Obama has charisma, which goes a long way. That's the positive factor that propelled him to win in the Potomac Primaries by huge margins:Obama's Margins of Victory:
51% - District of Columbia
22% - Maryland
29% - Virginia
But there are negative factors too. Factors that push people away from Hillary Clinton:
- The Corporate factor... leads to sellouts.
- The "We Hate Clinton" factor (AKA Bill factor)... leads to divisiveness.
- The Dirty Tricks factor... leads to a lack of trust.
- The Yuppy factor... leads to feeling "she's not one of us."
- The Washington Insider factor... sellouts, no trust, not one of us.
- The Iraq and Iran factors... leads to the realization she's not experienced in foreign affairs.
The list could go on. I could elaborate. But it isn't necessary for most people, who get it.
Obama isn't the best Deomcratic Party candidate. That would have been Edwards. But, Obama is the best remaining Democratic Party candidate.
Sources:
Election 08 Political Dashboard.
14 comments:
You sound like me eight years ago! Time will tell if your party leaves you in 4-8 years as dramatically as mine left me.
And, would you be willing to admit it if it did? Most of my big 'R' compadres are not willing to admit it, and would still vote for the big 'R' candidate instead of a more principally agreeable third party candidate.
Edwards was the populist candidate..and yes he was the best of the 'big three' in the Democratic party.
I am hoping that Obama will pick up the role now that Edwards has left and Obama is picking up endorsements and steam.
Rick, I'm registered Green. My registration itself is another way to "vote". My registration sends the Democratic Party a message.
Thanks for the visit.
Dusty,
I fear Obama will stick closer to the middle if he continues to advance. BUT, I'm promoting John Edwards as the best candidate for Attorney General.
Pssst.... Pass the Word.
I am registered as Decline to State..which means I can vote for anyone in the primary and the general. ;)
Dusty,
The only problem I have with "decline to state" is that people that do not have a vested interest in a specific party can skew the results of that party's primary. You're crashing the party, but you weren't invited. I don't see the benefit.
I get to vote 'my conscience' which is far more important to me than supporting any one party Rick.
I am surprised you fail to see that.
I was registered as a Democrat for many years..and once they started playing politics and taking the left's votes for granted, I refused to give them my total allegiance based simply on 'party politics' or the party line if you will.
As for 'being invited' I beg to differ sir. I grew up as a Democrat and I am old enough to have worked and/or voted for the likes of Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and forward to the present Democrats.
I feel that anyone who limits themselves to picking a candidate based on their party affiliation is severely limiting their options. The Democrats haven't earned that as far as I can see.
Dusty,
It's not about what I fail to see. I agree with the other components of your last comment.
Let's try this again: If I invited 10,000 of my closest conservative friends from the state of Ohio to select the rightmost-leaning Democrat (or Green, or Progressive) candidate in the state primary, wouldn't that skew the results in a way that does not reflect the true intentions of the declared voters for that party?
I'm trying to figure out your intent. When I go third party, I would rather stay out of the primary process than crash someone else's party. As GDAEman said, my vote is that I switched parties, not that I have to influence the platform of a party I disagree with.
Hello again Rick ;)
My intent is to break ranks with the status quo Dem's that say anything to get elected. I have for the most part voted Democratic my entire adult life. I do not condemn all Democrats, just the majority of those currently in office. ;)
I do not have a party affiliation because it's not the party that is important..its the elected official. Our two party system has basically morphed into one huge party that caters to the whims of special interests and the monied top of the food chain.
I feel we should influence the party platforms..its our job as citizens. If we don't influence them..the special interests will, you can take that to the bank Sir.
Look at the fringe Rightwing Republicans. They feel my pain I am sure. They are frustrated with the candidate that has been chosen, much as I am with Hillary and to a lesser extent, Obama.
My intent is to keep the Democrats from always expecting my vote and giving me very little in return.
I feel that being registered as "Decline to State' makes me a true independent Rick.
Dusty,
I don't want to put words in Rick's mouth, so correct me if I'm off base, but I suspect Rick is thinking of the case in which a non-stated
liberal votes in the conservative's primary election (or vice versa a conservative voting in the liberal's primary). There have been cases of that kind of tampering with the other side's process. Along those same lines, we know, for example, that some conservatives gave money to Green Party candidates to split the left. Nothing illegal there, just a bit smarmy.
Good Morning GDAEman,
If that is the case..then I understand and agree. :>)
From an Associated Press article, that exemplifies the point I made (so Rick, I hope you'll weigh in and confirm):
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's must-win states of Ohio and Texas are no cakewalk for her, largely because independents and crossover Republicans are welcome to vote in their Democratic primaries.
....
And the settling of the GOP race in John McCain's favor is an enticement for Republicans to come out for the Democratic election that still matters.
GDAEman,
Yes, you are correct. And "tampering" and "smarmy" are good words to use to describe the issue, too. :-)
Yea. Learned "smarmy" from my dad.
Thanks for closing the loop on this one.
BTW- Stopped by Scott's blog, which led me down an interesting path of other blogs.... the circle widens.
Post a Comment