Hillary supporters (such as myself) have had to bend over backwards several times to defend transparently ridiculous arguments coming from the campaign, such as certain states don't count or that Hillary is a fabulous general election candidate, which she isn't. And I admit to some intellectual dissonance when trying to keep up with the spin. But I've never wavered in who Hillary actually is: a ruthless fighter who is extremely progressive on domestic issues but a go-with-the-flow establishment figure on foreign policy. It's not ideal for me but I at least see where she's coming from.

Obama, on the other hand, is still a complete mystery to me. I know he has plenty of policy papers. I've read them. But I honestly don't like his kumbayah crap in every single speech and to me he sounds like Bloomberg or Schwarzzenager -- two moderates who dump on their party because their party is beholden to extremists and incredibly unpopular. However, that is not true of the Democratic party and I wish he would say so.

I've heard simultaneous arguments made that Obama is a fighter for progressive values but also a moderate who can appeal to the middle. Sorry folks, it's one or the other. The reason his supporters can't agree on a narrative is because there is no narrative except "change we can believe in." In a way, every attack on Obama IS personal because his entire candidacy can be summed up as "haven't the last 20 years sucked? -- Barack Obama can do better!" with "better" never actually defined. I resent him equating Gingrich/Bush with the Clintons because it reeks of above-the-fray "pox on both your houses" laziness that I THOUGHT the netroots existed to combat.

Posted at April 5, 2008 1:04 PM in response to Losing Paul Krugman

Let's assume for a second that Obama can "unite the country" and Hillary is "polarizing." Where is this in the poll results? Sure, this is just one poll, but Obama has never significantly (3+ points) led Hillary in G.E. match-up averages.

The media and blogosphere narratives on this question are completely divorced from the empirical evidence. The two Democrats have different strengths and weaknesses but they are both EQUALLY ELECTABLE.

If it comes down to who knows the government better once he/she arrives with a slim mandate, I pick Hillary. But I like Obama very much as well -- I think each candidate should make the argument for the candidacy on the merits, not with this bogus "electability" argument

Posted at March 17, 2008 2:07 AM in response to Gallup: Obama Leads Hillary Among Dems, But Trails McCain For The General

"I will tell you why (even though I was looking forward to voting for her) I am not now. I did not expect a candidate like Obama to come along, and the fact is, no matter what anyone says he is doing things differently. I have never trusted politicians, not Bush, not Bill Clinton, not W. Bush., not Gore, or Kerry. So I never expected to see a politician that I felt I could trust on at least some level."

I think the big difference here is that I trust Hillary and Obama equally, which is to say I don't trust either of them very much!

-- I believe Hillary will play nice when she has to, play dirty when she has to, and do a weird hybrid of nice and dirty when she has to. In other words, she's "in it to win it." And I DO trust her on that. When Obama says that she'll "do anything to win," he's RIGHT! And that's why I like her.

-- I agree Obama is running a "different" kind of campaign. HOWEVER, I think he is running this kind of campaign *because it's the only type of campaign he could have run*. It turned out to be very successful, so he is a *much* better tactician than I first suspected. But at his core, he is a politician. Full stop. He is smart, but like any politician, he is ambitious and will take the necessary steps to further that ambition. Running a "nice" campaign was his way to win -- and that's what he's doing.

If you put them in the same plane (ie, they are BOTH politicians) instead of elevating Obama above "the old politics" (and by implication Hillary and every other Democrat since Kennedy), then it comes down to who would make the better President. I think Hillary for many of the reasons outlined abovt by Rose.

Posted at March 16, 2008 10:13 PM in response to I want to hear why you support Clinton (really)

Wow, talk about the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard -- Hillary might actually come back and win this thing, so we need to END THE PRIMARY NOW!!! The more Obama supporters whine that Hillary needs to drop out because the "math" is against her, the more people start to realize that the math is bogus. Obama's "superdelegates are undemocratic" argument is pretty much already out the window.

Posted at March 5, 2008 9:45 AM in response to Brazile: Howard Dean And Other Party Leaders Should Be Prepared To Step In

I think it's even better for Hillary than I originally said. Josh just posted a video of Chuck Todd talking about the delegate math and how Obama is dominating the caucus in Texas. But I can see people thinking -- "That's strange, but he lost the primary. What is this caucus thing?"

The Obama campaign really doesn't want anyone thinking or talking about that. Having Obama win a two-to-one margin in the caucus on the same day that he loses a primary in the same state undercuts *every single one of his caucus victories* because Hillary can say "I would have won those too if they were fair!!!"

Will the media buy it? Will the voters? Will the superdelegates?

Posted at March 5, 2008 1:55 AM in response to Why it's worse for Obama than you think...

I think that the Hillary argument, which in my opinion is both somewhat racist and also somewhat convincing, is that black voters in the cities will come home to her no matter what in the general, while downscale whites might be tempted to vote for McCain over Obama in a way they might not have if Hillary is the nominee. Ross Douthat had a very good post on this recently.

Posted at March 4, 2008 11:02 PM in response to county votes

Rich, both sides are being critical of each other. Hillary's big weakness is being viewed as too polarizing, but Obama hasn't shied away from making precisely that critique:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article

Posted at March 4, 2008 2:51 PM in response to Clinton violates The Democratic version of Reagan's 11th Commandment

Gee and markg8, I have a slightly more nuanced view re: Obama and substance. It's not that I as a Hillary voter think he's a policy lightweight or that because he's a good orator then somehow he must be lacking intellect. It's just that for me, Hillary *comes across* as much more interested in the nitty-gritty of policy, and that is very appealing to me personally. If their policy positions were the same but their campaign rhetoric/style reversed, I'd gladly support Obama, as I think my views are more in line with his on most issues. But Hillary's natural tendency is to not only be wonkish, but to *appear* wonkish, whereas Obama is much more thematic. I think it's just a matter of taste.

Posted at February 20, 2008 11:06 PM in response to Re: Congratulations Obamaniacs