Bob --- Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> Doug posted:
>
> > The poll shows across-the-board strength for
> Clinton. "Despite
> > rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing
> to win the general
> > election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57
> percent, said
> > Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best
> chance on Nov. 4,
> > 2008," the Post's Jon Cohen and Anne Kornblut
> write. "One of the
> > central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is
> best suited to lower
> > partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this
> poll, more see Clinton
> > as best able to reduce partisanship. On major
> issues, Democrats are
> > far more likely to trust her than her main
> competitors."
> =================================
> Are angry Democrats really worried about looking too
> "partisan"? It seems to
> me they're more worried about their candidates
> succumbing to the Republican
> attack machine and looking too soft and squishy to
> the mass of independent
> voters.
>
> Clinton looks tougher and more able than Obama or
> Edwards to beat the
> Republican nominee. So even those Democrats who see
> themselves as being to
> her left and prefer other candidates will support
> her because they want
> above all else to win. That's why they grudgingly
> abandoned Dean and
> accepted Kerry under DLC pressure in 2004. Big
> miscalculation by the
> Democrats; the "war hero" wilted under the
> Republican assaults.
>
> Whether Clinton will be similarly destroyed remains
> to be seen. Things are
> different this time. Iraq and the economy are both
> more precarious they they
> were in 2004 and the mood in the country is far more
> anti-administration -
> to the point where even a terrorist attack or
> military strikes on Iran could
> hurt the Republicans more than it could help them.
> Long time to go yet,
> though, in an age when elections are not decided
> until the final weekend.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>