Re: Let.s Go Hillary

[ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:
> As was already pointed out, Obama's support comes mainly from a vast
> amount of small individual donations, ...


43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
Only 26% comes from those who donate less than $200. So his support
comes mainly from large contributors (Hillary does fare worse, with
12% coming from < $200 donors, and 63% from > $2300 donors).

[Source: opensecrets.org]


> Secondly, Obama is much more vigorous, at
> least in rhetoric, about wanting improvements in government ethics and
> procedures.


In fact, it is this vigourousness of rhetoric that should raise our
suspicion. Especially if the rhetoric is: a) vapid (arguable, I
admit), b) couched in right-wing talking points, c) triumphalist. If
you take the rhetoric at face value then it is dangerous because it
suggests Obama actually believes that partisanship, division, etc, are
the problems.


> Thirdly, the Clintons
> have perfected the act left, talk right trick before, and have
> betrayed
> leftists on every issue, and there is no reason to think Hillary
> will be
> better than Bill on this.


I think this a very good point, but I would modify it: the Bill
Clinton, in this cycle, is Obama, not Hillary. Glen Ford, who has been
writing (and speaking: see his appearances on FAIR's show and Doug's
Behind the News) makes the "turn right" point in a graphic and in
argument, here:

http://tinyurl.com/26ffym


> Fourthly, and not unimportant either, I think Obama will have a way
> easier
> time beating John McCain. Contrary to what Charles Brown thinks, I
> think
> the Bradley effect will be quite minor - Harold Ford in the 2006
> Senate
> election performed more or less as polled, and he was a really
> rightist
> Democratic candidate in Tennessee of all places.


The "really rightist" part is the reason he seemed to have a chance.


> Obama has won such
> bastions of ethnic diversity as Iowa, Utah and Idaho.


(I assume you are being sarcastic when you say "bastions of"?). Iowa
is an open caucus, so the Bradley effect is not applicable there. Utah
and Idaho are conservative strongholds, and the small liberal
population has the luxury of voting for trophy candidates.


> And aside from this, Obama does massively better than Clinton among
> independents (who tend to determine elections in the US), and has
> vastly
> less negatives that could unite Republicans against the Democrats.


That he has a platform and rhetoric that attracts "independents" is to
me a warning sign, not a positive. Unless we believe that 4-8 years of
a Democrat, any Democrat, is better than McCain for the same period.
There are some arguments to make that case, but then, both Obama and
Clinton are fine in the role of "any Democrat".


> Which brings me to Perelman's point. Of course I'm no supporter of the
> Democratic Party either, but I think the 'vote Hillary to break the
> Dems'
> argument will not work. Not because the working class loves the
> Democrats,
> but because of the US voting system. Maybe I'm cynical, but I
> believe that
> it is simply impossible for any radical party, regardless of whether
> they
> are well-organized or not, can be a serious competitor in the US
> today as
> long as the first-past-the-post voting system is in place. This is no
> reason not to vote for a leftist third party (I would choose the
> SPUSA) in
> the generals, but it is something that the socialist movement will
> have to
> face.  McGovern as a candidate did not break the Democrats; Mondale
> did
> not break the Democrats; Dukakis did not break the Democrats. Even
> when
> times were vastly rougher and the leftist challenge vastly stronger
> than
> they were now, like around WWI and the Great Depression, the two-party
> system in the US stood as a rock amidst the storm. It's simply not
> feasible to expect it to collapse as long as plurality voting exists.


So, then the question becomes: will the election of Obama help rid the
US of "plurality voting" any more than the election of Clinton? The
argument is that neither will have an impact, but if we have to choose
one, it would have to be Clinton since she is less of a bromide or
placebo than Obama.

       --ravi