Running Primaries Thread

Regarding who wants the presidency most, I think a case can be made for both Hillary and Obama. Where they differ is in how they're perceived. Some voters appear to reject Hillary partly because she carries with her a sense of entitlement. She reminds me of the Shooter McGavin character from Happy Gilmore, and we know how that one ended.

 

Hillary eats pieces of shit for breakfast?

 

BTW, now that Obama has carried white men in Virginia, how big a moron does Ed Rendell look like?

 

He's an Eagles fan. Enough said.

Finally got my John Edwards '08 Gear (hat, bumper stickers) - yeehaw!
I think Hillary needs a slumpbuster about now. I don't think demographics matter much about now. People don't care whether they're voting for a white woman or a black man, they don't like the idea for the most part, that they're voting for a loser.

HRC can say some states matter more than others, but if she wins 10 states and Obama takes the other 40, I don't care what the states are, she's not going to get the nomination. Frankly, her lack of competitiveness is really disturbing.

Obama is a freak of nature though. It's not just his rhetorical skills either. CNN interviewed the 21-year-old superdelegate tonight and he showed pictures of himself with Hillary, Obama and Chelsea and Obama and Chelsea were smiling, Hillary looked like she was ready to hit the door. She needs to loosen up.
Contrast that with Obama's speech tonight when he talked about Republicans who were supporting him, and he's clearly enjoying himself.

 

I could kiss you on the mouth for that, Dan.

But I won't.

 

Respectfully disagree with your friend . . . have seen few in modern times who have wanted it more than HRC. She's plotted her path for years . . . cleverly sidestepped '04 because of the obvious inherent difficulties of taking out an incumbent, no matter how incompetent . . . figuring that after 8 years of W, '08 would be a walk in the park for whomever captured the Dem nom.

Given the probable state of the economy this fall, she figures to be right . . . about THAT part . . .

 

To me, the biggest difference is that he's got a great angle, while hers is just all over the place.

you know how sometimes, you think you have a great story. you do a ton of interviews, get some great stuff, compelling anecdotes, the whole bit. But you sit down to write and realize you've reported in about seven different directions... Then, when you try to tie it all together, all that great stuff comes out a little mashed up. That's Hillary.

Then other times, you've got a decent story, but the angle is sharp and clear right from the start. Every fact you gather supports your angle. The message is sharp and everything ties together neatly. Even if the stuff you get isn't as juicy, the article is focused. That's Obama.

Everything for him comes back to the ``yes we can, hope'' stuff and CHANGE. Combined with his unbelievable speaking skills, and it's a winner.

For Hillary, the applause lines are like, ``And we will end the unfunded mandate of no child left behind'' and ``and we will create green jobs, the jobs of the future''

It's not that her ideas aren't good. It's not even that she's a bad speaker. She's fine. Above average actually, which in most years, even with an unfocused message, would be fine. But up against a rockstar orator, with a clean message, she runs into trouble.

The thing i worry about now is that by November, Obama's going to have to get some new lines. That ``yes we can'' stuff is already getting a little old. And his rallies are sounding a little cultish for my taste.

The good news is, he's a good writer, and he obviously has a lot of input on his speeches. And, the better news is, McCain is not a great speaker, and does not have a way with words. Remember the part where he flat out told people in Michigan that their jobs were never coming back. Yikes!

If March 4th was next week, I'd say Hillary still had a chance. But three weeks is a long time, so I really think he's going to win now, as long as he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth --no more stupid comments on Pakistan, OK? -- or as long as Al Gore or Edwards doesn't endorse her.

As for who wants it more: I don't think that's relevant at all. Do you know how hard these people have campaigned? For over a year now, they've been smiling and kissing babies and clapping at rallies and sleeping four hours a night. They both want it. Fred Thompson did it for three weeks and bailed. Not everyone can hack it.

If Obama looks like he enjoys it more, that's probably because he's winning. And, because for most of the time, she's been the one out in front taking all the bullets.

 

Whoever mentioned above that HRC got herself wrong-footed by the Obama phenomenon gets the overnight gold star.

 

I just hope Hillary doesn't use the Alamo analogy when campaigning in Texas.
Myself? I'm going to have a shot of whiskey every time I hear a TV pinhead use it and likely misuse it.

 

A great US victor....no, wait.
ME NO ALAMO!

 

Ragu -- I am far from a big donor to Dem causes, but I've been to a number of larger events over the past 4 years, often as a seat filler for someone else or where an event has undersold. I have gotten at least 10 calls to attend separate $2k a head events for Hil in the past week. She is hurting for cash.