Reagan vs Ford, and Kennedy vs Carter, and Hillary vs Obama.

All had support within their party. What did each do with that support?

How will Hillary measure up? Will Obama be treated better than Ford and Carter were?

What is going on in the Democratic party? Sure Obama is the nominee, but how many people supported him and how many people supported Hillary?

Is Obama gonna be like Carter and Ford or will he end up like FDR who took over the party for generations?

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

What did Ted Kennedy's campaign do to the Democratic party? Did it work for party unity? If it did what happened with all the people who supported the campaign? Did they vote for Carter?


Reagan: Did he help Ford after Ford beat him in 1976? What did Reagan supporters do in 1976? Did they help Ford?

Hillary. What have Obama supporters done that is contrary to the message from Obama himself? Will this effect the supporters of Hillary's campaign? Her campaign is behind Obama, but most campaigns are never really about one person.

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

The odd thing about the Clinton/Obama divide is that it seems ridicuolous that there is so much of a gap.
The campaigns were both shocked to see each other as rivals.
Against any one else, Clinton would be the "change" candidate. This was a bizarre race because Clinton or Obama should have taken the spot in the primaries reserved for "liberals"... where either one would, under normal circumstances, lose to Edwards, Richardson, or Biden.

This is interesting in that two "liberals" won out the rest early on. This is showing a definite shift in the party that didn't exist so much in those other cases.
Reagan v. Ford was ideologue v. pragmatist
Kennedy v. Carter was "liberal" v. populist.

Now it seems we have "liberal" v. "liberal" and both were attmpting to win the populist vote.
It was rather unnatural to see Clinton finding a niche with blue collars!

This election will only get weirder when we see the "outsider independent liberal" v. the "moderate-conservative maverick".

I think it says more about the country right now than any candidate or party.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Hillary is a true liberal with many what many consider moderate leanings. I consider those leanings to be liberal principles, but in an age when a crappy movie actor who never met a promise he could keep got to define what a liberal was...gawd Reagan was a jerk.

Obama, is a left/moderate progressive. His campaign courted the angry, bitter, and others who ere not all registered Dems until the day or weeks/months before the Dem primaries/caucuses. Hillary's campaign went after the base and the middle with a far more healthier message. Obama's hope was based on the premise that the world has become very dark.

Reagan v. Ford was ideologue v. conservative
Kennedy v. Carter was "liberal" v. populist.

The race will indeed get weirder. It is also a very long race. It is actually better for us all. We get a look at the candidates,.

I think Obama supporters hated Hillary keeping the race active was it kept shining a light on a candidate with weak credentials and little true experience.

I am one who thinks Obama is not as great a speaker as tjhe mobs and the press(who have fallen infatuation if not in-love with Barack's story) .

am I the only one disturbed by the Obama spin that he does not use race? His stump speech was about "what are the odds of me being here?" and that is about his race, no? I know he says he was raised by a single mom, but was he? I thought his grandparents raised him and his mom got remarried.

Obama has nothing in common with people raised by one parent. He has thins in common with kids with divorced parents. the more ?I look at him, the harder it is to justify joining his campaign online after Hillary asking me too.

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

I actually saw it much differently.
Both have similar views and Obama is actually a bit more liberal (anti-death penalty).
It's their styles that were different.
Obama is younger and sees more utility in bipartisanship- give a little, take a little, try to maximize transactions through trust and respect.
Clinton came of political age in the dark days of Nixon and Reagan. She sees it as a constant war where liberals are always the underdog and must fight like it. She doesn't see that the conservative "revolution" is at an end. She follows the DLC strategy of downplaying liberalness and going for the throat.

I think the main problem was the lack of understanding as to what she was doing. Obama fought well to defend his credentials, proving that he can do it against McCain.
Clinton just seemed so strange. One minute it would look like she was staying in to ensure everyone votes and help the party along. The next minute it looked like she was going to blow up the party if she wasn't picked.
The main problem I had with keeping the race going is that it gave McCain a head start in the general campaign. The party has to be united by November.
If this was to be carried out until August, that would be near impossible.

He is a great speaker. He's not so good with debates... but then again debates don't mean much.
If they did, Biden would be our candidate.

It's being dramatized a bit, as most people dramatizee their lives. I think most single-parent kids get help from grandparents... but then so do a lot of double-parent kids.
The main point is that single-parent households statistically produce bad results.
He's just trying for the "only in America" speech. That's a pretty typical political speech, generally effective.

I wouldn't say he has nothing in common with them. Many of the troubles in single-parent households are emotional ones. Obama still had an absent father and that's supposed to create a lot of problems.
Obviously the right parent and the right support can overcome that.
He obviously had some luck somewhere in how he was raised and who his family was. I don't think he'd deny that. He's not a Republican.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

the problem here is Hillary has a record of bipartisanship that Obama lacks. hillary like ted k, is used by the GOP to raise money, but like ted she helped bipartisanship flourish

you almost sound like you are parroting what is fed on the cable gabfests. the DLC is s liberal org. It is not a leftist one.


there are more than one way to view what the long campaign added to the whole

I like biden


here Obama is a phoney. he was raised by his grandparents and by a step dad with a mom.

most single parent kids do not get that kind of help. like most middle class people (I assume you are from your views) you are mistaking single parent families with divorced families.

Obama is the product of divorce. His mom remarried and took him overseas. No single parent kids I know (who ain't wealthy) get that kind of experience.


obama is a fraud. he is a packaged product and his media guy is an astroturf specialist. that alone should make people lose sleep

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."