tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post5165463607593951589..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Backlash HypothesisDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-41149011570605343152008-04-16T09:37:00.000-07:002008-04-16T09:37:00.000-07:00Though not specific to women, Obama has targeted p...Though not specific to women, Obama has targeted proposals toward senior citizens, including his idea to stop requiring those with income less than $50k to file tax returns. He certainly has not treated that constituency dismissively.<BR/><BR/><I>btw, poster, i was absolutely shocked that my candidate mcgovern lost. he was many times better than your candidate, but lost in a landslide for the same reasons your candidate will.</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, McGovern, who first voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and then became an opponent of the Vietnam War. Sure that Obama is the Democratic candidate who best parallels McGovern's record? <BR/><BR/>So far as I know, Obama intends neither to pick a VP who has a history of mental health problems nor to advocate for amnesty for those who left the country to avoid military service and for legalization of drugs. Obama also shows absolutely no sign of losing his own state, a Democratic stronghold (where he won the primary 65-33; Clinton won NY by a smaller margin of 57-40).<BR/><BR/>One actual similarity between Obama and McGovern is that both believe the Democratic primary voters should decide who the nominee is, rather than party insiders. I just hope that if Clinton's supporters don't get their establishment candidate the nomination, they don't form "Democrats for McCain." Given Clinton's portrayal of McCain as a better commander in chief than Obama would be, it seems distinctly possible. In contrast, I've never heard of Obama's implying that McCain would be preferable to Clinton in any respect.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-27384698810130204692008-04-15T21:24:00.000-07:002008-04-15T21:24:00.000-07:00anonymous above basically repeated the mantra i've...anonymous above basically repeated the mantra i've seen all over the net - we older women are the past and not needed. the poster forgets that we are older, but not dead yet. for the next 20 or 30 years, the poster will have to deal with our existence. we are indeed relevant. or maybe he just doesn't care about the next 20 or 30 years.<BR/><BR/>the poster also says we can't lose young and african-american voters "just to satisfy Hillary Clinton's ego and lust for power." this quote reveals much about the poster. it reveals nothing, however, about the issues. the reality is that hillary clinton is simply much more capable than obama. she is also much more electable. <BR/><BR/>the poster suffers from the same hubris my generation, including myself, suffered from in the past. <BR/>btw, poster, i was absolutely shocked that my candidate mcgovern lost. he was many times better than your candidate, but lost in a landslide for the same reasons your candidate will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-45426580564247112782008-04-15T19:12:00.000-07:002008-04-15T19:12:00.000-07:00I see the supers-put-Clinton-in as far more damagi...I see the supers-put-Clinton-in as far more damaging by any measure. First and foremost because it would be to most an unacceptable internal Democratic Party replay of the election of 2000. Number two, the African American vote would vanish from the political scene entirely, and likely for many years to come. Number three, all those new young registered voters will be so disenchanted, they could very well abandon politics for the rest of their lives, or worse, decide the Democratic Party demonstrably is not, and move to the other side of the political divide.<BR/><BR/>I believe Hillary's base, which seems to be white women over 50, represent the short-term present, but mostly in that context, the past of the Party. They were once the newly registered young activist voters, and we needed them then, just as we desperately need the newly registered young voters of today for the future. We simply can't afford to lose all these voters and demographics long-term just to satisfy Hillary Clinton's ego and lust for power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com