Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
It's Gotta Be Hillary
Tonight, I spoke on the phone with some close friends that I will let identify themselves in the comments. We all agreed that Obama's vice presidential pick has to be Hillary Clinton. The more I talked with each of them, the more certain I have become.
The timing is what has me nearly certain they are going to pick Senator Clinton. If they were going to pick someone else, it would have had to have happened earlier in the week. There needs to be time for the nomination to sink in before the convention. You can't have all this build up and then text me that the nominee is some less than eventful pick like Evan Bayh. Everything I have ever read about how to maximize media coverage says that you put big news out Tuesday or Wednesday. Waiting until Thursday or Friday tells me that the Obama campaign knows they are going to be able to drop a media bomb regardless of when the news hits. Picking Hillary would generate that kind of attention and give a real bump going into the convention.
Senator Clinton brings millions of primary voters and more importantly a team of skilled surrogates and minions of energized volunteers to help turnaround slipping numbers in key states. Take Ohio for example. McCain has been gaining ground and it is frustrating. Nominating Clinton would get all our fractured Democrat surrogates and the Ohio Democratic Party on the same page and behind the ticket. There is more division after the primary than I expected there would be within our party. I thought Clinton Democrats would rally behind Obama, but the momentum we built during the primary has been slowly leaking out and we find McCain creeping up in key polls like the one Robert posted below. I believe Obama is pragmatic and wants to win. Right now, Senator Clinton is our best option. I have come to this conclusion in the past 4 hours - it's got to be Hillary.
I write this post know full well that chances are I will look like a complete fool within the next 24 hours. Whoever it is, I better get a text by noon tomorrow. I can't take this waiting anymore.
The timing is what has me nearly certain they are going to pick Senator Clinton. If they were going to pick someone else, it would have had to have happened earlier in the week. There needs to be time for the nomination to sink in before the convention. You can't have all this build up and then text me that the nominee is some less than eventful pick like Evan Bayh. Everything I have ever read about how to maximize media coverage says that you put big news out Tuesday or Wednesday. Waiting until Thursday or Friday tells me that the Obama campaign knows they are going to be able to drop a media bomb regardless of when the news hits. Picking Hillary would generate that kind of attention and give a real bump going into the convention.
Senator Clinton brings millions of primary voters and more importantly a team of skilled surrogates and minions of energized volunteers to help turnaround slipping numbers in key states. Take Ohio for example. McCain has been gaining ground and it is frustrating. Nominating Clinton would get all our fractured Democrat surrogates and the Ohio Democratic Party on the same page and behind the ticket. There is more division after the primary than I expected there would be within our party. I thought Clinton Democrats would rally behind Obama, but the momentum we built during the primary has been slowly leaking out and we find McCain creeping up in key polls like the one Robert posted below. I believe Obama is pragmatic and wants to win. Right now, Senator Clinton is our best option. I have come to this conclusion in the past 4 hours - it's got to be Hillary.
I write this post know full well that chances are I will look like a complete fool within the next 24 hours. Whoever it is, I better get a text by noon tomorrow. I can't take this waiting anymore.
By Kyle - 8/20/2008
56 Comments:
If this is true then we will have to have a new federal position for presidential food taster.
*ahem, cough, smirk*
I actually dont think he'll pick her, but I havent taken my signs or bumper stickers down.
pretty funny ozone...if it helps the cause, then I can support it, but if I had my druthers I'd prefer someone that jives with the "new politics" mantra, but I guess Biden doesn't fit that mold either. I think money is still on Biden, but I'm sitting tight 'till I hear officially.
By the way Kyle, I understand your logic, but with a scheduled rally on Saturday in Chicago, I don't think the Thursday/Friday announcement necessarily gets swept under the rug. I think the late week announcement rule holds water when you've got news you want to hide, but I don't know that it necessarily affects a VP announcement.
David, I tend to agree there is a natural cycle to the news week that peaks on Wednesday and spikes up a bit on Sunday. That is why you'd want to pull a John Edwards and bury it on a Friday. But, maybe news like a VP announcement does break the rule and I think you may be correct that it will.
Annie, there is no I in team.
To clarify, and probably to the suprise of many (including myself), I am one of those Kyle is speaking of.
Regardless of the shameful silence of Bill and lack of enthusiasm by Hillary, he should pick her. It is the smart thing to do both as a leader and a politician. It shows he believes in party unity and it shows he can work with people that he doesn't always agree with, which are nice qualities in a leader. Moreover, she will be valuable on the campaign and surge the enthusiasm, which has died in the last few weeks for Obama.
And still, let me stress, I find all these unenergetic Hillary backers that are still whining about her to be a bunch of worthless bums (seriously, shut up about her role/recognition at the convention). And I am stunned by the cool reception the Clintons and her top supporters are showing Obama.
And above all, I would like to take any person that claims they support Hillary, but will now support McCain and place them in a dumpster.
And finally, I want to clarify: I think she is the right pick from the options on the table....but I still like Wes Clark, but he has apparently died, or something.
And finally finally, this is what I hope for now....but I don't think Obama will do it.
side note: my conversation involved me calling Kyle to vent. I have been a bit out of the political loop the past two week, but it sure seems the polls are collapsing.
I have a complete inability to grasp this. John McCain is four more years of Bush on every major issue....but add a really ugly looking face to the President.....and a drug addict first lady, who happens to be a huge liar.
But there is evidently enough sicko trash in this country that will consider voting for 4 more years of Bush, because Obama scares them. F those people and, in the words of Rev Wright, 'Damn America' if they vote for more failed policies.
I'm one of them too that talked to Kyle. I think we are all celebrating too much (me) or getting too worried (some Dems) because there is a long way to go. The conventions havent even started and the people who will decide the race arent really paying close attention. That said, there is no denying that McCain is surging in national and state polls. Obama has tried, unsuccessfully, to tie McCain to Bush. It has not worked. It will not work. Mccain is not and will not be judged by most voters as part of the damaged Republican brand. You can decide if that is fair or not. He hasnt said enough about himself and what he will do.
But its his best pick for reasons others have mentioned. I dont need to rehash, I would just add role of attack dog. She clearly has no trouble doing that.
This was not even a possibility a month ago. I think it is 50-50 he will do it now. And to add to the discussion, she has no personal incentive to say yes. She wants to be President. Not Vice-Presdient.
On the flip side, the behavior of Bill Clinton and his remarks make me think somewhat that they were told long ago it wouldnt happen.
And lastly, I agree with Kyle. make the damn pick.
Let me add a couple more things.
1. The Obama campiagn continues with this bluster about expanding the map and running ads in places like Indiana, Georgia, North Dakota, etc. The map looks just like 2000 and 2004 and they have been foolish to try and pretend otherwise. You can pour $100 million into a state, but you cant change demographics. The new Democratic targets are VA and CO. They have changing demographics with rapidly growing populations. Focus should not be on those states that Bush won by 15%+. Cutting the gap to 8% in Indiana doesnt get you anything.
2. Another reason for the McCain uptick is people on our side beleiving he can win. Until the last couple weeks, people didnt think he could. Now that is plainly obvious he can win, people are getting excited and are more likely to say they are voting for him. They were always there, they just werent showing up. Just like Obama is going to increase in the polls at some point when many of the Dem holdouts come back. Of course the main question is how many will - which ties back to picking Hillary, so of course I hope Obama doesnt do it.
3. And directly about the VP pick. This is all speculation, but I believe it was made 1-2 weeks ago, but now they are going back over the options in light of recent polls. I do think someone other than HRC was chosen, and of course still might be. But now when things arent looking so good, Obama knows he might have to swallow hard and ask the Clintons for help.
My lawya some lawya that you don't wanna try
My lawya some lawya that's really do or die
My lawya will have you cowards ready to cry
My lawya will fry my lawya will rob
My lawya keep niggas on they fuckin' job
My lawya know what it's like when shit gettin' hard
My lawya stay pullin' you other lawyas cards
My lawya It's God my lawya we'll shine
My lawya just knew it was a matter of time
My lawya let me know to keep fuckin' with the rhymes
My lawya ain't no longer livin' with crime
My lawya is fine my lawya is good
My lawya keep you niggas knocking on wood
My lawya know how to take it back to the hood
My lawya will put you down right where you stood
My lawya they could my lawya they will
My lawya take you straight to the back & get ill
My lawya give it straight to the bank when we kill
My lawya put niggas on ice til they chill
My lawya is still my lawya is dogs
my lawya
Chuck I am in jail help a brotha out
DMX...that was awesome.
My thoughts...
1) Hillary wants to be president.
2) Suppose an Obama administration fails miserably (it will).
3) A failed Obama administration means ZERO chance of Hillary, the VP, ever becoming President.
I could be totally wrong. We'll see. I just think Hillary has a better chance in 2012 or 2016 continuing her carear in the Senate.
Of course, Russ, your baseless claim that Obama will be a failed Admin spawns from nothing but the dirt in your imagination.
And to one of Ben's points: the failure to tie McCain to Bush. I completely disagree that voters will not view him that way. I just think Obama has not done a good job...especially through what i view as bad TV ads (except for the most recent one).
When I see things like how McCain cannot remember how many homes he owns, that must be brought up.....he is just another hugely out of touch republican.
I do think the biggest reason for this downtick is that Obama spent more than 50% of past 4 weeks outside the continental US. that was a mistake. The foreign trip was good, but the Hawaii trip should have been shorter, or, at least, they should not have been so close in time.
Chuck,
I know you. Why don't you just call it what you know it to be. If Obama was white, he would be winning by 10%. This is purely about there being enough racists out there that Obama is struggling.
I'm in the "it's not Hillary" camp. But I also am wrong you know, well, once in a while. ;)
My only thought is that:
If you make a deal with the Devil, he'd better deliver.
If the "Dream Ticket" happens and we don't see the assumed 10-15 point bump, team Obama will be able to empathize with the prostitute - who after providing her services - is unable to get a customer to pay.
Part of me says that this pick should be about reviving Obama's brand: new kind of politics, change in Washington, post-partisanship etc. When this brand is strong, he's hard to beat.
As great an idea as HRC may sound she will not only dilute, but destroy this brand.
Maybe we win in the end, but it won't be cause we recaptured the lighting in a bottle that we saw in late February.
Chuck -
Then let's call it this way: Obama's administration could be a failure. To not admit that in the course of 4-years - maybe 8 -things could get worse than they are today is burying your head in the sand (or your candidate's ass - but that's just wrong).
Baseless? Hardly. Obama's healthcare plan could force employers out of private insurance (because of increased cost), leaving individuals no choice but to opt into the govi sponsored plan, which would - just like Medicare and Medicaid - force healthcare providers to accept even lower compensation than they already accept from private insurers. Like Canada, you would eventually see a decline in physicians, which would result in patients needing treatment abandoned because the doctors can't handle the workload. Recently, several doctors in Canada had to randomly pick names of patients they could no longer handle - some dropping 20% of their patients. You and I both know Obama's healthcare plan isn't 100% socialized medicine...but it's a step towards it.
That's just one out of many things that could happen.
McCain could fail if elected. Obama could as well. Stop being a pundit and start being a little more pragmatic and practical.
And say hello to Mr. X for me.
IF OBAMA WAS WHITE...WE WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW HIS NAME!
Kyle, check out this link. I don't want to do it. It just doesn't feel right. Maybe this is the type of situation though where the addage, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" might make sense. Still though, I'd rather have Sebelius if we're in a position where we want to court some of the Clinton backers (plus, I think Sebelius is quite capable and fits better with Obama's image.
Check out the two articles Sullivan links to (in the link I included in the previous comment) and you'll see that it isn't difficult to conceive a conspiracy scenario where "the establishment" is working to deny the new guy. The Scranton article implies team Clinton and team McCain are basically working together for all intents and purposes at this point.
Ozone,
True dat.
David,
Any female VP aside from Hillary will actually turn away the PUMA vote. These people see any "other woman" as a "slap in the face."
Trust me on this one, it's a dangerous misconception, I like Sebelius personally, but I can't think of a more damaging pick.
The same people that were talking about "the highest and hardest glass ceiling" will be the first to jump ship if Sebelius/McCaskill join the ticket.
...and Russ, Obama isn't proposing government controlled health care, he's just attempting to make it more affordable (and trying to keep insurance companies from denying coverage if people want it). He isn't even mandating coverage. You can choose to stay uninsured if you choose to. As a matter of fact, this was the most moderate plan offered by any of the main Democratic Presidential Nominees. Small businesses would be exempt from any requirement (if the business has 10 or less employees). Some economists speculate that this could actually save businesses money (definitely would help the average citizen afford health care).
Of course, some of the expenses would be subsidized by the government, but you have to admit that the heal care industry is broken, so we need to try something (by the way, I don't think the insurance companies need you sticking up for them...they're doing just fine).
Sadly Bob, I fear you're right.
Liked Sebelius, but obviously still prefer Biden (assuming Webb is out of the picture).
David, great link, but I'm going to plug my ears and close my eyes and make some little kid sound until I feel the vibration of my cell phone and see this freaking text message.
David,
I told Kyle last night, my dream come true is Webb jumping out of a cake and going: Surprise! I'll do it!
We need an attack dog and have you noticed that every non-military surrogate - before viciously attacking McCain - has to first praise his national service. It's just unbearable to watch. Webb is the only person that could criticize McCain without the pleasantries.
God, we need him.
Ok, well this article leads me to believe that it's neither Biden nor Clinton. This is getting interesting.
You get a no bullshit attack dog with immense military experience, bi-partisan background, blue collar appeal, and a national security element. The right would lose their beloved "9/11" scare tactic, their attempts at an elitist label, and Obama could stay with his "new politics" message. Webb would be a God-send. But we'll have to wait and see (there is a Meet the Press Clip on the youtube that shows him taking it to Lyndsey Graham.
Robert - if Obama goes Webb, women stay home or vote McCain - Webb is almost as bad for women as McCain is.
That's not true Jill. He wrote a somewhat misogynistic paper 30 years ago about how women shouldn't be on the front line. He's apologized for it and changed his stance (he was a Republican then...he's wisened up since then ;) Still though, he believes in a woman's right to her body (subscribes to Roe). If women are willing to throw that away, they can go ahead and vote for McCain. I'm tired of walking on egg shells.
David - can you say Tailhook?
Here are two more reviews of Webb and women:
From The Atlantic
The Left Anchor
You guys are cute. It's like watching little kids on Christmas Eve...
Will I get a new bike...or socks?
Russ,
Are you the Grinch then?
Wow. After Jill's article, I'm thinking Webb would be a g-r-r-eat pick for Obama. Nice call, David.
Good points Jill...but you say "tailhook" like he was involved. His criticism of the investigation is obviously inexcusable, but he has apologized. All things considered (potential to help the ticket, ability to fill percieved holes in Obama's campaign, ability to combat/minimize the impact of McCain/the right's attacks, etc)...do you know of a better VP option?
Webb would be a bigger longshot than Bayh, Biden, Kaine, or Clinton at this point, so it's probably moot, but still, the President would be Obama, and if people Democrats want to base their vote on things the VP candidate said 20-30 years ago, then that's what they'll do. I still think he's the best option...all things considered.
Maybe Clark? He's been MIA since the jabs at McCain (I think Chuck mentioned him too).
Honestly? I think Strickland would have been a reasonably good choice and I still prefer Biden above the others. But also seriously? I don't really have a clue. Just my voter gut - do any of us really know anything more in this year's race?
Thank you Russ, your presence on these boards makes me think of some young neighborhood kid grounded by his parents, and left with no other options, resorts to jealously watching the other neighborhood kids playing (with Hope and optimism) while he stares out the front window (thinking of how things could be different if he wasn't a backwards ass Republican).
Although Russ, in some ways you also remind me of the neighborhood kid that picks his nose constantly and is socially awkward...even with your oddities though, you're still a friend, you're always allowed to play with us ;)
Jill,
I couldn't disagree more.
I mean "women stay home or vote McCain" is about the most sweeping, outlandish things that I've heard here in a while.
What percentage of Americans have heard of Tailhook? Zero point something. It's WAY too nuanced (and dated) of a story to ever hit the nation radar. It has no chance of getting $400-haircut-attention.
And so he said "Women can't fight" back in 1979. Who cares? You think the majority of women would give this stance more weight than a woman's right to choose? Not a chance.
And of course it helps with men where Obama is still losing, particularly white men.
Besides, we (Dems) lose because we're painted as pussies. We're soft; no backbone. We can't be trusted with "Daddy" things like protecting the country. Don't blast me for pointing this out, it's the sad truth. This subtle narrative kills us with low-info voters in Middle America.
For all his flaws, Webb is military. He's blunt. He's masculine. He's brash. He's not Harry Reid, who I could literally pummel with one hand tied behind my back and a pillow in the other.
We can pretend that these thing don't matter, but Americans want a ticket that projects strength.
It has to look right. And feel right. Like the movies.
The PUMA members that Webb offends are a complete lost cause (they'll barf on anyone other than their beloved Hillary) and the real moderates and independents that we need to win will not be offended by this. In fact, it only balances the ticket and damper their fears that Obama is too liberal.
Well said Bob.
Robert...do you think it's wise to tell A WOMAN what other women LIKE HERSELF will feel when (not if - when) Webb's story comes out?
For the record...I don't think women belong on front lines. Or gays for that matter. What I've learned from the guys I know who served in a combat zone (WW II, Vietnam) a soldier developes a love for the other men in his company. It's a brotherly love.
Incorporating women into a frontline could lead to eros love - causing said woman or said guy involved in said eros love to make a decision based upon that love, which could result in mistakes and lives lost. Same with a gay guy.
David...you figured me out. I'm jealous because I'm not a liberal. I'm gonna work on it though - maybe I'll start by whipping up a few tears...
Russ,
I'm not telling her what other women LIKE HERSELF will feel.
I'm telling her "other women" are NOT LIKE HER.
Like us, Jill spends hours a day following the race and reading up on the issues. Sadly voters LIKE HERSELF, MYSELF and YOURSELF will not play a leading role in this election.
Low-info voters - regardless of gender - will pick a candidate based on who looks more presidential and scares them least.
A chunk of mid-info voters will watch the debates but still never delve into Tailhook-esc issues.
If you have any doubts, look at the success of the Obama=Paris campaign.
Anything above an eight grade level will be lost on the average voter; obscured by things like who eats arugula rather than iceberg lettuce.
Robert - that is an insulting, narrow-minded and obnoxious comment. Do you know what percentage of this population was over 18 at the time of that incident?
You are terribly out of touch with female voters, across nearly all demographics. This has nothing to do with PUMAs. Open your eyes. Webb is a throwback and nearly cromagnon.
If you want to align yourself with that, fine, but don't you dare try to intimidate me into thinking his positions are trivial.
I'm so sick of this doing things no one should ever do and then thinking that an apology is all that's needed.
That's plain pure BS. Talk about backbone. Your comment spews stereotypes. And Webb is being looked at specifically because of how he seems to embody certain stereotypes that a certain voter demographic seems to think is needed to be a leader.
My a$$.
Russ I appreciate your comment but as for the military, I would URGE you to read up on the Israeli Defense Forces. I just spent two weeks there and a day at the Rimon AFB as well as seeing the male and female contingents everywhere.
I am not discounting what you say re: the kind of companionship that helps and fosters the best military. However, I believe this is in large part because that's how we've always done it, not because it can't be done another way.
However - I've never been in the military, I haven't studied this in depth. But I have observed the IDF for more than 20 years and they seem to do well with women in it.
Jill -
Valid point on the Israeli military. But a big difference is that those serving in Israel today, and 5 years ago, and ten years ago, have been at war since birth. Maybe thats what makes it work in Israel. Fact is, we don't know if eros caused any mistakes there. But boys being boys and girls being girls would lead me to believe that mistakes could be made - mistakes that could cost lives.
And I'm not saying men and women can't be "in the military" together. Just not infantry-type front lines.
Russ - I don't want to get into a big stink over this - it's much better left to a beer in person (tho I don't drink beer) but no, they have not been at war since birth. One of the first things I will be writing about once I'm out of jetlag and my kids are settled in school is to write about what a misnomer that is. Example after example of how that's not the case.
What they have grown up with is the imperative of being prepared and learning from mistakes of previous military incursions, and the imperative of their - the Israelis desire - to continue to live and to live in peace. People who've never been there have no idea how fabricated the aura they think pervades that region is, thanks to nearly every single media source - for a variety of reasons.
Please - the boys be boys girls be girls thing - don't give in to it. There are many, many cultures around the world that don't. It's just like my refusal to accept that argument about having casinos - because everyone else does.
I'm not invalidating that others use that reasoning. I'm just saying that I believe it's a very very VERY weak reason, as far as good logic goes.
Likewise for the boys will be boys. I don't know if you have daughters, but I do and I would never educate her to accept bad behavior because boys are boys - nor will I tolerate bad behavior on her part as girls being girls.
Anyway - far afield from that.
We really need a good blogger gathering one of these days.
Jill,
You say:
"I'm so sick of this doing things no one should ever do and then thinking that an apology is all that's needed."
Webb didn't beat his wife or shake a baby. He wasn't a Grand Dragon in the KKK. He had an opinion.
An opinion that if women and gays were integrated into combat brigades that it would distract and therefor endanger soldiers. I certainly follow the logic Russ laid out above.
Look, this is a man whose father served; whose son is serving; and who's spent his life in the military. It's easy for you and I to disagree with him, but having never served in the military our opinions on how to best run a combat brigade are well... lets just say... not all that informed.
Now maybe his opinion is archaic. Maybe he's dead wrong. But he didn't "do a thing that no one should ever do." He didn't commit a crime, he had an opinion. An opinion based on his first hand experience in the military.
Jill,
And spare me the "don't you dare try to intimidate me" stuff.
I said your comment was "sweeping and outlandish" I didn't threaten you.
When I dissed Dems I used the pronoun "we" and as far as name calling... all I called you is a: high-info voter.
So be insulted if you like, but I'd prefer if you did it without claiming that I'm somehow menacing.
Robert - call your style of debate whatever you want. To me, it reads like a form of intimidating out of or shutting down a particular argument. The issue is my inference, not your intent. Glad you don't mean to intimidate but then maybe you shouldn't write so forcefully - your style or not.
As for doing something no one should ever do it, I stand by it. This is why we deliberate before we act. The degree of how wrong is a red herring. It's no more okay because something isn't as wrong as something else.
This is the it's not sexist enough argument told by people who roll their eyes at one degree of sexism and demand that people wait until it's "really" sexist before they say something.
I don't buy it.
Draw all the lines you want. I'm okay where mine are and I'm not telling you where to draw them. I'm telling you where I do. Trivializing where I do is, you got it, another form of trying to intimidate someone out of their position.
Jill,
Actually you're telling me where "women" draw the line.
You said "if Obama goes Webb, women stay home or vote McCain"
That was the statement I criticized.
Not your personal line, but your huge overreach that all women share your line.
Nice way to try and backtrack on all you've said.
Yes - I wrote that. But if you believed that I meant the 100% of all women who will cast a vote, then you are being truly disingenuous. From the context, it's obvious I'm talking about the PUMAs that you focus on.
Robert - if you support Webb and like what he stands for and are aligned with his style, just be fine with that. I'm arguing against that style and I'm suggesting that the women voters to whom you turn your focus are unlikely to like Webb and in fact are likely to be repulsed by him.
You know that's what I'm asying and I'm guessing most readers do as well.
You like to spar? That's great. Don't try to make my arguments look nonsensical - that only reflects on you.
Jill,
You're really flailing now.
Backtrack on all I've said?!?!?!
I support Webb. I want him on the ticket. I'm more than fine with it.
I'm not offended by his statements. But more importantly I'm saying:
(1) While you may disagree - it's not some shocking crime to have an opinion (And his is a hell of a lot more informed than yours).
(2) Voters don't know/care about Tailhook...
----- Incidentally, I walked around my office this morning and I couldn't find ONE person (who was 18 or older when it happened) that knew what the hell "Tailhook" was. When I refreshed their memories... still nothing. And these are liberals with college degrees-----
...And even if it was a part of the national consciousness, liberal female voters, as a bloc, would never ever ever weight it over a Woman's Right to Choose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be perfectly clear, about how we got here. You said:
"Robert - if Obama goes Webb, women stay home or vote McCain - Webb is almost as bad for women as McCain is."
That's not taken out of context.
That's not a snippet.
That's it.
That's what you said.
Unabridged.
Now I didn't assume that you literally meant every single voter with fallopian tubes. But I certainly assumed that you meant "most women" or "a huge chunk of women" or "women in general."
I assumed this because that's what you said.
This statement was completely unsubstantiated and delusional.
I called you on it.
Instead of just acknowledging that you'd overreached, you played the victim card. I was suddenly "intimidating" you.
Now you're saying you were obviously talking about PUMAs.
No one is believing that. It makes no sense. PUMAs, be definition, will not support the ticket unless Hillary's on it. So yes, they "stay home or vote for McCain" if it's Webb.
Or Biden. Or Kaine. Or Sebilius. Or Bayh. This goes without saying.
BTW Jill,
I see that you now "moderate" comments that don't " foster respectful debate" at your blog.
Serious question now:
If I called you "narrow-minded and obnoxious" would my comment get booted?
Robert - Second comment first:
I assume you don't read my blog much - the comment moderation went into affect late in July due to threats I was receiving to stop blogging about Josh Mandel or else I'd be attacked personally, and anti-Semitic slurs. So no - this:
"narrow-minded and obnoxious"
would barely get my attention.
But remember - we're talking about calling ways of thinking narrow-minded or obnoxious. I don't know you - I only know how you're responding to this debate. Which I think is narrow-minded an obnoxious.
:)
Robert - you have no intention of recognizing that even if no one has heard of Tailhook, maybe it's a shame and a shanda. But you aren't taking that position - you are taking the position that since no one knows of it, it's irrelevant.
I disagree with that position and would urge you, if it's what you're saying, to analogize to other instances and think about how you would feel if you discovered that voters weren't aware of some seminal event relevant to a topic that is as important as gender discrimination and sexual assualt in the military. Like, say, genocide. Do you know how many people do not know about Darfur? Does that excuse you from telling them about it and how important it is?
I would hope you would think that it doesn't.
As for your picking on the absolutes, whatever, Robert. Now you are just picking to pick - you aren't interested in the underlying issues, so regardless as to the number close to any absolute, what difference would it make to you - none I am guessing - to use another absolute.
When you start reading all the feminist and women-oriented literature that I read, come back or email me or leave a comment on my blog and maybe you'll be more enlighted to what matters to women across the spectrum - in every decade of life that is still represented in the voting population.
Because right now, little that you've written rings true or mirrors the reality I live or have experienced or the reality I read about as written by the women on the listservs I belong to - which span women in their early 20s through their 70s, altogether arguing among themselves - which is a great way to see that there is a spectrum.
I have yet to read one liberal or Democrat who is a woman write or speak in support of Webb for the VP slot - they may exist but I've yet to read or hear it.
I'm not sure why you are being so hostile to the ideas I've promoted or how you can write that "no one is believing that" - um - there's no one else responding to my comments except one that said I wrote good points (David).
My wish is that this is all moot and Webb isn't the choice but my concern about your disregard for a person's history and putting it in context will remain.
Jill,
Stop.
This is not about whether Tailhook was a travesty or about whether voters should care about it.
It's about whether voters do care about it.
As far as winning a general election is concerned:
YES... if no one knows of it, it's irrelevant.
Again, your original comment wasn't informing us of how important Tailhook should be. Look back. It was about the wide-spread effect that Webb would have on female voter turnout.
You want to talk about the underlying issue, fine. Here is the underlying issue:
Tailhook is important to you and the women on the listserv you belong to. And you're kidding yourself into thinking that this super-high-info group is representative of the average female voter. It's not.
So let me say the obvious Robert:
I disagree with this: "You're kidding yourself into thinking that this super-high-info group is representative of the average female voter. It's not.
Who's the average female voter, Robert? Got any idea? How you defining that one, Robert?
Please.
Your concrete approach is exactly why you prefer Webb - whose concrete approach is in stark contrast to Obama's.
The Webb supporters I've come across are similarly concrete types.
Thanks to Drew Westen and many