The Democratic Party's Only Hope for Change

[RY62]

I came across this posting on another forum. Since I completely agree with the poster, I thought I'd share it here. It's a bit of a long read but worth it.


I'm a history buff. Specifically, I'm an American history buff. Even more specifically, I'm an American political history buff. Because of that, I tend to view political campaigns in terms of a longer, broader picture. I realize that politics in America has always been a game of chess even though many have tried to make it a game of checkers.

The only hope for the Democratic party to achieve real change is what is quietly referred to by some as the "dream ticket". This ticket is an amalgam of perhaps the two most promising candidates our party has birthed in many years. The stars must have truly aligned for both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama to emerge onto the national scene at the same time. Sadly, the universe has a somewhat sadistic sense of humor and both Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama have emerged onto the national scene at the same time. What might have been a stroke of genuinely good fortune is quickly becoming a terrible curse. The "dream ticket" is our albatross and we wayward sailors are playing our part in this mariner's rhyme turning fortune to burden in the blink of an eye.

In the entire history of the United States, no President has achieved true and substantive change within the span of one administration. What began with Washington was not completed by Jefferson. Jackson's economic vision was solidified by Van Buren. Lincoln tore the nation apart but could not rebuild it without Johnson's help. It took FDR the time of two Presidencies to rescue the nation from Depression and war. Lyndon Johnson carried the flag when Kennedy fell.

Neither Barak Obama nor Hillary Clinton can change the nation alone. It will take multiple Presidencies to save social security, impliment true universal health care, bring us home from Iraq, repair our good name and reshape our economy in such a fashion that it serves the hopes, dreams and realities of everyday Americans. Any one of these duanting dilemas would tax the abilities of any President. Whomever takes the oath of office in January 2009 will face them all.

We need both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. There is only one way for that to happen.

If Hillary Clinton is to be President, it must be now. She is 61 years old. She cannot run again in 2016. She has worked her entire life to bring about the changes Barak Obama stumps about today. Her speech to Wellesley College in 1968 set the course for a lifetime of service and dedication to a movement that would change the lives of literally millions of Americans.

Hillary Clinton has shaped and established programs that gave children hope through education and healthcare access. She helped bring hope to working class moms and dads through economic programs aimed at those who struggle to make ends meet. She made it possible for battered and abused women to find hope again. If we turn our backs on her now, she will never reach her mountaintop and, I believe, neither will we.

In 2016, Barak Obama will be 55 years old. He has time to run again. He is our party's promising phenom quarterback loaded with the potential to take us to new and unimagined heights. But phenoms don't always reach their potential. Sometimes they're rushed onto the field and forced to deal with situations for which they are unprepared and in circumstances that do not suit their abilities.

Barak Obama has sparked a movement in the Democratic Party, yet still he has not united the party. He has set things into motion that he cannot yet master. With eight years of seasoning, two terms as Vice President to learn and to grow, a strong platform built on the backs of those who have come before him, Barak Obama can leap from one mountain to another and we, the people, can go with him.

Politics is a game of chess, not a game of checkers. In a day and age that urges us at every moment toward instant gratification, we must be wise and we must be patient. We must asses our situation and see the entire board. We cannot rush our knights and leave our queen exposed. If we hope to truly change the world, we must come together and protect our albatross. We cannot allow our impatience to shoot her down.

dimera23

 

[nageov3t]

the only thing we'll be changing is the skin color or gender of the president... I've never really seen anything in any of the people running for president that makes them remarkably different than previous presidents beyond the superficial.

if people really cared about change, they'd elect a nutjob like Ron Paul.

Hillary/Obama might be the best thing for the democratic party in the long-term, securing possibly 16 years of the presidency, but the egos involved are all way too big for such a possibility.

 

[Farang]

First, the notion that there are two great candidates to choose from is certainly not agreed upon. Clinton lacks a moral compass, proof of that should come with her aligning herself with McCain to cut Obama off at the knees. She said explicitly that she and McCain were ready to be president, Obama was not. Objectively looking at the situation, I think anyone will tell you that Clinton is a longshot for the nomination at this point. At least under 50% you would have to concede. So why then would she risk Democratic disaster in the Fall by doing this? Her own personal ambition. Either that or because she would endorse McCain before Obama. This latter possibility seems less likely to me.

Second, presidential opportunities are almost always a one-shot deal (exception: Nixon). Plenty of great potential American presidents have come and gone, but have only been "potential" because they lacked the timing necessary to put them in office. So telling the leader of the primary race to wait 8 years until he is "seasoned" (whatever that means) does not seem to me to be very sound advice for the candidate to take.

So you have a case of a candidate, because of her own mismanagement of her campaign caused in part by the appointment of loyalists rather than talent, that has shown an inability to serve as a successful executive. And then you have a candidate who came out of nowhere and put together possibly the most well-organized campaign in recent history, revolutionizing the way campaigns are going to be run in the future, and took out the frontrunner who had the best name recognition factor this side of Kennedy in the Democratic party. Which one do you want leading the party this November?

 

[Bitek]

I don't think Obama would be so quick to get Gore'd in '16 anyway. As said above, this premise is based on Hillary actually being a good candidate and the country *needing* her as pres. We don't. She can do her work somewhere else, like Senate majority leader (Reid is weak.) Talk about moving the ill-suited pieces in the wrong direction.

It also assumes these are the only two candidates around to run in '16 as well. There will be plenty of others to follow Obama in '16 if he governs well.

 

[Dari]

:laugh:

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the only thing we'll be changing is the skin color or gender of the president... I've never really seen anything in any of the people running for president that makes them remarkably different than previous presidents beyond the superficial.

if people really cared about change, they'd elect a nutjob like Ron Paul.

Hillary/Obama might be the best thing for the democratic party in the long-term, securing possibly 16 years of the presidency, but the egos involved are all way too big for such a possibility.

Couldn't have said it better :thumbsup:

 

[yllus]

As an outsider looking at the situation, I see Senator Clinton as the slim chance the Republican Party has for election success this time around.

Many people, including many self-professed Democrats, have visible hatred for her (whether it be justified or not, it exists). Self-professed Republicans, almost to a tee, despise her. Voters in the middle could go either way, but it seems like a sorry excuse for a game plan to pick a candidate who's already got the lines drawn in the sand for and against her. It would seem so much more sensible to appoint a candidate who has a chance of bringing those centre-right undecided voters and soft Republicans over to vote for him.

That forum poster also makes what I think is a false assumption in stating that Senator Clinton would be effective in getting policy implemented during her stint as CIC. The forum poster states that the job will be stressful and will take much discussion and compromise to get things working - and yet s/he wishes for the most divisive candidate in this election to be the one to win the presidency? Very illogical.

 

[ProfJohn]

The guy who posted this needs to get a grip on reality.

Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate, who happens to be a woman.

And at the point in his career Obama is a man who can give a great speech, but hasn?t really done anything that qualifies him as President.

About the only thing that makes these two special is their race or gender.

BTW I do believe that Obama has a very good chance at being President some time in the future.

 

[nageov3t]

in a perfect world, I would have loved to see Obama serve a term of governor of IL before running for president. I'd feel a lot better voting for him over McCain if he had some executive experience.

but whatever... they'll be playing hail to the chief for him in January.

 

[chowderhead]

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain

Primary

Clinton: 47%
Obama: 45%

General Election

Obama: 46%
McCain: 45%

Clinton: 47%
McCain: 45%

Favorable Ratings Among Likely Democratic Primary Voters

Obama: 68% (41% of Clinton supporters)
Clinton: 75% (56% of Obama supporters)

Favorable Ratings Among All Voters

McCain: 51%/46%
Obama: 51%/46%
Clinton: 50%/48%

Seems like there isn't much difference in favorables/unfavorables or general election matchups. The smaller subset of Democratic voters actually show that Obama could potentially lose more Clinton supporters.

 

[bamacre]

LMAO, the only people who want this "dream team" are those who want Hillary on top and Obama on bottom.

This is ridiculous. Why would the one winning the race want a second place trophy?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

They can fluff up the "It's Hillary's turn" argument with all of the flowery feel-good crap they want, but as an argument it still sucks. :thumbsdown:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Seems like there isn't much difference in favorables/unfavorables or general election matchups. The smaller subset of Democratic voters actually show that Obama could potentially lose more Clinton supporters.

Obama is going to lose LOTS of Clinton supporters in those states where he needs them the most. Clinton's working-class and older white voters (aka Reagan Democrats) in the key swing states are going to swing right on over to McCain in large numbers.

I really hope that Obama can beat McCain, and if he's the candidate I will be voting for him. But I have a bad feeling he's gonna end up losing it because he loses those rust belt swing states that Clinton could have carried, as well as FL.

Ah well, if that happens Obama will be done for, all the Obama supporters can hang their heads for 4 years for picking the wrong candidate, and Clinton will get another run at McCain in 2012.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do not be hopeful because it's rash. Play it save. Change must wait. Be practical. Don't be crazed.

Sorry, but change can only happen in the now and now is now. I don't want to wait in hope for 16 years. I am not voting for a queen who selected herself. I am going to vote for the person who will make the best President and that person is Obama.

 

[nageov3t]

you keep saying change as if he's offering anything more than a dedicating to towing the party line.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481
in a perfect world, I would have loved to see Obama serve a term of governor of IL before running for president. I'd feel a lot better voting for him over McCain if he had some executive experience.

but whatever... they'll be playing hail to the chief for him in January.

That's all nice and everything but we had Richardson, an experienced candidate who also happened to be a governor. Nobody voted for him. Says alot about these wishes of yours.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481
in a perfect world, I would have loved to see Obama serve a term of governor of IL before running for president. I'd feel a lot better voting for him over McCain if he had some executive experience.

but whatever... they'll be playing hail to the chief for him in January.

That's all nice and everything but we had Richardson, an experienced candidate who also happened to be a governor. Nobody voted for him. Says alot about these wishes of yours.

don't blame me, I'm a republican

fwiw, I liked Richardson a lot and I think he'd have been a much stronger contender if he wasn't up against two major brand name candidate.

 

[BoberFett]

Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481
in a perfect world, I would have loved to see Obama serve a term of governor of IL before running for president. I'd feel a lot better voting for him over McCain if he had some executive experience.

but whatever... they'll be playing hail to the chief for him in January.

That's all nice and everything but we had Richardson, an experienced candidate who also happened to be a governor. Nobody voted for him. Says alot about these wishes of yours.

don't blame me, I'm a republican

fwiw, I liked Richardson a lot and I think he'd have been a much stronger contender if he wasn't up against two major brand name candidate.

That was the problem about him. His resume was too perfect. Dig deeper and you saw an incompetent man who had ZERO leadership skills. Democrats saw that and shut him down. Plus, he kept saying "I was there" too much.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Morph-

Obama is going to lose LOTS of Clinton supporters in those states where he needs them the most. Clinton's working-class and older white voters (aka Reagan Democrats) in the key swing states are going to swing right on over to McCain in large numbers.

The electorate is fed up with the repubs, for a variety of reasons, and as the election shapes up, what we're going to see is the accurate characterization of "McSame"... Obama can pound McCain into the dirt with it, keep the election focused on the issues, basically run against GWB, win easily.

The only possible way for Dems to lose is to run Hillary. Because of her baggage and the simple fact that she's really closer to McCain than most Dems, repubs can obfuscate the issues, make it into a prom queen vote, a straight up popularity contest... which she could easily lose.

Which is not to disparage Hillary in the slightest- against a more conservative repub, she'd be a winner.

 

[Jmman]

I have to laugh about people slamming Hillary for her ambition. ALL candidates suffer from extreme ambition. That is why they want to be president........:roll:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Jmman
I have to laugh about people slamming Hillary for her ambition. ALL candidates suffer from extreme ambition. That is why they want to be president........:roll:

except people don't seem to discuss or acknowledge that Obama is highly ambitious. When people acknowledge Hillary's ambition, they seem to do it in a negative way by describing her as hungry for power and a bitch.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Jmman
I have to laugh about people slamming Hillary for her ambition. ALL candidates suffer from extreme ambition. That is why they want to be president........:roll:

it seems to be part of a double standard applied to men versus women - in Obama, ambition is seen as a positive quality (it's seen as a positive quality in men in general) whereas ambitious women such as Hillary are considered "power hungry" and "bitches".

It has nothing to do with a double standard. If Obama was cutting Clinton, a candidate he supposedly shares similar values and plans with, off at the knees and teaming up with McCain to disable her for the primary as well as the general, then he would be just as despicable for having undermined his supposed values for the sake of personal accomplishment.

Of course all candidates have ambition. That isn't what is being argued here. What is being argued is when does a candidate let go of ambition in order for their value system to have the best chance of being implemented in government? In the case of Clinton, never. Her ambition has proved to be her most important value of all.

And just because we have trouble understanding eachother, that last bit wasn't about 'who can make change.' It was about Clinton's realistic chances of securing the nomination (low) versus her temporary-McCain-VP tactics of trying to slaughter Obama, regardless of the general election consequences.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Jmman
I have to laugh about people slamming Hillary for her ambition. ALL candidates suffer from extreme ambition. That is why they want to be president........:roll:

it seems to be part of a double standard applied to men versus women - in Obama, ambition is seen as a positive quality (it's seen as a positive quality in men in general) whereas ambitious women such as Hillary are considered "power hungry" and "bitches".

It has nothing to do with a double standard. If Obama was cutting Clinton, a candidate he supposedly shares similar values and plans with, off at the knees and teaming up with McCain to disable her for the primary as well as the general, then he would be just as despicable for having undermined his supposed values for the sake of personal accomplishment.

what is obama doing when he casts doubt on Clinton for not revealing her financial records, or accuses Clinton of being deceitful, if not attempting to cut her off at the knees? Obama isn't despicable for making these comments - he's just behaving like the typical politician he actually is.

Originally posted by: Farang
Of course all candidates have ambition. That isn't what is being argued here. What is being argued is when does a candidate let go of ambition in order for their value system to have the best chance of being implemented in government? In the case of Clinton, never. Her ambition has proved to be her most important value of all.

And just because we have trouble understanding eachother, that last bit wasn't about 'who can make change.' It was about Clinton's realistic chances of securing the nomination (low) versus her temporary-McCain-VP tactics of trying to slaughter Obama, regardless of the general election consequences.

my understanding is that Hillary still has a decent chance at the nomination. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, her chances are still "very good". Her chances will be even higher when Obama loses Pennsylvania, is my guess.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Farang

It has nothing to do with a double standard. If Obama was cutting Clinton, a candidate he supposedly shares similar values and plans with, off at the knees and teaming up with McCain to disable her for the primary as well as the general, then he would be just as despicable for having undermined his supposed values for the sake of personal accomplishment.

By your own assertion, I guess Obama is despicable then, since he has criticized Clinton plenty in the last few weeks, including comparing her to McCain. You're ok with Obama criticizing his fellow democrat opponent, but as soon as Clinton says anything critical about Obama, she's tearing down the party. Hypocrite.