GOP prefers "very liberal" Obama: Clinton might steal moderate votes

[jackson_dem]

Using 1988 as an analogy, Obama is Dukakis, Clinton is Gore, and Edwards was Jackson (ooohhh...is that racist! I compared him to the great Rev. Jackson!).

-snip-

WASHINGTON | House Republicans would rather the Democrats nominate Barack Obama for president because they believe Hillary Rodham Clinton would be more of a threat to John McCain among moderate voters, said Rep. Tom Cole, the GOP’s campaign chief.

The Oklahoma Republican said either Democrat is more polarizing than McCain, but it’s Obama’s inexperience and ideological background that would help Republicans most.

“I think he is the weaker (Democratic) candidate,” Cole told reporters Monday.

-snip-

Obama “is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country,” Cole said. “That is very, very helpful to us.”

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11334

Read how Obama will be attacked as another Dukakis type here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a9NviYExc3Gc&refer=home

[HockeyMom]

1. Hillary is rapidly becoming

McCain Lite.

[anonymous171]

2. Hillary is a cross between Mondale and Nixon

[Mooney]

28. Ouch.

[DJ13]

3. Im sure glad a Democrat cares what the GOP wants

You sure you're in the right party?

[cliffordu]

10. that one keeps bringing up right wing talking points. Makes me wonder....

[NJmaverick]

4. Nominated for Funniest post of the day!

The republicans are drooling at the thought of running against Hillary. Nothing would fire up their lackadaisical base, than the threat of Hillary Clinton becoming president.

[jackson_dem]

11. Things change. That was true a year ago. No more with "bitter", "typical white", pastorgate Obama

[NJmaverick]

12. Repukes and right wing nuts NEVER change

They still hate her and her husband.

[anonymous171]

18. That's why Ron Paul got 14% of the vote in PA?

[kmsarvis]

57. What happened to the Suns logo?

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Even long-dead GOPers would be voting against her

She'd fire up the GOP base like nothing else.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. I don't know about funniest. Did you see the one that was proud she was ahead in a Fox News poll?

[dflprincess]

Sometimes I think they want Clinton because if they lose the election

they're still better off if they have a faux Democrat in the White House

[IndianaGreen]

5. To the GOP, anyone to the Left of Hitler is a liberal

Mussolini is a knee jerk liberal by that calculation.

Any Democrat running for office will always be accused of being a liberal. We should remind voters that it has been Conservative governments and Conservatism that has brought the country to ruin, not to mention to the deaths of over 9,000 GIs.

[americanstranger]

6. What a joke.

You'll swallow anything, won't you?

- as

[uponit7771]

7. I didn't know Hillary was an asshole for 15 years !!!

[depakid]

8. If Obama actually was very liberal, we might have something to discuss...

The fact that this is coming from an Oklahoma Republican (a state not known for honesty or rationality) also tells us something....

[cbayer]

50. That's the part that made me chuckle as well.

Somehow Obama is getting painted as very liberal both by his supporters and his detractors. I heartily disagree. We do not have a very liberal candidate in this race.

[cali]

58. most Obama supporters don't tout Obama as very liberal

but you already know that.

[cbayer]

60. Some do

Particularly those that like to call Clinton a neocon Republican. There has been an interesting phenomenon, most likely fueled by the media, to push him further to the left and her further to the right, when they are both essentially moderate.

[LSK]

9. its amazing how the Dems keep nominating the most liberal Senator

Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold must be wondering what they have to do to get that title.

[Forkboy]

13. He's only "very liberal" if you're an idiot.

That's explains the Repubs position. What explains yours?

[Lilith Velkor]

84. An understanding of the use of quotation marks

genius.

[Shakespeare]

14. Sure, that would explain why they're running ads against him, and not Hillary.

:sarcasm:





:eyes:

[jackson_dem]

20. Why aren't they running it in IN?

They are running it in a state Obama has no shot at losing. What they want is Dems to rally behind Obama because one of our own is being attacked (like the rethugs did around McSame earlier this year when the NYT ran the lobbyist story and numerous other times when folks rally around a member of "their team"). If they wanted to hurt him they would run it in IN, not NC.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. Because she's leading in IN?

And there's hope she will win in NC. Surely you haven't missed all the threads on this over the past few days right here at DU by Clinton supporters and even a few Obama supporters.

[Shakespeare]

30. Beat me to it.

Why waste money where it's not needed, eh?

[jackson_dem]

31. She was losing in IN when the ads were purchased

She has no shot in NC. Demographics are destiny. Obama will get 90% black support. That would put him up 30-3. She won't get a white bloc vote to offset the black bloc vote for Obama. She would need 70-75% white support to win.

[Shakespeare]

38. IN has been a statistical dead heat for a long time.

So, no, you're still wrong.

The RW radio blowhards have also been calling all along for people to cross party lines and vote for Hillary in the primaries.

SHE is the one they want to face, because they think they have a better chance of beating her.

[jackson_dem]

53. Wrong. Obama pulled ahead before Clinton's big PA win

You know, how Obama's ad blitzes usually move numbers.

Hannity is considering endorsing Obama because he is terrified of Clinton's electbaility. Obama supporters are forever stuck in the past. Obama is far weaker than he was a year ago or even 2 months ago.

[Shakespeare]

73. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Right.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. SUSA has her within five in NC.

Indiana is largely her demographic of blue collar workers. The only reason Obama has a shot is because of the proximity of Illinois.

[jackson_dem]

55. Yeah but every other NC poll has her losing by double digits

That is true but IN is next to IL and that gives Obama home court advantage. Obama himself called IN the tiebreaker and if he loses after outspending her 3:1 again he has no excuse.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. So why does Obama have to win every state around IL, but Hillary doesn't have to win every state

around Arkansas?

[jackson_dem]

67. Does Hillary have a 90% bloc vote anywhere?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

70. What does that have to do with my question?

Obama didn't have that majority to begin with. Clinton led among AA's. Still I fail to see what Obama's base has to do with him having to win Indiana because it happens to be next to his home state.

[jackson_dem]

75. Everything

The reason Clinton was not expected to win some states next to Arkansas is because Obama had it in the bag due to half the electorate voting for him at a 90% clip. This is unusual. This is the same reason no one expected Gore to win Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia in 1988 even though his home state bordered them. Why 1988 again? This is the only time in the past this has happened. There is no need to hide it. Obama should be proud, just as Jackson was at the time.

She lost that plurality the moment he won Iowa, as Jamal Simmons predicted. Look at the polls after IA. Obama immediately shot up to the 70's. It is a myth that Bill Clinton lost that vote. You can't lose what you did not have at that point.

Addition to the post: she did win Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. She narrowly lost Missouri but she had no regional advantage there because Obama's state also borders MO. LA and MS are the states bordering Arkansas that she lost and that was due to the unique nature of this year's contest. Had she been running against Kerry or Dukakis she would have won those states.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

81. But the electorate of Indiana is CLINTON'S base, not Obamas

The ONLY reason he was expected to do well was because of the proximity of Illinois. If we take your post to be accurate, then she lost Mississippi because that was Obama's base despite it bordering Arkansas. By that reasoning, Obama could easily lose Indiana since it is largely Clinton's base, even though it borders Illinois.

[jackson_dem]

83. There is a difference between a 90% base he wins in each state and hers

She has lost her bases in several states. Obama has never lost the black vote--including in Iowa where he won over 70% in a field with four strong candidates (more proof the notion that Bill Clinton caused Hillary to tank with blacks is a myth). It wasn't reasonable to expect Clinton to win Mississippi because of Obama's iron clad support among this part of his base. If we were talking about Starbucks voters and youth voters that would be a different story because Clinton has performed well among these groups at times and neither gives Obama 80-90% support (this is why Clinton at least has a shot in Oregon, whose Dem primary will be chock full of Starbucks types from Portland). Clinton, nationally, has won roughly 56% of the white vote right now head to head with Obama and has been getting around 60% in March (64% in OH, 56% in Texas, 62% in RI, 39% in VT, 75% in MS) and April (63% in PA). It is reasonable to expect Obama to win over these groups in Indiana because he has occasionally done it, most notably in neighboring Wisconsin.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

87. What about Vermont? A state that borders her homestate of NY.

Why was she not expected to win that? By your own words, she should have since Obama never had that much of an edge in those voting groups?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. Also double digits is exactly 10 in this case.

Hardly an insurmountable lead.

Also when he said Indiana would be the tie breaker he meant in regards to the current primaries, not the overall election. The whole context is here:

"I think Indiana is very important," Obama said. "We've got three contests coming up in pretty big states -- Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. They all have significant numbers of delegates, and they are states where Sen. Clinton and I are actively campaigning."

"You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania,” he added, “and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana. While Sen. Clinton has some advantages here, I benefit coming from an adjoining state.”

[jackson_dem]

68. It is hard to overcome in less than a week

[butterfly77]

15. I am getting sick of what they want..

They are showing up on some of these shows and sometimes there are two CONS and no Dems describing what and how the Dems should react in the campaign.. GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR CAMPAIGN NEOCONS! The media is full of it...

[Lilith Velkor]

85. I am long past sick of the O camp jumping whenever they say "frog"

We need to stay focused on the enemy, and mindful of the extent to which they control and influence the media.

[cali]

19. LOL! So now in hillyworld what drops from the lips of the top puke

strategist in the house is immutable truth? Today three house dems endorsed Obama. Like most sane dems, their words and actions hold a lot more credibility for me than the propagandist Cole. Anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that if they thought Hillypoo was going to be the nom they'd say they were salivating over running against her. And Obama is winning the endorsements of those whose jobs are on the line: Elected SDs. Get a grip, son.

[americanstranger]

26. That's indicative of what we'd face with Clinton as president, IMO.

They'd all be so scared that a Republican was going to say mean things to them, they'd let the Repubs run all over them.

I'm so sick of gutless Democrats. Let them go and form the 'Spineless Weenie' party, and base every decision on what the big mean meaneh Republicans might do to them.

- as

[Mooney]

21. They do that no matter who the nominee is.

Come on, you're smarter than this.

[jackson_dem]

22. Ironic. Folks who think Rev. Wright is a hero talking about who would sell more to moderate voters

Ah, the netroots. :)

Is Wright still a hero now that Obama has "denounced" him (wink, wink)?

[americanstranger]

29. Also ironic. Democrats taking Republicans at their word.

Don't be so goddamn gullible.

- as

[jackson_dem]

34. I don't. I look at the totality of the circumstances

Obama is tailor made for the rethugs this year.

[americanstranger]

36. Oh. And Clinton is bullet-proof.

You're pretty naive if you think Clinton will not face the same treatment as Obama.

Of course, we'll never know that for sure, since Clinton won't be the nominee. But I digress.

- as

[eridani]

64. The Tuzla liar is unelectable against a former POW n/t

[Forkboy]

35. FAIL

[ej510]

44. I won't let the Gop make decisions for me.

[Frank Booth]

24. "Clinton might steal moderate votes"

Good one. Clinton's so popular with those independent voters. And the three to four Republican cross-overs she'd pick up nationwide would do wonders for her chances.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dr Fate]

25. It seems Obama has more cross-over appeal with moderates & moderate Republicans.

At least from what I've read & heard & seen with my own eyes...

I suppose it all boils down to how one defines moderate and who is doing the talking...

[grytpype]

27. A Repug is going to say nothing but lies.

They want to run against Hillary, it's their only hope!

[oasis]

32. Obama is Dukakis sans experience. (eom)

[cali]

62. that has to be one of the dumbest comparisons you hilldroids make

Obama has charisma. Dukakis? Um, no. A resounding know. Obama has teflon. Dukakis? None. Zero. Zip. Try harder.

[haymakeragain]

71. Did you say "hilldroids"?

I think that's a typo, it's spelled "hillroids".

[haymakeragain]

72. ruh roh, got one better

hillaroid.

[oasis]

88. "charisma" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In your case, "starry-eye".

:loveya:

[eridani]

65. No, that would be Clinton. Agreeing with Rethugs on everything except

--that she would be a more competent technocrat.

[Orangepeel]

33. and if the GOP campaign chief says it to the press it HAS to be true

But the fact that people like Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol and Richard Mellon Fucking Scaife keep defending her means nothing.

[graycem]

37. Oh boy..

Now that he's handled Wright, we're back to who the GOP prefers... Tomorrow will it be pushing the unity ticket again? Then how he's unelectable? Then back to who the GOP prefers... *sigh*

[americanstranger]

39. You forgot a couple.

'Obama gave it a good shot, but he should quit now.' Or Rezco, Ayers, and in a pinch, Larry Sinclair.

They're shit's as predictable a the program lineup on a cable TV station.

- as

[graycem]

45. Oh yeah..

I forgot Rezco and how he was going to be implicated in that trial. Maybe the jury deliberations that are starting will crack the case wiiiiiide open. :P

[Hawkeye-X]

41. So how did that Shaq trade work out for you?

Psst.. FAIL

[ej510]

Because this is Hillary's base of support.

[ej510]

43. Team Clinton!

[Hawkeye-X]

46. I thought the guy looked familiar!

[Dr Fate]

48. How dare you lampoon the noble, salt-of-the earth swing-voter.

They are beyond critique- it is the educated, activist, elitist, non-racist types who we are supposed to make fun of...

;)

[redqueen]

42. ....

:rofl:

[ej510]

47. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

49. Obama isn't significantly "more liberal" than Clinton. MSM tripe. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Exactly true

The other big mistake by the OP is the perception that the GE will be about policy.

I am about policy issues in this primary election, but I am in the diminishing minority. There is no reason to believe that the GE will be any different.

From my perspective, "liberal" lost out several months ago.

[Turn CO Blue]

52. Nope.The LAST thing the GOP wants is the contrast of Obama

versus old, fumble-tongued, tired, grumpy, foul-mouthed, memory-losing, corrupt, war-mongering McInsane.

[jackson_dem]

78. they would love it

If it is M vs. O this is what the rethugs will make the election about: 1) security and 2) patriotism. It is never wise to cede home field advantage to the other team and by nominating Obama we would do that. If we choose Clinton the election will be about the econom and health care, our turf.

[Texas Hill Country]

54. k & r

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Newsflash to GOP: Obama ain't liberal.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have Obama kicking Wright to the curb AND call him a liberal. Nah, nah, nah, You can't have it both ways.

[jackson_dem]

76. They play the "too liberal" card every four years

The thing is it has more staying power with Obama because Obama 1.0, the Chicago version was very liberal.

[Exultant Democracy]

59. somewhere over the rainbow perhaps

But not here in the real world where the GOP runs ads against Obama and McCain and Clinton have the same talking points.

[leftstreet]

66. Not. GOP prefers HRC - so they can Gingrich the midterms

How hard is this to understand? Why do you think they ran McLame?

:shrug:

[sandiegoboy]

69. I think the GOP wants Hillary to win

Hillary has more baggage.

[smiley_glad_hands]

74. You attack another dem with what repugs attack all dems? Still using rightwing frames. eom

[Thickasabrick]

77. I just read the opposite the other day - the GOP sees Obama as

the biggest threat.

Hillary will not and never will be POTUS. The republicans who would normally stay home and not vote in this election would come out in droves just to keep her from winning. You and your fellow Hillary supporters really underestimate the massive Hillary hate out there.

[ecstatic]

79. So why are they buying anti-Obama ads to knock him out in the primaries

If Obama is the one they want?

[mcctatas]

80. So now they get to pick our candidates too?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Fine, you support another candidate, it's OK that you want to keep pastorbating until you get hairy palms, I can live with the policy disputes, most of the slimy attacks, fine....

BUT, if you are going to use the candidate the pukes want us to run as a talking point you have become unhinged. They lie all the time, but on this you accept them at thier word? Even if it is true, who fucking cares? Jesus, we might as well dissolve as a party tomorrow if this is an argument that hold's any weight! :wtf: :grr: :nuke:

[CatsDogsBabies]

82. It seems obvious that Republicans want Hillary to win

It will be far easier for McCain to beat HRC in the GE. McCain will not win out over Obama. I have confidence in Obama and in the American people.

[Alii]

86. Convince Rush Limbaugh of this...

maybe he'll get his thugs to change their vote to Obama.

Regardless, much ado about nothing...it is over, Barack Obama IS the Democrat's candidate.

[Solon]

89. Obama and Clinton are virtually clones of each other, policy wise, and both are centrists...

of the conservative variety. To the GOP, they could be considered liberal, but then again, they also call Hillary a "communist" too many times to count. They have no fucking clue what a communist, leftist, or liberal is, so they have no perspective on this.