...more recent posts
Here's a comment to a Matt Yglesais post, with an excerpt from Matt's post in italics:
That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.This isn't making me change my mind, but this is the first argument for Clinton vs. Obama that has made any sense at all to me. What do you guys think?
OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. Republicans weren't going to get the black vote anyway. The main reason to seem friendly to black voters is to reassure white female voters (or so I think Rove said). But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters, whom they currently win by (I think) 10%, as attacking Obama on race-related dog whistle grounds. Even K-Lo gets irritated by some of the gender related HRC-bashing, and occassionally gets frustrated by the lack of Republican female politicians.
I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
Overall I still say that since Clinton is stronger with the dem base, and Obama is stronger with independents, he's a better candidate in the general election since the base is going to vote for whoever the dem nominee is anyway, while the independents can easily break the other way (or just split or just stay home) if it's Clinton.