Obama the only Dem who can beat McCain

[Ninja Jordan]

Assuming McCain is the GOP nominee, what Dem could beat McCain? Wes Clark could be viable, but McCain is just as military oriented as him and Clark has been sort of blacked out for some reason. Obama appeals to the newer generation, and is perhaps the only other politician besides McCain who is as well-loved by the media


Obama-Clark 2008

[babylonsister]

1. McCain has his problems; don't be too sure he'll even survive

the primaries. Lots of unknowns at this point, like who will really be running.

[tsuki]

2. McCain cannot win. Even the Republicans don't like him. n/t

[burythehatchet]

3. since there wasn't a sarcasm tag, you might actually believe that McCain

is unbeatable. McCain won't get anywhere near the white house, ever.

[Ninja Jordan]

4. Bill Frist gonna beat him in the primaries?

I want names.

[Alhena]

5. McCain will never be nominated

IMO, McCain has enraged the conservative crowd too much to get nominated. He was key in the Gang of 14 compromise group on judicial nominees, has pushed for comprehensive immigration legistation and, to his credit, has stood against Bush against torture. Thus, the bible thumpers, racists and torture lovers will be against him. That's part of the problem of being in the Senate- a guy like Guiliani is similar to McCain politically but he hasn't had the opportunity to make the same amount of enemies in the Republican party.

I don't think he's a strong candidate regardless- he's too old and too unstable. IMO the Republican's strongest candidate is Guiliani. But any decently strong Democrat will win this time. And Obama isn't just decently strong- he's our strongest candidate by far, at least among those willing to run.

[Ninja Jordan]

8. Guiliani?

He has the same problems you accuse McCain of having: he's more liberal than some southern Dems. He's twice divorced, he's been photgraphed wearing women's clothing, hes pro choice, pro gay marriage, anti-gun ownership.

[Thickasabrick]

10. In every poll I've seen, Guiliani has polled better than anyone..

including McCain or Hillary. It might take someone as moderate as Guiliani to pull it off.

[karynnj]

47. That's because no one has seriously looked at him

Right now the polls reflect that most people know him only from the aftermath of 911 - where Guilliani was good.

[Alhena]

19. It's ironic isn't it?

"He has the same problems you accuse McCain of having: he's more liberal than some southern Dems."

That's true. But he hasn't ANGERED the Republican rank-and-file with those positions like McCain has. The Freeper crowd has just gotten used to *hating* McCain and once you get used to outright hating someone it's hard to make a 180 degree turn and vote for him. Very few people actually hate Giuliani in the Republican party because he hasn't been rubbing his views in their face like McCain has.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

21. Yeah, but even Freepers will change on a dime in desperation

The truth is that the GOP has almost no alternatives-- Allen and Frist are both out, and Giuliani? Just one campaign ad of Giuliani in women's clothing like that, or his ugly personal details or support for gun-restrictions-- negatives that McCain does *not* have-- and Giuliani's out. The point is, the GOP is becoming desperate, so much so that even somebody like McCain has appeal.

Actually, the one GOP guy who scares me a lot is Mitt Romney. People talk a lot about how his Mormonism would be unappealing to the GOP rank and file, but that fails to consider the fact that he'll be running against a Democrat would would likely be even *more* unappealing to the GOP rank and file. And Romney has somehow minimized his negatives and accentuated his positives to appeal to both religious conservatives and northern business-minded Republicans. McCain would be tough, Romney even tougher.

A lot of it IMHO depends on whom we nominate in 2008. If we opt for Hillary, we'll effectively unify the GOP and fill up their fundraising coffers so much that they could practically put Saddam Hussein on the ballot and win the election. OTOH if we put up a Democrat who isn't so radioactive, someone like a Mark Warner, a Bill Richardson, a Wes Clark or even a John Edwards (even though I'm not much of an Edwards fan)-- or maybe even a Barack Obama, although I confess to not knowing much about him either way-- then we'll have a good shot at winning.

[Alhena]

23. Romney

"Actually, the one GOP guy who scares me a lot is Mitt Romney."

You may be right. It's either going to be Guiliani or Romney, IMO. I think either Guiliani or Romney would have a decent shot to beat Hillary, Kerry or Edwards. I think Obama would beat both handily. Bayh might beat both as well, but I don't want to nominate a Republican in order to beat one.

[karynnj]

48. Two words - BIG DIG

His administration may well have been negligent in monitoring the Big DIG tunnel that killed a person. He also went off to Iraq when MA had major floods, leading even the ultra RW Herald to compare his foreign policy expertise very negatively in comparison to Senator Kerry. They also put his face on a milk bottle. He also is a genuine liar and flip flopper - now saying he was always pro-life, but ran as pro-choice to win.

A Kerry/Romney debate would likely be as much a challange to Kerry as the Bush ones were. As Romney is not President, Kerry could likely be more aggressive in attacking him. I would assume that Hillary has the gravitas to beat him as well.

[charlyvi]

22. Plus, I'm not sure most of the base knows about Guliani's

divorces, gay friends (he roomed with two while waiting on his divorce), his affair with his current lady love (are they married yet?) while still married and living with his ex; his pro abortion, anti gun fairly liberal views. They just think he's the take charge guy of 9-11. If he's nominated and the Dems point these facts out to the base, he's toast.

[A Simple Game]

18. What's an Obama?

You know, I know, and most of DU know who he is.

But I doubt that most of the American people know who Obama is.

edit for not proofreading.

[formernaderite]

29. I think his name is a huge problem

particularly for main street usa....not his skin color...his name. It's way too foreign. We keep forgetting he swept to easy victory in Illinois because the republican turned out ot be a dud and a creep..

[oasis]

41. Exactly. I remember a bit of Dem hand wringing about Mario Cuomo's name

and he's a white guy. "America's not ready for a candidate with a last name ending in the letter a,i,o or u" the "experts" said.

[fuzzyball]

34. McCain has been busy lately kissing up the CONservatives....n/t

[karynnj]

46. You give McCain way TOO much credit

The gang of 14 has worked out well for the Republicans - the idea that they would way for a sufficiently RW justice to filibuster was shown to be useless when they prevented the Alito filibuster from working. The Unitary President was a radical shift in the balance of power. (That not choice was the issue.) All the "compromise" did was to "preserve" filibusters - never to be used.

McCain's compromise on torture - allows Bush, who asked for a bill to allow torture, to be the "decider" of what torture was allowed. That bill was - even before signing statements - what Bush wanted. The improvement over the original is that it doesn't EXPLICITLY allow torture. (It allows McCain to claim to be anti-torture, leading ato a bizzare New York Daily News which took Hillary's comments on torture (though she voted against the bill) to be less anti-torture than McCain's.)

Guiliani has incredible baggage - on the personal and public level. There were reasons he was policially dead in mid 2001.

[fooj]

6. Can we get past the November 2006 Elections first?

We aren't even certain there will be a 2008 Election if we don't win this one. Focus is key, IMO.

[politicasista]

15. Exactly n/t

[VC2]

7. obama sounds too much like osama

i'm sorry, but gringos dont like those kind of names

it just dont sound american (to them)

[Ninja Jordan]

9. Probably Obama's biggest negative I'd say.

[VC2]

11. prolly his

ONLY negative :(

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Yeah, but it may not be a big deal.

I thought it would hurt him in his Senate race but it obviously didn't.

[VC2]

16. AH!

good point

[fuzzyball]

35. Right....I have heard Teddy Kennedy mispronouncing his name as OSAMA

ad infinitum on right wing radio.

[fuzzyball]

36. How bout if he changes his last name to Rodham? That did the trick

for Hillary.

[politicasista]

13. It's too early to tell

I would rather wait until the November elections end, then we will have a better picture of who is or isn't running. This is coming from a person that likes Obama and the General.


Just sayin.

[Bluestar]

14. Oh, please. . . This is a snark, right? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Umm, Clark getting blacked out by media is a Primary Season Problem

It effects his chance of getting the Democratic nomination perhaps, but has no bearing on whether he would be the best Democrat to put up against McCain. The media may smear and distort all Democratic candidates, but the media will not black out the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Personally I think it would be a plus for Democrats if we had a candidate who could cancell out McCain's assumed military service advantage with centrist and independent voters. Let's say Clark and McCain both came across to that segment of the public as knowing what they were talking about regarding National Security, and both seemed like they could be trust worthy Commander In Chief's. That would shift the reasons for supporting one of these two men instead of the other over onto the Domestic issues side of the ledger book, and Democrats almost always win more support than Republicans there.

[Auntie Bush]

27. I think most Democrats will be gung-ho to vote for Clark if he wins

the nomination. Should McCain win...many Republicans or Fundamentalists/Christians won't vote for him. If Clark is the nominee...we win!

[loyalsister]

42. I have reservations

I would if he were the candidate, but with no enthusiasm.
Neither he nor Kerry appeal to me because entrenchment in military culture creates an underlying mindset that I am not excited to have in a president.
I mean that military solutions are more consciously "possible" and traditional hierarchcal arrangments and style come more naturally.
It's ultimately a status quo vote as far as "American might" mentality.
I am hoping that we can truly "win" by shifting away from that.
Simply being able to take office is a valuable, yet mediocre goal unless we set much higher standards for the future.

[CJCRANE]

44. IMO

a progessive general like Clark is much less likely to take or prolong military action for purely political reasons than a non-military politician (e.g. GWB, HRC).

[karynnj]

49. Kerry entrenched in military culture ?????

Kerry served his 2 tours of duty - about 3 1/2 to 4 years of the 62 years of his life. He has worked on veterans benefits, because it is what they deserved. Kerry's entire career has proposed diplomacy and war only as a last resort - and he has always been clear as to what last resort means.

[blm]

51. Kerry's more STEEPED in anti-corruption and open government culture than a

military one. And why would that be objectionable to ANYONE?

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Then get to know Wes Clark. It's that basic. I did.

Democrats are the people in this country who don't judge others based on "profiling". It is against our core values. Democrats are the people in this country who are open to learning new things about people who come from a different background than our own (whatever that might be).

It's not like I have no understanding of what you are basing your assumptions (and quite literally your stereotype) on. Personally I am as anti-hierarchical as it gets. Between 1970 and 1996, with the exception of two years, I lived in collectively run households. I was a founder of a human service organization on Long Island in 1971 (then called Middle Earth Switchboard) which still exists in different form under a different name, and we managed to get State and County money (they wanted to fight drug addiction) but when I was there we refused to even have a director, and though some of us had fixed salaries we redivided the pay among us based on personal needs.

Years later in California I was a State wide staff person for the Abalone Alliance, fighting nuclear power and primarily focused on Diablo Canyon. Not only did we have a collective structure, we had consensus decision making so that any member of the organization could hold up any group decision with their objections. Talk about non hierarchal arrangements! I also participated extensively in Direct Action Affinity Group member based resistance to nuclear power, in support of the nuclear freeze, in opposition to Reagan's support of the right wing Central American death squads, and more. In addition friends and I also collectively ran a political cultural center, the Mission Blue Cafe in San Francisco,for a couple of years in the early 80's.

I am flooding you with personal details (and I'm holding back a lot, lol) for a very specific reason. I made a lifetime commitment to opposing rigid underlying mindsets and traditional hierarchical arrangements, but I also made a commitment to not judge others based on assumptions I had about where they came from. I burned my draft card during the Viet Nam War. I and tens of thousands of others surrounded the Pentagon. I've fought against unjust War all of my life. When I heard that General Wesley Clark was considering a run for President in 2003, I decided to find out more about him. I went into that process as a skeptic and I finished it with the highest regard and respect for him as a man, and as someone with the wisdom and ability to restore sanity, common sense, and human values to our government and the role of America in the world. If Wes Clark was the person you think he is I would not support him. He isn't. I've been at a dozen events with Wes by now, and talked with him in person. But more important than that I've studied what he believes in and how he advances his beliefs. I have not been more favorably impressed by someone in American politics since RFK (who spoke at my High School in 1967).

I'm a stranger to you, and there is no reason for you to take what I write as true. But you owe it to yourself, before you dismiss a positive potential leader for our country based on your own preconceived notions about who he must be, to look further into Wes Clark the person rather than Wes Clark your projection. I say this to you only because you chose to go public with your negative assumptions about him here on Democratic Underground. I take your concerns seriously, I've been there myself, and I'm saying to you, it is worth your taking a closer unbiased look at Wes Clark before you continue to say negative things about him that do not fit this man.

[IA_Seth]

54. I think...

I think war comes easier to someone who has never seen it's blood than to someone who has seen the destruction and death up close and personal.

I think war comes easier to someone who is eager to look 'tough' on National Security than it does for someone who knows and understand war and the military.

Wes Clark has led through diplomacy and led through war as SACEUR (Supereme Allied Commander - NATO) and believes that war should only be used as a final resort after REAL diplomacy and engagements have been made.

[wyldwolf]

20. this is what I heard back in 2003-2004

(Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards/Kucinich/etc...)the ONLY Dem that can beat Bush!

[Mass]

24. He probably stops being well-liked by the media as soon as he is

the Democratic frontrunner.

He is a good man, too inexperienced to my taste, but that I like. However, experience should tell us that the media are not predictable and will burn tomorrow what they worshipped today.

Clark was the darling of the media for a few weeks, in 2003, when everybody wanted to know if he was going to run. Soon afterwards, they found something else to talk about (and that is very unfair).

Obama may have the same fate. He is on the media a lot because he is promoting his book. Who knows what will happen afterwards.

Promote him on his leadership qualities and his stands on the issues if you want, but it does not seem wise to me to promote him on his appeal on the media.

[DeepModem Mom]

25. That, IMO, is a very strong ticket. nt

[adwon]

26. Not so much

Sam Brownback is more likely as a GOP nominee than McCain. McCain gets a lot of press, but Brownback doesn't have a bribery scandal or the hate of many social conservatives against him.

At the moment, Obama doesn't have a shot at winning a presidential election. It's still a southerner's game (or Republicans from California) and there's no indications that this will be changing anytime soon.

[Mass]

28. One reason Obama could not beat McCain easily. He has been

too nice with McCain during these last two years. All McCain would have to do is to publish all the nice things Obama has said about him (and Obama is not the only one who has this problem. The truth is that most Democrats have it at a higher or lower level-Biden is probably the worst offender).

If they want to run and win in 08, they need to start immediately to criticize McCain for what he is saying, not to say nice thing because they want to be bi-partisan.

[Donna Zen]

30. Did you mean the McCain?

The one who "blows smoke"? That's what Wes Clark said...John McCain is blowing smoke. (10/20/06)<---

Of course during the summer of 04 Wes called McCain a sell-out. Wes does not suffer fools and people who support bush's crazy-ass war.

[fuzzyball]

37. Wes has his own baggage....republican fund raisers on video tape

[Donna Zen]

39. Great tape

He outlined a foreign policy for that crowd that was a complete 180 from the PNAC doctrine. They should have listened to Wes Clark. The world would be much better today. Was he polite by starting his speech with nice words? Well, since a friend from high school had asked him to speak, and had changed the date so that Wes could be there, yes, he was polite.

Too bad that some people here refuse to mention the fundraiser two weeks later for a Democrat. Or stump speeches that Wes Clark gave later that summer for Democratic candidates including Max Cleland. Ah...how easy it is to be mean spirited when you feel a need to make a dishonest point.

[Rowdyboy]

31. Barack Obama is a fabulous young man who will some day lead the USA

But he has exactly 2 years experience in the senate with no major legislation to his credit. Nothing he has done in his tiny senate career would lead me to support him. Those encouraging him to run now simply wish to discredit him. If he's stupid enough to overreach, then a brilliant career can be destroyed.

God willing, he won't be dumb enough to fall for it.

[Ninja Jordan]

32. The Coburn-Obama Transparency Act was a huge piece of legislation

from last session.

[leesa]

33. Corporate tool...Clark's OK.

I can't believe people are falling for this Obama con job.

[Clarkie1]

38. Clark/Obama would be a good ticket. Clark has "blacked out?"

WTF are you talking about?

[saltpoint]

40. I think McCain's path to the nomination may be more perilous than

polls currently show.

He whomped Dubya in New Hampshire in 2000 -- understandably -- but must compete in 2008 with a host of competitors. Not saying he can't do it, only that it won't be a simple one-on-one match-up, at least not in the early going.

Obama is a wonder and I want to see him in key roles in our party forever. Clark is very active out on the campaign trail, genuinely and generously helping our people whip the Republicans. Either would whip McCain, I believe.

So would Kerry, Edwards, Gore, and on down the list. We may have the benefit of a re-vitalized party in 2008, where the Republicans may be confronted with abandonment from some of their right-wing voters, as well as their moderate voters.

Fate plays it own game, I admit, but at the moment, the playing field favors the blue team.

[karynnj]

50. I think McCain's Iraq policy of more troops won't play

If Iraq is still a major issue, I think that Kerry, Gore, and Clark could easily beat him. They could past the test to be CIC as well (or better than McCain)

McCain's own (2nd)book has a chapter on his and Kerry's work on the POW/MIA - where any sane reader would be more impressed by Kerry's skills in handling the many difficulties, ranging from diplomacy with the SE Asians, dealing with groups, including conmen, already active on the issue, to dealing with a group containing Senate Prima Donnas. Kerry was closing down corrupt banks when McCain was ensnared in a bank scandal.

Hillary hasn't shown any leadership on the war on terror or the Iraq war - why did BILL, not HILLARY give the major policy speech last week?

[saltpoint]

53. Hey there good person. Nice to bump into you.

Very good point on the McCain call for more troops. At first glance it sounds ridiculous, and then after sober analysis, it's clear that it IS ridiculous. I agree with you that it has the potential to do him in.

Loved -- LOVED -- your observation on Kerry v. McCain: Kerry was shutting down corrupt banks while McCain was involved in the Keating 5 scandal. Bingo. Bull's eye. Con Brio.

Thanks for that lift!

Two weeks to go and we throw these shitheads out of office!

[morgan2]

43. It would be a horrible idea for obama to run

After years of incompetance of having Bush in office, someone who had no experience, why would someone try to run his counter part? McCain will be spun as the guy with experience who knows about tough fights and a compromiser. Obama will be the paper man, with no experience but clever talk.

[ripple]

55. *'s counter part?!?

You might want to look again.

The person who wins the marketing campaign wins the election. Pure and simple.

McCain will be portrayed as a flip-flopper who is too old to run, given the current security concerns. Republicans will make this charge in the primary and even if he's able to win the nomination, he won't be able to shake the label.

Obama, on the other hand, exudes charisma and charm from every pore. He's easy on the eyes, incredibly articulate, and speaks in terms people can relate to. I have no doubt that he will be able to shake any label his opponent tries to paint him with. This is his time.

[Totally Committed]

45. If those were the two who ended up on the ticket,

you'd, first, have to reverse the order to even get my attention. That having been said, as an aside, I'm not even sure Wes will run for POTUS this time. But, that remains to be seen.

I don't think Obama belongs on the ticket this time around. Since he chose to run for the Senate only a couple of years ago, his running for the Presidency this soon makes him look like a dilettante... just as Edwards did last time around. He needs seasoning, now that he's there, so I hope he chooses at least one more term before he chooses to run.

That's only my opinion, btw.

TC

[zulchzulu]

56. I would tend to completely disagree

Face it.

The next five or more years are going to be the US military involved in the mess that Bush has created in the Middle East with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran. All this could spread into further regions of the World, like Asia and even the Pacific with ever-growing Islamic fundamentalism growing in Indonesia. China is going to be flexing its muscles in 2008 with Taiwan. Who knows what will happening with North Korea.

While I enjoy Obama'a presence, his speeches and even his propensity to appeal to moderates with his policy ideals, I just don't think he will come across as "wartime" enough to face up to the scrutiny that running for President entails.

If he runs, he wouldn't be my personal first choice. If he was the nominee, I'd certainly support him. But if he were to run against someone like McCain (who I'm no fan of), he would come across as "too young to face the dangers" of the World. That's my opinion.

Add that the media loves to find a "new car", a new front runner to focus on. They build them up and then knock them down. I wouldn't want to see Obama's flame burn out so soon.

If Obama runs in 2012, he will be 53. By then, he would have a lot of proof that he could handle the foreign policy issues that would be important when running for president in these times.

(also posted on another Obama thread)

[maxsolomon]

57. Obama? Obama obama obama obama obama obama obama

obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama :eyes:

IT IS LATE OCTOBER 2006. FOCUS.