirakar]

Don't you mean why is he barely winning ?

And why is it the radical left-wing element of the democratic party has a hard-on for Obama, while the moderates are for Hillary ?
As far as I know, Clinton doesn't have domestic anti-American terrorist friends like Obama, and an anti-American pastor. Like I said, the reason this is a "non-issue" with Obama followers is because they empathise with anti-Americanism. They are radical-left.

The left wing elements tend to be more educated and under 65 years old. The left wing elements are less likely to give Clinton credit for the prosperity during the tech boom because they are more educated and understand the economy a little better than the less educated do. The more educated left wing elements don't fall for cheap political tricks like making an issue out of not wearing a flag pin.

The Clinton supporters are party loyalists who were never dissatisfied with Bill Clinton while the left wing elements were dissatisfied with Bill Clinton. 75 year olds don't tend to be uncomfortable with change and Obama is from a world that they don't know and can't relate to.

Obama is the only one of the three remaining candidates upon whom the left can project their hopes. Obama will probably disappoint the left after he becomes president. The educated left knows better than to hope for anything good from Clinton or McCain.

[nirakar]

An extreme liberal, able to attract the votes mainly of minorities and the far left. In short, the McGovern coalition.

There are some differences between now and 1972 (the first election that I really remember). Many of the young Baby-Boomers were behaving in ways that were freaking out most of the people older than thirty. All those strange long haired guys.
Older people wanted to stop change as passionately as half of the young wanted to make change happen. Purple hair, tattoos and nose rings don't freak out today's old people as much as the much tamer stuff the Baby-Boomers were doing freaked out the older people of 1972.

Having the civil rights for blacks forced upon the unwilling southern whites by the national government was a very big event that drove the white South into the party of (that evil) Lincoln for the first time.

Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to get America out of Vietnam with dignity and honor and if we did not re-elect him we would screw that plan up. Damn those older folks were gullible and those of them that still survive and vote still tend to be gullible. The secret plan to the degree that there was a secret plan was to Nuke North Vietnam. Really there was no secret plan because Nixon knew in 1972 that he probably would not be nuking North Vietnam. All Americans would have loved to get out of Vietnam with dignity and honor. We/USA left Vietnam with no dignity and no honor. We don't have a situation like that now. We don't have a popular incumbent president. Nixon was popular with most Americans. Nixon was the stability in a crazy time.

McGovern was not as smooth and eloquent as Obama is. Nixon is the first president that I really remember. Of the Seven presidents that I sort of know Reagan had the most personal charm and was the best communicator. Too bad that Reagan was an idiot and wrong about almost everything because he was likable and a great salesman. Obama will probably be the second most charming and second best communicator of the last eight presidents if he does become president.

[madanthonywayne]

There are some differences between now and 1972 (the first election that I really remember). Many of the young Baby-Boomers were behaving in ways that were freaking out most of the people older than thirty. All those strange long haired guys.
Older people wanted to stop change as passionately as half of the young wanted to make change happen. Purple hair, tattoos and nose rings don't freak out today's old people as much as the much tamer stuff the Baby-Boomers were doing freaked out the older people of 1972.

Having the civil rights for blacks forced upon the unwilling southern whites by the national government was a very big event that drove the white South into the party of (that evil) Lincoln for the first time.

Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to get America out of Vietnam with dignity and honor and if we did not re-elect him we would screw that plan up. Damn those older folks were gullible and those of them that still survive and vote still tend to be gullible. The secret plan to the degree that there was a secret plan was to Nuke North Vietnam. Really there was no secret plan because Nixon knew in 1972 that he probably would not be nuking North Vietnam. All Americans would have loved to get out of Vietnam with dignity and honor. We/USA left Vietnam with no dignity and no honor. We don't have a situation like that now. We don't have a popular incumbent president. Nixon was popular with most Americans. Nixon was the stability in a crazy time.

McGovern was not as smooth and eloquent as Obama is. Nixon is the first president that I really remember. Of the Seven presidents that I sort of know Reagan had the most personal charm and was the best communicator. Too bad that Reagan was an idiot and wrong about almost everything because he was likable and a great salesman. Obama will probably be the second most charming and second best communicator of the last eight presidents if he does become president.
I fully acknowledge the differences you mention. Obama is a wild card. He could go down like McGovern or sweep like Reagan. Lately, I'm leading towards the former. Being in Indiana, I'm now hearing a shitload of his ads and his recommendations are idiotic.

Hold hearings, penalize oil companies. Yeah, that'll increase the supply of oil and decrease prices. Raise capital gains tax, raise lots of other taxes. Great idea with an economy on the brink of a depression already reeling from sky high energy prices.

Meanwhile there's a constant drib of crap coming out about his various advisors/supporters from Hamas fund raisers to Syrian apologists to domestic terrorists. Not to mention the esteemed Rev Wright. At some point, the people you associate with begin to reflect badly upon you.

[iceaura]

Too bad we couldn't put Hillary's brain inside Barack's head.

Oh, I'm going to get a lot of flack for that one............... The other way around might work a lot better.

Obama might be one of the few politicians around who's actually smarter than the Clintons. He's certainly run a better planned and organized campaign, for almost two years now. Clinton has, if you've noticed, picked up a few pointers from his tactics recently - right down to plagiarizing the "yes we can" chant - to go with the smear stuff borrowed from Reagan's Heirs.

Obama has a chance to be McGovern, true - but if Clinton runs against McCain the way she has against Obama she's going to be lucky to lose by only the current head/head poll margins, essentially unchanged for a year now.

[countezero]

You really think Obama has run a good campaign? I mean, he is undoubtedly a great campaigner, much in the way Bill was, but I look at Obama's success and tend to view it as a lightning strike of sorts. There's this perfect storm out there that he has benefited from. And nobody, not even Obama could have factored in the mania that surrounds, or, as some would say, propels his popularity.

[iceaura]

You really think Obama has run a good campaign? His assessment of his electoral strengths and weaknesses on a national scale, his allocation of resources and efforts to areas of high payoff, his accurate identification and effective exploitation of those areas, and his handling of unexpected setbacks and reactions to events, has been superior to anyone else's.

Lazlo on MSNBC (Russert) has been comparing some projection sheet he allegedly swiped from Obama's strategy guys with the primary results as they come in - it's been prescient.

And none of it's been cheap - no attack ads, no underhanded machine muscle. He's been walking a tightrope for two years now - he enjoys none of the slack we've seen granted to Hillary even, let alone the gentle coddling of the codger McCain - and has yet to fall.

Maybe it's just been a mediocre campaign, on some kind of absolute scale, but it's head and shoulders above anything we've seen in the US since the '92 Clinton.

[countezero]

I agree it's impressive, but one has to consider the field, which by and large hasn't been, and the "Obamania," which again, he has no control over and could not have foreseen, unless he is a bigger egoist than is apparent.

[Syzygys]

An excellent analysis of the comparison between two Democrata campaigns.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8666/

"In any case, if Clinton chooses to press the issue, there is a real possibility of a nasty and divisive credentials fight at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, just as there was at the 1972 Democratic convention in Miami, thereby making a Democratic victory in the general election far less likely."