Oh, why can't Clinton and Obama just have a co-presidency?

totally agree with that anna! Maybe that's the radical shift our political structure needs.

I'm from Mass, and I've been looking at the Democratic voting by town. An interesting trend that I've noticed is that a lot of the VERY wealthy "old money" towns (Concord, Lincoln, Sudbury, Carlisle, etc.) were heavily Obama (along with the college towns).


But towns with heavy immigrant populations (Fall River, New Bedford, Chelsea, Lynn) and towns in the former industrial areas (Lowell, Lawrence) were heavily Clinton.


If Obama is the agent of change, why is the "old guard" showing up for him in droves? And if Hillary is supposedly the establishment, why are more disenfranchised people voting for her?


Anyone else notice similar trends in their states? Thoughts?

I'm from Mass, and I've been looking at the Democratic voting by town. An interesting trend that I've noticed is that a lot of the VERY wealthy "old money" towns (Concord, Lincoln, Sudbury, Carlisle, etc.) were heavily Obama (along with the college towns).


But towns with heavy immigrant populations (Fall River, New Bedford, Chelsea, Lynn) and towns in the former industrial areas (Lowell, Lawrence) were heavily Clinton.


If Obama is the agent of change, why is the "old guard" showing up for him in droves? And if Hillary is supposedly the establishment, why are more disenfranchised people voting for her?


Anyone else notice similar trends in their states? Thoughts?

I'd settle for a Clinton/Obama Democratic Party ticket (or vice-versa), which would surely make the party unstoppable against the Republicans in November. One of my concerns with Obama is his ability to deal with the dirty tricks that the Republican party consistently uses in presidential elections. (Possible Swiftboat redux?) I'd feel alot better knowing that Hillary (and Bill) would have an interest in defending him because I can't think of anyone that has more experience with the GOP and its disgusting smear tactics. However, I think that Barack (and Michelle) would bring their inspiring message of hope and change that is necessary to keep the entire Democratic mobilized. Together, it seems that these two candidates would almost guarantee the Dem's victory in the general election and make an incredible impact on political history in the process!

"If Obama is the agent of change, why is the "old guard" showing up for him in droves? And if Hillary is supposedly the establishment, why are more disenfranchised people voting for her?"
Posted by: teddy10

My thoughts exactly teddy10. I was watching CNN, and they said exit polls were saying that most democratic white men were voting for Obama. Shouldn't we think about why that is?

I would also totally support a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Am I the only one who thinks a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a waste of Obama talent?

The more and more I watch the two of them, the more unappealing Clinton is to me. Obama gives me, a woman who has never been politically inclined, chills. But when I listen to Clinton, my brain starts to fog. I think it would be really disappointing to have a candidate who has inspired action among so many young people to be put on the back burner as a VP.

Thoughts?

Just that I'll likely be tempted to strangle the next person who calls McCain "liberal" and says they'll vote for him over Clinton because she's "fascist."

And that none of the students on campus aside from the College Democrats seemed to know what Super Tuesday is. Mentioned it to a friend of mine when I was getting dinner, and he asked what it was. Someone said it was the start of Mardi Gras.

*headdesk*

Obama gives me, a woman who has never been politically inclined, chills. But when I listen to Clinton, my brain starts to fog.

Anyway, my partner says that he can totally see Barack having a number of famous, historical speeches go down in the history books like those ones; that Barack has a really powerful way of speaking and does so clearly and honestly (and yes, we believe he has the actions to back up those words!).

If you click on my name, I have written several posts on my own blog about them. I'm too lazy to retype it all, plus this way I can whore for readers.

I want it to be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Pretty please?

Watched the speeches last night - Obama has an intense amount of charisma, but a lot of his supporters creep me out.

I'm pretty happy with how the race is going - I'm glad McCain will probably be the Republican front runner, and I'm glad that Clinton and Obama are both still in it.

Fallopian, there is one way to think about it: If it were a Clinton/Obama ticket this year, then 8 years from now (assuming everything is glorious and they are reelected in '12) Obama could run for president and he would have loads of experience as veep, which would be a huge help since one of his drawbacks is his youth and lack of experience. Then we'd have up to 16 years of awesome.

Of course, now I'm thinking about the fact that if that happened, I'd be 40 when the awesome ended.

Its funny, Hillary is the one that did well with liberals last night. You know all the folks here pretend to feel with their Gay/Tans, Latina and Hispanic, Asian, etc... sisters, but then why has Obama not personally gone out to get these votes? Hillary did. He's the more progressive candidate? I guess if progressive = conservative.

Speeches mean very little to me. This character thing is stupid as well. I mean NIXON ended Vietnam, not JFK or LBJ. Does that mean Nixon is better then them? Carter was intelligent and fought for peace, but was a lousy president.

And being right first??? Lincoln was wrong on Civil Rights but learned about it and changed his position. Now is Lincoln not qualified? GWB believes he is right, and will not yield. How's that been working for everyone?

Also, Hitler was a great speaker, would you vote for him?

Lastly, for all the beauty of Obama's words, why are his supporters so mean spirited? If that is the kind of feeling that is sweeping the nation, count me out.

last night was my first participation in a caucus and i had a freaking blast.

i must say it's nice to wake up to election results and not be hit with a feeling of dread. i'm still hopeful and inspired and i really, REALLY hope that the dream ticket becomes a reality.

string_bean_jen: the letterman 'greatest moments' thing was hilarious.

Although I do like Obama, it does bother me that the people getting behind him (at least in Massachusetts) are the well-off whites in suburbs of Boston, and other well-heeled areas. Clinton kicked butt in working class areas, and if Obama's the candidate of change, representing the common person, shouldn't they be voting for him?

Also, I have met many Obama supporters who are quick to insult Clinton, offer little reasoning for supporting him other than "change" or "he makes me proud to be an American." I'm certainly not saying that all Obama supporters are like that, and not even most. But being on a college campus, surrounded by Obama mania, leaves me worried that, if Clinton is the eventual nominee, they won't support her as strongly. which is sad, because the last thing we need is another republican president, which we could end up with if young people don't vote.)

(For the record, I personally support Clinton 100%, but if Obama's the nominee, I will volunteer for him and support him 100% just like I do Hillary.)

Although I do like Obama, it does bother me that the people getting behind him (at least in Massachusetts) are the well-off whites in suburbs of Boston, and other well-heeled areas. Clinton kicked butt in working class areas, and if Obama's the candidate of change, representing the common person, shouldn't they be voting for him?

Also, I have met many Obama supporters who are quick to insult Clinton, offer little reasoning for supporting him other than "change" or "he makes me proud to be an American." I'm certainly not saying that all Obama supporters are like that, and not even most. But being on a college campus, surrounded by Obama mania, leaves me worried that, if Clinton is the eventual nominee, they won't support her as strongly. which is sad, because the last thing we need is another republican president, which we could end up with if young people don't vote.)

(For the record, I personally support Clinton 100%, but if Obama's the nominee, I will volunteer for him and support him 100% just like I do Hillary.)

I'm still recovering from the restless night of tornado-scares and storm sirens. I haven't even had time to process any of last night's proceedings...and we got off lucky. The worst I've got to show for it is a lack of sleep and being distracted from my political interests for a few hours. Some people near us have no houses...

*sorry for the off topic rant* *sigh*

Obama is a very charismatic speaker - I don't think anyone would disagree. However, it makes me bang my head against a wall to hear that being used as a reason for voting for him. His lack of a voting record scares the heck out of me - especially when he doesn't show or only votes present on issues that matter ALLOT to me. For all his talk of being an outsider - he seems like the epitome of a "politician" as though he has carefully tip toed his way in the senate so that he could run for President with a "clean" slate. I don't think this makes him ready to lead this country and make the difficult decisions which CAN'T by definition please everyone!

He might make an excellent President but I think he owes it to his supporters, to the democrats and to this country to prove it first and be less of a professional politician who just wants to be president.

I am a newly registered Democrat from Massachusetts. I'd say that health care and the economy are probably the two most important issues for me. I find Obama charismatic, but I just voted for Clinton. Why? Three reasons.

1. Flat out, she's got the right health care plan for moving forward. Obama's plan does not even pretend to offer universal coverage. It would cover about 80% of the currently uninsured people. Hillary's plan would reach everyone and for only about 15% more in cost. Paul Krugman had an excellent editorial in the NY times yesterday about the differences in the plans and why hers (which is modeled on our universal coverage here in MA) will work and his won't.

2. I just don't think Obama can beat John McCain, who's looking more and more like the Republican nominee. McCain will eat him for lunch in general election debates about foreign policy and he has enormous credibility on defense issues. Hillary, on the other hand, knows her stuff cold. She is quite possibly the smartest and best prepared Presidential candidate we've had in a generation. She's not an inspiring speaker, but she is a policy wonk who relishes the workings of government. Thank god. We've had charming but useless for 8 years now. I'm ready for somewhat boring but incredibly competent.

3. I know this will be controversial, but. . I just want to get the whole "Can a woman be president" thing behind us. We are so blessed this year. It's been conventional wisdom for years that the first female president would probably be a Republican Iron Lady like Margaret Thatcher. We have a smart, capable, liberal woman. She's imperfect, sure, but I think she's going to be our best shot for quite a long time. So, damn straight I'm rallying behind her. I think of it as my thank you to feminists of the past and my gift to feminists fo the future. They gave me more equality than they could have ever expected to see in their lifetime. I can help recognize one of their dreams. The presidency is a door WE can open. Our generation, our battle.

Go Hillary.

"Also, I have met many Obama supporters who are quick to insult Clinton, ... But being on a college campus, surrounded by Obama mania, leaves me worried that, if Clinton is the eventual nominee, they won't support her as strongly. which is sad, because the last thing we need is another republican president, which we could end up with if young people don't vote.)"

Spirina, I've noticed that too. There's Obama supporters who have told me they'd sooner vote for Huckabee than Clinton because she's a "bitch" or a "pro-censorship fascist." Naturally, whenever I attempt to correct them, I get shot down with "Well, I have a right to my opinion."

And this is at a school in New York. Christ.

More on the Obama cult of personality from today's NYT editorial, "Divided They Run": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html?hp

Having run on the idea of broad participation across society’s divisions, Mr. Obama’s campaign often seems to teeter on becoming a cult of personality — a feeling that the candidate and those around him do nothing to dispel. In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,� on Monday, Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, was asked if she would work to support Mrs. Clinton if she won. “I’d have to think about that,� she replied.

Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity. But her unguarded answer was similar to what we heard from Obama supporters in e-mail messages that we received after endorsing Mrs. Clinton. Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

Hillary had a good speech last night, I thought. This line rocked:

“I especially want to thank my mother, who was born before women could vote, and who is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.�

That gave me chills.

"Obama is a very charismatic speaker - I don't think anyone would disagree. However, it makes me bang my head against a wall to hear that being used as a reason for voting for him."

I find a comment like this offensive as it seems to presume that being a charismatic speaker is the ONLY reason those who name that quality has an asset would vote for him. The truth of the matter is, Obama and Clinton are very similiar on many of the issues. And so what it does come down to, and which I don't think is a bad thing, is character, charisma, rhetoric, etc. I'll be behind either of them when they win, but as someone who HAS done the research, I find Obama's plans more clearly outlined and more practical.

I also think that Obama has the power to vastly improve our image around the globe, where charisma and likeability plays a huge factor.

I find a comment like this offensive as it seems to presume that being a charismatic speaker is the ONLY reason those who name that quality has an asset would vote for him.

You know what I find offensive? Comments like this:

Obama gives me, a woman who has never been politically inclined, chills. But when I listen to Clinton, my brain starts to fog.

Pathetic. Why would listening to an educated woman speaking on how she will lead this country not send chills down your spine. Perhaps its the "who never been politically inclined" bit that is the real offender. How can you be a feminist and not be involved in the world around you? As a Hispanic woman who has always followed politics, I can't help but get chills when I hear Hillary speak. Infact, whan I was in the voting booth I teared up to see a woman on the ballot as the presidential candidate. My tickets printed and there was her name. I felt like it was a dream...an awesome dream.

Thank you Jennifer, I was thinking the same thing. I saw Hillary speaking on TV and she was so awesome I almost cried. Her interviewer (Tim Russert maybe? I don't remember) kept trying to stick her with all of the tired old accusations and she completely kept her cool while verbally bitch-slapping* him at the same time.

*Any attempts to discount my post based on my use of the word "bitch-slap" will be mocked mercilessly, as I regularly use that term in a non-gender-specific way. Example: "Jon Sterwart verbally bitch-slapped John McCain last time her was on the Daily Show."

Ugh, fucking typos.

Jon STEWART

last time HE was on the Daily Show

It is interesting, jennifer, that you are not addressing any of the real issues that I have brought up, but instead, focus on the fact that I am not inclined to vote for this particular FEMALE candidate.

I don't think you are giving women enough credit to think for themselves. Should I vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman even though I prefer Obama's vision and my belief in what he can do for this country?

As for the "never being politically inclined," I believe it is more important that one becomes interested in these issues at all, rather than focus on when they did. I'm young (23) and the world of feminism has recently been really opened up to me after reading Jessica Valente's book. It also my belief that we should be proud of those who are learning and becoming more involved, not isolate them and stigmatize them.

It also my belief that we should be proud of those who are learning and becoming more involved, not isolate them and stigmatize them.

I believe I can be critical of a point. We are talking here right? I do not have to accept it when I hear women saying they prefer to hear a man speak rather than a woman. If the poster had said she prefered Obama's talking points, his vision etc. then, hey, great. But then to get a dig in there on Hillary because the young woman's head goes into a fog... That's fair game. I can critique what I find to be a sexist comment.

Furthermore, she admitted to not following politics, which is his base. Because when you look at what Obama says there is no record to review. He basically got into the senate to run for president. For those that follow politics, when Hillary Clinton ran for the NY senate seat, the biggest issue was she was doing it to become president and would not follow through and serve her term. Well she did serve her term. But look at Obama, he is not finishing his term and doing a great disservice to the people of his state. He is actually like any other opportunitic politician as is Hillary. But he frenzies up the young with words that are more about how one should live their life rather than policy. And that is precisely because he has no record of policy to stand on.

I find that he has great ideas on how to live a better life. But I do not need a preacher. I have found my truth already(wihtout the need of any politician) and I do not need to cath the fever or ride the wave. What I need is a president who can get the job done. A real president, not one wrapped in a shiny message of sparkling hope and dreams. Last I looked, those ideas did not pay the bills, end a war or put food on the table.

I am not soooooooo old at 33. I still get carded when I buy booze. But I have traded in jello shots for red whine. ;-) I do remember being young and excited about the future. When I was a little younger than you, it was "Clinton/Gore, Bush no more!" But the big difference, Bill addressed the issues. He made college more affordable, had the lowest unemployment rate and gave our country a surplus of money. It was a great time.

So I am not buying into Obama's message that those who haven't caught the fever are living in the past. Perhaps I am just not buying what he is selling.

Now you will notice, I critiqued the man's ability and his stump speech. I did not critique the man. Perhaps we women can do the same when we talk about Hillary. :-)

I did a smidge of digging about the present votes. If they bother you, could I ask that you please read the article below and see if they still do? I think that they are pretty reasonable votes.
Cheers,
Bethany

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

Actually what bothers me is that he changes his stump speech depending on where he is and claims to have passed bills that he hasn't. In Iowa he recently said he passed a bill regulating nuclear power plants. Unfortunately the bill never passed.

While Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill that never did pass, he also participated in negotiations that watered down the measure to the point of meaninglessness. That, however, didn't stop him from claiming the mantle of being pro-environment and anti-nuclear pollution while campaigning. Is this another case of "I invented the Internet"?

What's worse, he took campaign contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon executives and employees. Exelon is the company that owned a plant that kept smaller leaks quiet. According to its own Web site, it is also the largest nuclear power provider in the nation.

Furthermore in Idaho, he said he was pro-guns. Something I am sure most did not know. If you want to check out more, read here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/350296_erbe07.html

I just feel he is getting a pass with the media. They are ready to annoint him without much research. He says a lot of pretty things, but they just don't add up.