Menendez questions Obama's electability

What's it this week? (4.00 / 1)

Wasn't Obama too much of an elitist to win? Now he's too black?

Isn't it also safe to assume that if some voters are gullible enough to believe that Obama is lying about whether or not he's a Muslim, that they're also gullible enough to believe the make-believe scandals the right dreams up about the Clintons?

---

by: JRB @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 16:50:42 PM CDT

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

How winning in states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas translates into a November victory is beyond me. O has to either win CO, NM, AZ and IA, or PA and FL. Polls show he is not carrying PA or FL and he needs to sweep those Western states to make up the difference. How does he do that without the woman and Hispnaic vote? Both constituencies do not repudiate McCain as a potential candidate they can get behind, but both will support Clinton over McCain. These voters are the same faction that helped GWB in 2004; with over 40% of the vote for each faction. Why do Obama supporters ignore this demographic when they have the ability to sway the election to the Republican column?
Winning more primary states does not make you a stronger candidate( a stronger primary candidate yes, but not necessarily a general one), the ability to attract a broader base than your opponent does.

---

by: furiousdee @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 17:21:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

John Kerry was... (4.00 / 1)

... the picture of electability in 2004.

You list some eight states out of more than 30 that he's won. But they're probably not the "right" states either.

Winning more primary states does not make you a stronger candidate...

Great, so does that mean you'll stop insisting that since Obama lost the primary in some states that he won't win the general there?

It's politics, things get sliced and diced and goalposts get moved over and over and over again.... But what this post and that comment are about is how Clinton and co. have taken it to a whole new level of cynicism. If you're not cognizant of that then you shouldn't be telling the Party -- which has made its choice, for all intents and purposes -- who its nominee should be.

---

by: JRB @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 17:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hello? (0.00 / 0)

Polls do show him winning Pennsylvania.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/...

I do agree Florida has poor prospects, but even that has looked better in recent polls.

Obama has been consistently stronger with independent voters.  Don't you remember the old spin, that Clinton would have won if all the primaries were closed?

Chris Christie forced a company to endow a professorship at the law school he went to.

---

by: Hopeful @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 21:34:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Menendez is Wrong (4.00 / 1)

Obama is not only more "electable" than his opponents; but I predict he'll actually have coat tails.

The Democratic party establishment had better get used to it.   The party is changing.

For dirty machine politics in NJ (and throughout the nation); the "party" is going to be  over.

Senator Menendez should take a page out of Steve Rothman's book and take a stand against the bosses and the machines they mis-lead.

If Obama continues to aggressively play his cards right; he'll attract more than enough new voters, young voters, and "good governmemt" (sane) Republican crossover votes to yield a spectacular victory in November.

We don't need to hear Menendez doing the Clinton campaign's dirty work of undermining the presumptive nominee.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 18:01:53 PM CDT

Electability is code (4.00 / 2)

Democrats have shipwrecked on the shores of electability for too many years, allowing the right to set the agenda and game the system so that Republicans can maintain a majority.

The issue isn't electability -- or shouldn't be -- but which candidate best represents the Democratic Party, which will make the best argument in favor of its ideas and philosophy. When you allow ideas to take a backseat to political calculus you shut off any opportunity for the party to grow.

Democrats never learned that lesson -- one of the chief lessons that the Clinton years should have taught them. Remember, Bill Clinton turned out to be the msot electable Democrat in 12 years (proof is that he won twice). But he also left a legacy of damage in his wake. The Democratic Party was in a far weaker position after he left office than when he was inaugurated, mostly because he was willing to bend and mold his policies to fit his political agenda, rather than the other way around.

I don't know that Obama has demonstrated that he has a core set of political values -- his awful book leaves me a bit skeptical -- but he has built his campaign around a foward-looking rhetoric and he has brought a number of new people to the process.

Clinton has opted to look backward. That maybe the most expedient thing to do, but it is suicidal for Democrats in the long run.

And, another thing: Electability is just a polite way to say whites won't vote for him. If the Democrats buy into that argument then the Democrats are no different than the Republicans.

---

by: Hank Kalet @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 18:30:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Congressman Rothman is a man of steady integrity, good judgment (0.00 / 0)

and vision. He stood up for Barack Obama when a "Clinton 3 presidency" was inevitable, and Hillary was way a head in the NJ polls, super delegates, and long before Obama broke all fund raising records. Congressman Rothman did not choose the path of least resistence or follow the machine like so many NJ pols do. Instead he led the way and the most recent polls reveal Obama is beating back McCain and Clinton in NJ today.
Congressman Rothman serves his district well and stands on and for a set of core beliefs and principles.

---

by: KathyCallahan @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 21:33:31 PM CDT