Hillary taking on water, a little

Since I stand pretty consistently to the right, I wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Obama. So, I'm pretty sure the following analysis isn't tainted by wishful thinking or by bias toward either person. Hillary definitely CAN win the next election. Heck, all she'd have to do is hold on to the states that went to Kerry last time (that will be easy enough) and flip one or two others. Any Republican who thinks that's impossible is insanely optimistic! But Obama definitely gives the Democrats a better chance. Mind you, I'm not saying he'd make a great President, but he's a MUCH more impressive candidate. He's one of the very few politicians in either party who can give a speech anybody wants to listen to. He's telegenic, likable, smart, and SEEMS to take the concerns or religious people and social conservatives seriously, even when he doesn't share their positions. Rod is right to say that there was an irrational element to conservative hatred of the Clintons. I think a lot of conservatives hated Bill Clinton less for his policies (which were often respectable, responsible and sometimes surprisingly conservative) than for what he represented. Many on the Right saw Bill Clinton not merely as a politician but as a symbol of the Sixties (i.e. a pot-smoking, draft-dodging pinko) themselves. For better or worse, Obama doesn't carry any of that baggage. He's too young to be associated with the excesses of the Sixties. He won't automatically alienate the people who were so ready to detest the Clintons. Obama definitely has weaknesses, and they'll be exposed soon enough. But I think he gives the Democrats a better shot at winning than Hillary does.

Simon- an empty suit he may be, but it's not clear who's going to beat him. Right now, I'd say Hillary has a much better chance of derailing his nomination than any Republican has of beating him in the general election. For the sake of argument, let's say there's an Obama/Mark Warner ticket facing a McCain/Giuliani ticket. If that happens, the Kerry states will all go Democratic again, while a few of the states that went half-heartedly for Bush in 2004 will probably flip- ESPECIALLY if the Iraq war continues to look like a disaster without any end in sight. Obama may or may not be genuine Presidential material, but don't kid yourself that the man won't be formidable.

No question, Steve, part of Obama's appeal is the same thing that made Colin Powell look like a contender a few years back: there are a lot of white people who feel a need to do something to "prove" once and for all that they aren't bigots. To some such people, voting for Obama (or Powell) would be a way to say, "See? I'm not a racist! I voted for a black man for President! That shows I don't hate black people, right? So, if all you black people would wear suits and ties and study hard and speak standard English and embrace middle-class American values, we could all get along!" Even Obama, who benefits from these attitudes, must find them more than a bit patronizing.

Simon is correct that Obama will have to spell out his views on abortion, gay marriage, judges, repealing the Bush tax cuts, standardized testing in education, social security, medicare, etc. He will have to do that, but I don't think it's those views that cost Kerry the presidency. Security- many of the voters elected Bush because they thought he'd do better with terrorism. The Republicans are going to have to work pretty hard to convince anyone that they'll do better with national security and handling foreign policy than the Democrats. Moral issues- GOP blew it. Swing voters who went for the GOP in 2004 for those issues feel betrayed. I don't think that the Democrats are going to have it easy, but the Republicans are going to have to come up with a WHOLE new campaign strategy in 2008. National security, fiscal conservativism with balanced budgets, and moral superiority isn't going to play too well.

As a Clinton hater from way back, I'm less threatened by the Clinton II term than I would be by a total neophyte spouting empty platitudes that mean NOTHING. Better the devil you know(and one with Robert Rubin or someone like him running fiscal policy, which would be a major improvement over the Bush spending debacle)than the one you don't. Obama is right now nothing more than a very bland marketing idea. Anyone actaully listen to the absolute empty gibberish you prss folks are swooning over? wonderful because we'll have OBAMA! Hillary,warts and all, is an adult. Obama wouldn't even be where he is other than being the beneficary of Jeri Ryan's divorce records being released with no party's consent, or Mike Ditka not running. So spare us all this complete horsespit how he's different. He's as much of a sleazy hack as Hillary, just hasn't been around as long.

The Republicans have to nominate someone who has nothing to do with the scandals of the current Congress and someone who is vaguely against the war. The only candidate who is vaguely feasible is Giuliani - and he isn't all that against the war. But I will tell you that as a New Yorker - he has skeletons and they will come out. And they have nothing to do with his three marriages. He is not the hero of 9/11 and the NYFD will let us know.

As I'm scrolling through the various entries, two things have an amazingly constant ring; no one seems to trust Clinton (rightfully so), and Barrack is merely a novelty, manipulated for the pleasure of distinction that caring politicians do exist( in this case, I feel it is indeterminant to what he cares about, though he is very measured, which gives the effect that he somehow has good answers) No, I am deeply puzzled to why America thinks hiring these people will somehow change things, well guess what? Changes are occuring, two things are on the rise: unemployment, fuel costs and these are only a prelude the dire circumstances that await AMerica after she brings one of these zeros to the top of our political establishment. You cannot solve the problems of this complicated world through the rantings of Joe Six-Pack, the problem is, JOe used to know he was in over his head, and voted around his deficient self, this no longer holds true. Good Luck America?

No chance for either of them. Hillary IS too polarizing, and many hate her outright. Obama talks Christianity, while he's okay with abortion and gay marriage; he's a Democrat! C'mon folks. So, the Dems don't stand a chance, as far as I can see. McCain is the all around best candidate, and Guilianni is well liked(skeletons or not) Obama won't get in just because people want to pretend to be multicultural and PC. He talks to the right, but he's standing clearly on the left. And he's a bit too young and inexperienced besides. The next POTUS will be a Republican.

The difference between Clinton/Obama and McCain/Guiliani is very little. Both groups are moderate-to-centrist, both disdain the Religious Right (although McCain will play to them until election time), both support abortion, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage/union, etc. Both will generally do the same thing, McCain may focus more on the military and Clinton slightly more on environmental concerns. Both are pretty much the same except for the label. The next election will be Donkey vs. Donkephant.

In pointing out that Emperor Obama has no clothes, I wasn't suggesting that any of the Republican candidates are powerhouses. As a traditional conservative, I'd much prefer that the GOP lose in 2008 rather than saddle the party and country to Guiliani, McCain or Romney (the "Stepford Candidate"). Each of them is either wrong or patently disingenous on every one of the most important issues facing the country today -- the war (and international military entanglements generally), judges, and border security. None of them will have my vote. That said, Obama sounds like a candidate for student body president rather than President of the United States. You can't just prattle on in favor of "hope," "community" and "our generation" and expect people to put you in the White House. People are more intelligent than the media gives them credit for, and at some point every candidate needs to put forth concrete plans and address controversial issues frankly. But the junior Senator from Illinois appears to be a charter member of the Platitude of the Month Club. He's not going to be President of the United States. I don't have any special animus against him (as I do against, say, Mrs. Clinton), but my experience observing politics over the years tells me he's all hype and no substance, and ultimately going nowhere.