Mmm, Candy

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:42

Here's a very simple and obvious point that I've noticed in every single primary I've ever been involved with. Democratic voters like Democratic leaders. I don't know why they like them, but they do. They like Barack Obama. They like Al Gore. They like Bill Clinton. They like Hillary Clinton. They like John Edwards. They like Al Wynn. Many of them even like Joe Lieberman.

It's just a fact, similar to fans of a band who like all the members of the band. That's how it is. So when people on TV get all huffy and upset at Bill Clinton saying this or that it doesn't matter. Democratic voters don't care. It's not like a general election where two sides hate each other.

Anyway, we'll see how this plays out, but I would strongly caution the Villagers who have staked their pundit credibility on some backlash against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Democrats like them, and not just because he was President and she was first lady. Democrats like them because they are Democratic leaders. They like Barack Obama as well. This doesn't mean that a case can't be made against choosing one over the other, but it's more like a choice between gourmet candy and gourmet cake. They like these people.

... No, these people are not sheep. They are very smart and thoughtful, they just trust Democratic leaders to do as best they can. They are also persuadable.

Matt Stoller :: Mmm, Candy

Tags: Hillary Clinton, President 2008, President 2008, Barack Obama, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Mmm, Candy | 7 comments

Credentials (0.00 / 0)

I give the Clinton's a lot of credit. I know people hate the idea of a dynasty, but they caught a bunch of shit from the republicans, and did a good job of flinging it back at them all through the 90's. I know the Clinton's are pro-corporate, because it's obvious from their job performances. However, in their case, I feel that there is some practical limit to how far they'd bend for corporations. Much of the corporate media has focused a lot of effort of trying to destroy them, and have failed. I suspect they will be ready to return the favor, and I'd like to see that.

Edwards has a near perfect message, and I am intrigued by his career as a trial lawyer. I do not fault him for losing in 2004. He ran the best campaign that year, IMO, even though I preferred Clark. From my point of view, Edward's perfect message is not as credible as I would like, since his record in the senate seems to more or less reflect that he voted the way his constituents wanted, which I guess is practical, but not heroic.

Obama is very cool, but his "framing" sucks big time. I pretty much agree with Paul Rosenberg on that. Even with all the stupid things he says, I still like him, and I sincerely believe he will fight for progressive interests in his own way.

The distinctions I draw between these candidates are based on how effective I think they can be. I LIKE all of them.

by: Mark Wallace @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:02:13 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I know I'm not necessarily "Democratic voters"... (0.00 / 0)

...but I'm fully prepared to NOT like Bill'n'Hill. oh, yeah, the 90s were great and all, but that was predominantly because I paid very little attention to politics. and while I (and not a few others) slept, Bill did some fairly nasty things that lead directly to where we are today. (media deregulation, anybody?)

and as a matter of fact, I'm fully prepared to NOT like Barack Obama, either, at least until he can tell me why I have any reason to believe in the Hope he flogs at the slightest provocation.

will I vote for either one, if they're all that's on offer on Election Day? yes, I will. but it's not gonna be because I like either.

by: annagranfors @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

We Are All Homer Simpson! (0.00 / 0)

Except, of course for Gustave Flaubert.

He's Madame Bovary.

And I'm not.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I like all of them, too (except for the blood-thirsty Lieberman). (0.00 / 0)

That's why I don't like to see us rip each other to shreds.

I'm an Obamaman. But I'd also enthusiastically vote for Mrs. Clinton or JE, should they get the nom. I do think, however, that if we don't nominate Obama now, we are wasting a golden opportunity like they talked about on Bill Maher last night. Obama, in and of himself, if elected, would transform the nation and how we are perceived internationally.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him. Seriously. It's weird.

by: avenged savant @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:08:22 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hillary for dinner; Obama for dessert (0.00 / 0)

I am undecided in the primary. My vote in the general is not in doubt: I am a Democrat.

Now: if I end up voting for Hillary on Feb 5th, it will absolutely not be a rejection of Barack. He's younger than I am. He has a future as a Democrat, if he wants it, whether we nominate him this year or not. So does Hillary, despite being older than I am. She might in fact have a bigger contribution to make as a lion(ess) of the Senate, a la Ted Kennedy, than as President. One of them will not get the nomination, this year. Barack can try again later. Hillary, not so much.

Note that I am NOT saying Hillary deserves the nomination because it's her last chance. Nobody DESERVES the Presidency. Likewise, nobody is obliged to "wait his turn". All I'm saying is that IF we don't nominate Barack, we are not writing him off for good.

My ideal future would feature back-to-back, two-term Democratic Presidents. Obama in 2016, anyone?

-- TP

by: Rethymniotis @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]