If Obama is more liberal than Hillary why does he need Republicans and Indies to beat her?

[jackson_dem]

It is accepted as a scriptural truth that Senator Obama is more progressive than his New York counterpart. Why is it Obama, not Hillary, who is attracting the Republican vote then? I understand the whole BS about "post-partisanship" (do you see any Republican candidate talking about it? They don't want any of it. Obama will reach out to them and get punched like Pelosi and Reid did!) but these folks would not be voting for Obama if they did not find his politics acceptable. This is eerily similar to how Lamont killed Lieberman among Democrats but lost among independents and badly with Republicans. Do not forget Hillary beat Obama among Democrats in Iowa and beat him comfortably among Democrats in New Hampshire.

[Muttocracy]

1. accepted? huh?

Don't their voting records in the senate match 90% or something?

General election is not just Dems.

[LostinVA]

2. She has a higher progressive/liberal ranking re: her Senate record

[cali]

10. links

please- and not just one cherry picked one, because the ones I've seen show him as having a more liberal voting record. In any case, I think both their voting records are pretty good.

[HeraldSquare212]

3. The Reps don't want any part of it because they think they're running in the last election

Things change, electorate changes.

[chefgirl]

4. Ahh, that IS the question, isn't it?

I'm not an Obama supporter, I have to be honest, but you have asked THE question. :thumbsup:

-chef-

[Nailzberg]

5. Because they are splitting liberals three ways.

So the winner has to appeal outside the base.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Kinda funny how you ask a question, and while doing so dismiss without justification

the answer.

[auburngrad82]

7. Regardless of who you support, we need independents to win

We've consistently lost elections over the past few cycles because the independent voters went to the GOP. I've talked to a few very reasonable people who voted for Bush in 2004 because they felt it was not a good time to change leaders, what with the Iraq war etc.

We have a real chance to win this time around and the independents will have a large part in that.

Each side, the right and the left, have their base. We at DU tend to lean more towards the Democratic Party's base. The GOP's base voters tend to be the religious right who would vote for Satan if he'd abolish abortion and strike every non-Christian dead.

There is, in our country, a great number of people who either call themselves independents or just vote for whoever they like, regardless of party. This group has been growing as both the GOP and the Democratic Party have alienated people to the point where they don't want to be tied to a group that they don't always agree with.

Two things can happen this year. We can accept that we need these independent voters in order to win or we can stick with our ever dwindling base and lose again. By accepting the independent voters into our "big tent" we can hopefully get enough Democratic senators and congressmen AND win the White House. Imagine what can be done if all branches of government belong to the Democratic Party?

If we continue to ignore the independents and the Republican voters who realize they have no viable candidate we just continue our record of losing, despite the fact that the majority of Americans hold values closer to our party than to the GOP.

I personally hope we can win over the hearts and minds of independents regardless of who our eventual nominee is.

[tandem5]

8. I know... this is my point also and get that any candidate needs

independents to win. I just don't want independents picking my democratic candidate.

[magbana]

9. Analysis from "The Black Commentator" May Help - Two Articles

Folks, I’m convinced that if we don’t start connecting critical dots we will do ourselves and this country a terrible disservice. Reading “The Black Commentator” helps me a great deal in this regard:

From my blog Global Voices Censored http://globalvoicescensored.wordpress.com
Posted today, January 10.

“OBAMA: Who Do You Represent and What Are You Not Saying?

A while back, I wrote a post on another blog of mine, Haiti-Cuba-Venezuela Analysis about Senator Obama's "Cuba Policy." It's predictable reactionary fare. I was thinking about writing another post on this blog about who Obama is and what he does or does not represent. Thank goodness, I was saved this task by this week's issue of The Black Commentator, an intelligent, highly analytical publication. Before you contemplate Obama a second longer, PLEASE read the following two articles. Kudos to the authors!

OBAMA AND THE AMERICAN DREAM: REPRESENT OUR RESISTANCE by Dr. Lenore J. Daniels http://www.blackcommentator.com/259/259_represent_our_resistance_obama_american_dream.html


DOUBLE-SPEAK, BARACK OBAMA AND CONTINUING U. S. HYPOCRISY by Larry Pinkney
http://www.blackcommentator.com/259/259_keeping_it_real_obama_double_speak.html

The Black Commentator http://www/blackcommentator
is published weekly on Thursdays and always offers an insightful look at our world.”

[Anouka]

15. The critical dots to be connected being? (and thank you for the links)

I read Represent Our Resistance. It starts out

Gremlins of the American Empire are holding their collective breath. Aside from Rupert Murdoch, the beneficiary of hubby Bill’s Telecommunication Act 1996, the defense industry loves Hillary Clinton. Supporter of the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leave-no-friends-of-Bill behind, Hillary Clinton, is loved by Lockheed-Martin. She’s received hefty defense contracts to solidify their marriage. But that’s not all! Citigroup, Comcast, Sun Microsystems, Morgan Stanley and many other corporations love Hillary. Her backers are all about privatization, free trade, and astronomical profits. Although people of color on her staff outnumber Barack Obama’s picks, Hillary Clinton is in love with powerful white men and their interests.

That this lover and daughter of capitalism supreme came in third in the Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2008, has the corps experiencing a bit of shock and awe! They must have gone to bed Thursday night wondering if their get-away spaceship has left Earth too soon. What happened to the good people of Iowa?

So far so good

Clinton has more “experience” dealing with the corps, but they can love the new guy on the block who doesn’t nag them (at least not as often and persistently as John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich) with 60s mantra’s like “power to the people” or “hey, what about the poor and working-class people?” According to The Hill, three political aides on Obama’s payroll were “registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations,

...still good...

What kind of change do these people have in mind? It is the kind of change that does not remind white America of the connection between domestic enslavement of Black Americans and the practice of torture, terror, and repression at home and the practice of pre-emptive war, torture, and terrorism conducted on foreign soil against other people of color.

The concern about Obama’s “experience” has less to do with experience in foreign policy and more to do with his experience, that is, memory of domestic policy as it relates to Black Americans. Obama’s mother is white and his father is Kenyan. In other words, Obama is not a product of the Black American experience and, as a result, doesn’t share in the familial experience - the collective memory of the Maafa, the catastrophe of being kidnapped from Africa, shipped in chains, enslaved in the U.S.

Not good. Nevermind about white folks -- black folk need to get over the purveyors of the victim mentality and get over the comfort of the plantation. So what if Obama is half native white and half immigrant black. That's like downing Halle Berry for not being as black as Angela Bassett.

You know why? because that plantation thinking can shackle us down as much as it can boost us to drive for freedom. Right now, it's shackling us down. So now you've got all these plantation negroes screaming (with Hillary's assistance and money) that Obama isn't black enough because he doesn't have the blood memory of chains.

Good, because if all the blood memory of chains has brought is this bullshit

Bradley Affect Scares Southern Black Voters

I have read articles where southern black politicians are telling their constituents to not get their hopes up, to stick with the Clintons.

Then maybe it's time for BLACKS to get down with the change Obama represents, too. The old is not working anymore. Black folks are screwed. Blacks are not going to get anywhere by continuing to be the stepping stone for every other immigrant -- and women -- on the planet. It's time to grow deeper and move forward, remembering the past but not being chained by that past.

Anyway, thank you for your links. I'm just really wary of all this 'Barack isn't really black... so vote for the white' stuff; it seems insiduous, much more insiduous than the muslim stuff, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe because it's the expectation that blacks should expect to be downtrodden because no one else is going to treat them as anything else except downtrodden.

Oh, and that Barack shouldn't be supported because he won't continue to be a loud voice for that special status instead of insisting blacks get a move on as if they were immigrants instead of slaves. You know what I mean? Old ways aren't helping blacks. They're helping everybody except blacks. And that's unacceptable to me.

[jackson_dem]

17. Eye-opening

[readmoreoften]

19. Thank you very much for these links.

There will be no change this election. Only placeholders/stablizers while the Republicans regroup.

[Kucinich4America]

11. I don't see either of them as Liberal

But at least Obama's not DLC. Forced to choose between the two, that would make the difference.

[ngant17]

12. Hillary beat Obama in Iowa?

Did I get this right?

Here are some 3 Jan 2008 numbers from CNN:

Iowa Caucuses: 99% of precincts reporting:

38% Barack Obama
30% John Edwards
29% Hillary Clinton

Other Iowa Caucus Demographics:

Obama - Edwards - Clinton

Women 35% 24% 23%
Men 35 23 30
Liberal 40/36 16/25 24/25 (very/somewhat)
Moderate 33 22 31
Conservative 21 44 22
Democrat (76%) 32 23 31
GOP (6%) 44 32 10
Independ (20%) 41 23 37 17

[Bread and Circus]

13. Because Clinton is the entrenched establishment favorite

with strong built in support from women (who are huge part of the Dem base). She also gets a lot of the less educated Dems as well that may be more inclined to go with the known and the familiar than a black guy w/ a foreign sounding name.

However, what helps Clinton now won't be what helps here in the GE when it comes to swing states and swing votes, except maybe the built -in support from women.

[More Than A Feeling]

14. Because, surprisingly, a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, too)

put personal character first, so that they will vote for someone they likely disagree with on most things, so long as they trust them. I don't understand it, but that's one reason that I haven't seen anyone mention yet.

[libbygurl]

16. Does this explain why so many Republicans voted for Bush - twice? Character? nt

[sendero]

18. Because ..

....the right wing noise machine has been villifying HRC for 15+ years and most republicans HATE her.

Where have you been, under a rock?

[DrFunkenstein]

20. Effective Framing Vs. Triangulation

Obama has been super successful at framing the issues in ways that appeal to moderates while the Clintons have no qualms about throwing away liberal principles for their own gain.

By the way, Huckabee won Iowa talking about "post-partisanship." The moderates are going to push back in their Party after Rove sent them into the wilderness.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Because he doesn't pander to interest groups as much as Hillary does

Hillary is the sum of her interest groups, many of which are liberal. But I'd prefer a President that makes the best decision in each particular situation, not the decision that the interest group wants. As far as post partisanship goes, the way you achieve that is by getting more independents, particularly young people out to vote. Young people are significantly more liberal than their older counterparts. It's not about giving into Republicans, it's about getting the currently apathetic voters to align themselves with the Democratic Party so that the Republicans will have to compromise with our agenda or get thrown out of office.

BTW, Obama beat Hillary among Democrats in Iowa by one point.

[Clanfear]

22. She is more divisive

The puke establishment has a hard on for Hillary.

[mrdemocrat78]

23. Hill... right of everything Left

One thing that carries more weight than anything else is that she voted for the Iraq WAR Resolution. A Republican initiated the war. And Hillary Clinton accepted it and went along with it. That is more conservative than you think... these days.

Obama is distinguished for never endorsing the war. That is a liberal idea.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Because she has strong standing among establishment

Dems in state parties?

Just a guess.