Vaporous Obama Turns Off Many Centrists

How ludicrous. Ms. Harrop, this hit job--repeating any number of Obama lies ("he has no specifics... except the 64-page policy document he released, his website, his "professorial" speeches of earlier in the campaign, and his recent policy-laden economics speeches....)--flies directly in the face of almost all exit poll data, and public opinion polling. While the petty two-percent difference found in a single poll supported the idea that people would prefer a Clinton presidency (a figure culled from the Super Tuesday contests, where Clinton did better in the popular vote, as opposed to the entire month of February, where Obama has led), exit polls have consistently shown that Obama did better among self-identified moderates, independents, and even Republicans. And public opinion polling has shown that in the majority of states thus far polled, Obama holds a significant general election lead over Clinton. Your desperation in pushing the "Clinton is more electable" line is telling of just how far her cult-like supporters will go to push their messianic candidate, even if it means lying, distorting, and spinning until truth becomes meaningless. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, those are anti-Obama talking points. What a shame they seem so much more appropriate here.

What a shockingly dishonest column. You credit McCain for opposing Bush's tax cuts, and then in the next paragraph acknowledge that Senator Straight-Talk has now repudiated that position, and even mocks the very "favor the rich" points that you credit him with.

But what is truly disgusting is that you propagate the myth that McCain opposes torture. Just last week, John McCain voted against a ban on water-boarding, which he had only weeks before referred to as a particulally "exquisite" form of torture. It was just eighteen months ago that McCain voted for the Military Commissions Act, which gave Bush de facto legal authority to torture prisoners with no oversight ("checks and balances" as it used to be known), after having vowed to block it even if it cost him his presidential campaign.

Compared to this shameful dishonesty, your rather banal Obama hit-piece is barely noticeable. But your anecdotal data about your "moderate" and "centrist" friends who will vote for McCain if HRC loses the nomination runs counter to pretty much every poll I've seen in the last few months.

It's obvious you have a huge emotional investment in Hillary Clinton. That's fine. But when it leads you to give a wink-and-a-nod secondary endorsement to a man who votes for torture while he campaigns against it, perhaps you need to recalibrate your own 'cultish' devotion to your candidate.

Your dishonest propagation of the "McCain opposes torture" myth makes the skin crawl.

After this centrist read Ms. Harrop's column, I must say that I think her shallow writing style could possibly turn off more centrists much more than Obama ever will. Personally, I was shocked at her column's simple minded attempt to portray complex issues in a black and white manner and to infer that anyone who supports Obama is either unsophisticated or not an expert such as herself. It'll be very hard for me to read her column in the future after reading such a transparently subjective portrayal of events. The transparency of the writing is reflected by her resorting to comments made by unnamed friends and an unnamed newspaper editor. A seasoned and respected columnist rarely resorts to quoting unnamed authorities as experts. Ironically, many right wing columnists write with a higher level of sensitivity than Froma. This kind of journalism is shoddy and unprofessional in the worst way.
Interestingly, Obama polls higher amongst the college graduate crowd of which I am a member. In Froma's creepy zeal to toe the 'Clinton-Line," she left out so many details about the true character of Barack that a rational discussion is almost moot since she seemed so intent on hitting every silly point that comes up with those that favor Hillary and Bill.
What Froma left out was that many intellectuals and centrists support Obama because they're sophisticated enough to have a natural fear of the Clinton oligarchy. Obviously for Froma, it'd be okay to elect Hillary to ensure the Clinton/Bush domination of America. If Hillary were to win, we'd be resigned to the fact that 2 families have dominated our government for over 30 years. I guess that in Froma's mind, oligarchies are nothing to fear.
As for her portrayal of the situation where Barack's volunteers are advised on how to conduct themselves, Froma fails to mention that it's well known that Hillary's campaign has been, and always will be, a tightly controlled top-down hierarchy. As someone who's worked in party politics, I understand that it's okay and understandable for a united front to be presented by different levels of a candidate's operation.
In response to Froma's comments about Obama not having enough detailed solutions, I suggest she refresh herself with an open mind. Just last week, Barack outlined a 200 billion dollar multi-year infrastructure plan he'd push if he were to become president. This Keynesian-economics type of initiative has worked many times in America's past going back to the Great Depression. Such a policy would have the 2-part positive effect of creating jobs and simulating the economy, while moving our country in the direction of environmentally friendly infrastructure upgrades.
In Foreign Policy, when one looks and listens, they find in Obama a depth and breadth that both Clintons can't match. Many historical experts on both the right and left felt that Bill Clinton had a weakness in Foreign Policy. Admittedly, Clinton himself even referred to Foreign Policy as mostly an extension of Domestic Policy. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
To be successful in Foreign Policy, a president first off needs a vision. Since Bill Clinton felt that Foreign Policy wasn't that important, it's easy to infer that he didn't have a vision. This is why many of Bill Clinton's Foreign Policy ideas were often viewed as inadequate to deal with complexities or merely Republican-lite.
If Froma were to pay attention, she'd find that Hillary, while she's exemplary in Domestic policy, mostly mimics Bill's weakness in Foreign Policy. Hillary's Foreign Policy, as opposed to Obama's, is mostly Republican-lite. By voting to give the president authorization for the Iraqi war, and then choosing, against the advice of many Democrats, to support President Bush in naming The Iranian Republican Guard as terrorists, Hillary has shown that she has few comprehensive ideas on Foreign Policy that she calls her own. This lack of vision is shown by how Hillary states that her First Lady experience, whereby she met dignitaries, is proof of her Foreign Policy credentials.
By contrast, if Froma had paid attention, she'd have noticed that when Bush and Cheney were beating the drums for a possible military solution to Iran, Obama gave detailed policy speeches explaining how Iran could be dealt with first by economic sanctions. Obama, who has heeded the advice of Foreign Policy experts, rightly understood the history of Iran and how their moderates were poised to take more power about 7 years ago until the Iraq war destabilized them. Since then, it's been shown through recent intelligence that Iran, though still a threat, is not the threat that Bush and Cheney portrayed.
Obviously, Obama's Foreign Policy vision has been elevated while Hillary's has declined in this particular area. In a nutshell, Hillary often mimics Bush and Cheney on Foreign Policy while Barack challenges them.
Obama's Foreign Policy would be vigilant and rational. By recognizing the fact that we had worldwide support and just cause to pursue Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, he would pour more energy in averting the backslide in that area while still being respectful of the fact that we now have committments in the near future to Iraq.
Barack shows the intellectual capacity on Foreign Policy to lead America and the world without losing the respect of our neighbors.
Obviously, if people like Froma Harrop had paid attention, she'd understand that Barack's support isn't just emotional. In essence, his support is sophisticated enough to encompass both deeper and more visionary policies than Hillary's, and basic human emotion at the same time.
After all, as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, I understood, as many of us did, that he campaigned on a platform of hope. There was nothing wrong with this in 1992 and Barack shouldn't be chastised for offering hope in a time of intense flux in 2008. Emotions are the springboards to thought. They can't be ignored.
For me, I strongly considered voting for Hillary till recently. However, the negative campaigning of the Clintons, complete with their veiled racial undertones, has turned thousands of people like me off on them. Hopefully, Froma will now respect that.

Ms. Harrop,

I could say a lot, but there is no need. It is really easy. You are an idiot.

Sincerely,

Brian Miller

Sorry to pile on here, but the truth can be ugly. Rarely do I find my self with the majority, but the commenters here I am with. What wrath would ensue if someone dared accuse Ms. Clinton of vaporousness? That would surely be an unfair male-oriented criticism. Okay, I won't go there. At least more than that. I have to say, though, that the statistic brought forth by your statement "While 52 percent of Obama's supporters were amenable to a Clinton candidacy, only 49 percent of Clinton voters said they'd be happy with the Illinois senator" doesn't exactly stop my heart, even if it is true, which I doubt. I actually agree with you on one point--Mr. McCain has a conscience and he would not be an embarrassment as a leader of this country. What a refreshing thought. Can the same be said confidently of Ms. Clinton?

By the way, it's one thing to wonk a Christmas wish list as Ms. Clinton occasionally has, as is the case with her healthcare proposal, which she touts as incomparably morally superior to Mr. Obama's. It's another thing to make it happen without a magic Santa Claus to somehow deliver it all to us on a sleigh. There are lots of people who can write a nice graduate level thesis about what kind of healthcare policy would be most perfect for us here in the U.S. Many have done just that, and their proposals look a lot more politically correct than what Ms. Clinton has offered. The Clintons sold out big time on this in the 90's--single payer was just OFF the table. The problem is, we are stuck with political reality, and nobody knows better than the Clinton machine what kind of sacrifices can be resorted to in the face of that little problem. So let's not get too vain now about how politically correct our starting gambit should appear as we try to get our backward country to embrace the concept of universal healthcare coverage. What Mr. Obama offers for starters is just fine, and the end result is not going to depend on who can say it most persuasively in a debate--it's going to take a master in bringing stakeholders together and leveraging that debate to steer a consensus toward doing what makes the most sense for everybody. Ms. Clinton can't function in that kind of environment because she can't force people to think the way she does. The sad fact is that because she thinks she can, she can't persuade them to either.

Even if I accepted your premise and supporting details, as a centrist, I have to ask, "Am I comfortable with McCain's views on Iraq and with the Supreme Court justices he would appoint?"
Are you, Froma?

Are you kidding me???? To plagerize an old political "hand" "I think it depends on what your definition of "is" "
If Senator Obama is "vaporous"....Hillary is Mother Theresa. Everyone I talk to says that if Hillary is nominated they will vote for ANY Republican. If Obama is the leader of a cult.....sign me up for a glass of kool-aid.
Imagine what the Republicans will do with pictures of Monica Lewinski and Buffalo Bill if Hillary is nominated???
What planet do you reside on??? And what have you been drinking???

Wow, absolute drivel. How many ad hominems can you fit into one column, Ms. Harrop? As an independent voter in Minnesota who has voted Green, Democrat, Republican and Libertarian, and who has a degree in mathematics, I am also personally insulted that you pigeonhole all Obama supporters as googly-eyed, airheaded lemmings. Go ahead and vote for John "There will be more wars" McCain. You will lose. And, contrary to you and the acquaintances you cite as basis for your article, most of us swing voters aren't going to be choosing him over Obama.

exact opposite. if hillary pulls a win out of the air, i'm voting for mccain. i cannot stand the lies, the entitlement, the manipulation, and the "legacy". enough BUSH, BUSH, CLINTON, CLINTON, BUSH, BUSH, CLINTON. no more.
someone else--if it's hillary on the left, my side of choice, i'm voting mccain.