It's all marketing and no substance.
Why did George W win two terms in office?
Surely not substance?
It had little to do with either in my opinion.
"Bush's Brain;" Karl Rove made it his career to take a positive and to turn it into a negative.
Ann Richards was one of the most beloved, and respected Woman Governors in Texas history.
However, she didn't take G.W. Bush, and Karl Rove's campaign against her serious enough to fend off his bid for the Governor's Mansion in Austin.
Everything that the people of Texas loved about Ann Richards, Karl Rove turned into a "negative fear;" Ann Richards had the most diverse administration of any Governor in Texas history. The Most Hispanics, the Most Woman, and more openly GLBT members in Texas history.
Karl Rove used that "diversity" against her, and played into the fears of the Moral Majority, and Christian Coalition to defeat her.
As far as I'm concerned, Karl Rove and the GOP stole the election in 2000, and Gore conceded far to early, and the rest as they say is history.
However, I think that we're seeing the same thing play out in the Democratic Primaries.
Hillary's strengths, are being painted as her weaknesses; too much baggage, questionable votes, doesn't have enough popular votes, doesn't have enough delegates, etc..
Is she the best possible candidate?
To run against McCain I think that she has it within her to know how dirty Karl Rove's playbook can be, not to mention all of the other GOP playbooks that have been hurled at her over the past 16+ years.
Sometimes, it's the lesser of the evils, and that's what this is about for a lot of people. Hillary is not going to be given a free pass due to her double-talking, her past votes (which all suggest she supports the GOP Foreign Policy Agenda), dishonesty, and scandalous past, no matter how much you both may want to excuse her for her wrongs. Because that shows you have an untrustworthy person in the White House, and I think we've seen enough of that. And of course, McCain is more of the same.
So, that leaves one electable candidate left ... who has the least amount of baggage of the three. Sure it would be great if Obama had more experience, however it's not like Hillary has the experience she claims she has. She tries to incorporate Bill's experience as if it were her own, and that kind of thing doesn't fly anymore. Do you seem to think that her campaign wasn't mostly marketing? Sure it was.
We have to stop rewarding negative behavior in this country, and yes ... this country is taking a chance with Obama. However, the more you tolerate lying, scandal-clad candidates, the more they get away with their antics once in office and things never change. It's time the American people put their foot down and say ... "No, we aren't going to take this." And that looks like what people are doing with Hillary.
I respect your opinion, honestly I do.
Just keep in mind that a lot of what you're basing your opinions on regarding Hillary is based upon her perceived negatives, and what she can do with her long history (baggage), and the public knowledge and perception about her.
Take your own personal feelings about her, and put them aside, and look at the political dynamics that are in play right now.
In my personal opinion, and as a long standing member of the Democratic Party, I need to know that Senator Obama can fight back just as hard, and to call the Republicans on their shit, but even harder than calling the "gas tax holiday" a political stunt.
He needs to show more substance.
I believe that the American people want change, and that's what Senator Obama is offering, but at the same time what he's offering is an "unknown" and we got that when Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001.
As much as the American people have a distaste in their mouths over the so called "
morality scandals" of the Clinton years, and eight disastrous years of G.W. Bush, and is much as they would like "change," Senator Obama hasn't convinced this Democrat, nor have many of his supporters for that matter, that the change that he's offering will be any better or worse than what G.W. Bush brought to the White House.
The first 100 days of Bill Clinton's White House were so disastrous that it ushered in a GOP take over of Congress in 1994, and ultimately the entire U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
Americans, when polled, might say that they want change, but if it's too much too soon, they'll vote against you every two years to make sure of it.
I believe that Hillary Clinton knows that, and my fear is that Barack Obama doesn't, and that he's hoping on his charm, charisma, smile, and ability to move an audience to accomplish the change (whatever that might be) in Washington, without once providing any "substance" as to how he hopes to accomplish that beyond what's previously been mentioned.
We'll get change all right, but if it's too much too soon, the backlash will be catastrophic for our Democracy, and any planned changes that he might have in my opinion, and we'll be right back where we are today during the 2010 mid-terms, and he'll be as lame duck as G.W. Bush, with a razor thin minority/majority to accomplish anything, and by 2012 will be right back with another GOP POTUS because he didn't have what it took to "unite" for whatever change that he currently has only half of the Democratic Party united behind.
As to the original topic of this thread, that too is politics.
NARAL is hoping to either latch their caboose onto a winner that might further their cause, or to influence a marginal segment of the population to support him, or to give the "Christian Right" and McCain another issue to go after Obama over.
), I see a segment of the population that has gotten excited about something more than Britney Spears, or America Idol.
