Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
How in the world can you argue that Obama is a worse candidate that Clinton in the general?
|
I argue that he is based upon a couple of things. First, his record will be a huge liability in the general election. He is vastly more liberal than Senator Clinton, which will be a liability that I believe will hugely damper his turnout of moderates (both within the party and without).
Secondly, I think the airy rhetoric works really well for partisan crowds but is going to sound real stale by the fall. The substantive deficit will become more clear when it is a stark contrast between parties.
Thirdly, the foreign policy gaffes of this past summer and the unrestrained words of Ms. Obama demonstrate that once the Obama campaign is off its "change" message it founders.
Fourth, Ms. Clinton already has all the negatives that she was going to get, and her exposure as a non-baby eating ogre that the Indy/Tex crew have made her out to be actually lowers her negatives. In other words, she is not going to make anyone else dislike her. Obama on the other hand is only a vague notion in the minds of many, many people, and as he is more well known Obama fatigue is likely to set in, and his negatives will rise.
Lastly, I personally do not trust the judgment of the Whole Foods Democrats and students that are the core of the Obama movement. Putting forward a candidate that pleases this group does not change electoral math. We will still need to make inroads in the groups that Senator Clinton is strongest with to win, because we can take Obama's core support for granted.
The only saving grace that I can think of with Obama is that maybe, just maybe there is a chance that he will draw in more folks, but I don't think that crew is something that the Dems can count on.
I hope I am proven wrong. Although a McCain victory is not as nausea inducing as the Bush presidency.