Comments on: The Secret Weapon

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:05 +0000

white_n_az: If the media carries weight and if the media greatly prefers Obama to Clinton then the electability argument now has one check mark in Obama’s column. That’s all I’m arguing. If you are going to argue electability and media bias it’s awfully hard to put the two together and come up with “the media hates Clinton and loves Obama therefore Clinton is the more electable”.
What I was pointing out was the incompatibility of the two arguments – neither of which are arguments I personally accept. I actually went to rather great lengths to point out that A. I don’t believe such a thing as the “media” exists anymore - media is too disbursed today so all this talk of the “media” being anti-Clinton and pro-Obama is shaky at best and B. electability arguments are more often wrong than right. The Democratic Party and most liberals were praying for George W. Bush to beat John McCain in 2000 – no way we could loose to that guy. John Kerry was the “electable” choice in 2004, rather than that screaming maniac Howard Dean. Hell, I remember the glee on the left that greeted the nomination of Ronald Reagan. All those beliefs were backed by polls “proving” the electability arguments were sound.
Maybe, just maybe, the time has come to stop trying to predict the future and go with the candidate you think is the best.

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:10:59 +0000

G Newman @ 5
Of course…I could never vote for McCain. Not that my vote will actually matter because I live in AZ but I still have to live with myself and as a Democrat, I have to vote for the Democratic candidate, holding my nose as it were, it I have to.

Recognize though that this has nothing to do with Susie’s posting or nothing to do with the electability argument as diverted by Bob.

By: G Newman

G Newman — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:03:22 +0000

SO, white_n_az, I realize you think you have some water-tight arguments against Obama. Would you still vote for him, if he should become the Dem nominee? Or would you let McCain win?

Because as a mild (not rabid) Obama supporter, I’d support Hillary anyday, anyway, over McCain. She’d do right by us on the Supreme Court. And while I hesitate, based on her slavish support of the most Likud elements in Israel and Neoconservativism, she would not be for Iraq 4 Evah — at least 100 years — quite unlike McCain.

white_n_az, what do you say?

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:32:37 +0000

zuzu…they’re the 1-2 punch, like stink is to shit

steveeboy…you haven’t gotten beyond a talking point yet.

Bob…if it’s the electability argument that you seek, you can find your answers here…at Survey USA where Obama is losing in typical battle ground states and even strugging in traditionally blue states like MA. I quite believe that you would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary and accept and admire (to a point) that conviction.

But rather than discuss the posting on it’s merits, you decided to go off half cocked on the electability issue. If you want to show Susie the courtesy of discussing the merits of what Harris and Vandehei (or even Lambert) are saying…why don’t you start doing that instead?

By: zuzu

zuzu — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:14:31 +0000

Do you guys monitor your RSS feeds for new posts here or something?

By: steveeboy

steveeboy — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:58:05 +0000

so, we cannot use right wing talking points but it is okay to say that hillary is only losing due to media bias.

got it.

but of course, somehow you see through this media bias, unlike the rest of the rubes huh?

but again, we cannot be elitist and think we are smarter than the rocky-loving bowling class…

how do you square these two contrary implications?

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:01:37 +0000

Susie: Personally I am of the belief that people see press coverage through their own filter and are thus pre-inclined to read their own narrative into it. So what. I’ll drop that and accept your argument 100%: the press loves them some Obama and wouldn’t give Clinton credit if she cured cancer while flying her self-made rocket to the moon. How does that jibe with your routine argument regarding “electability”?
If you, the hard-nosed realist who cares more about electability than anything else, can’t see how your unfair press argument leads to the obvious conclusion that Obama is the more electable, than I am surprised. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in predictions of electability in general – I think both Clinton and Obama bring some strengths and some weaknesses to the table. But if you’re going to elevate the electability argument to the top, how do reconcile it with a concurrent belief Clinton is incapable of getting good coverage whilst Obama could club seal pups on the White House lawn and get away with it.
I know the obvious answer: the press loves Obama now but will turn on him with ferocity once he gets the nomination. The problem with that argument is as soon as you look at the term “the press” this notion of herd behavior falls apart, In 2008, when study after study shows more people getting their news from blogs, cable, radio and other non-traditional media outlets this notion that NBC and the NY Times control the debate are patently false. In this fractured a media market any argument about “the press” marching in lockstep is really hard to buy into. But if you accept it and if you want to push the electability argument it’s awfully hard to see how that leads to Clinton being the stronger candidate in the general election.