Obama for democratic nominee
what is a decades-long republican doing endorsing a democrat? let me explain
By Charles Bird Posted in Archived — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First, I'm endorsing Obama for Democratic nominee, not president. I've already made my views clear on who I want for commander-in-chief. But before explaining further, I want to address the principles undergirding this choice. The fundamental question is this. Do we conservatives want the worst Democratic candidate to be nominated, thereby improving the GOP candidate's chances, or do we want the best Democratic candidate facing the best Republican candidate? I pick the latter. Why? Opinions will vary, but I believe that it's in our nation's best interest for the People to choose among two reasonably strong candidates. We have a two-party system and it works best when both parties and both sets of candidates are non-dysfunctional.
More below the fold..
So why Obama over Hillary or Edwards? First, scratch Edwards. I can't stand his stupid "two Americas" schtick, and he isn't viable anyway. In his home state of South Carolina, Edwards is a distant third, going by the RCP average. In Florida, Edwards is even more pathetic. He should give up the dream, drop out of the race and endorse Obama.
So that leaves Hillary and Obama. My decision for Obama isn't because of his positions on the issues. From what I can see, there isn't a lot of daylight between the two. They both want major government intervention in health care, they're wrongheaded on Iraq, they favor higher taxes and more government spending, they're pro Roe v. Wade, and they would appoint left-wing judges. Hillary may have fleshed out her issues a little better, but they're still liberal left-wing issues.
Obama gets the nod, for one, because he is a transcendant candidate. He is smart, he has a positive message and he is a less polarizing figure. If elected, there will be plenty of differences to hash out, but he appears to be a person whom Republicans could better work with.
The other reason I favor Obama is that I find Hillary Clinton and her political machine to be a detestable and diseased entity that has no business being near the White House. She is an unlikeable politician who uses slimeball tactics to get her way. If she is so willing to take the low road on the campaign trail against a fellow Democrat, there is plenty of reason to believe she would do the same against Republican opponents by orders of magnitude, and there is plenty of reason to believe she would do the same as president. I would rather not have another four or eight years of white-hot, gloves-off hyperpartisanship. We are a nation at war and we don't need that.
Back in 1992, Bill Clinton lied his way into the White House (remember him saying we had the worst economy in 50 years?), and when he was elected he applied the practice of dissembling, demagoguing and demonizing his opponents for political gain. In 1996, when Bob Dole confronted Bill Clinton because of a dishonest attack, Clinton said that "you gotta do what you gotta do." Nothing has changed in 2008, and the same players are still in play. It is clear to me that Slick Willie and Slick Hillie will say or do whatever they can get away with.
This was exemplified last week in the South Carolina debate when Hillary said that Obama "really liked the ideas of the Republicans." Factcheck.org was being nice by saying the claim was false. Either Hillary has a major reading comprehension problem or she lied, and I don't believe got as far as she did in her career by misreading transcripts. That lie was amplified when the Clinton team aired a radio ad in South Carolina implying that Obama favored Republican ideas. Thankfully, enough Democrats were offended by it that the Machine pulled the ads, but Hillary's advisers want the negative campaign to continue:
Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton’s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary.
The benefits of having Mr. Clinton challenge Mr. Obama so forcefully, over Iraq and Mr. Obama’s record and statements, they say, are worth the trade-offs of potentially overshadowing Mrs. Clinton at times, undermining his reputation as a statesman and raising the question among voters about whether they are putting him in the White House as much as her.
Yet here is Hillary on the Today Show dishonestly saying she's just counterpunching. Was raising Obama's past cocaine use a "counterpunch"? Were those robo-calls in Nevada about Barack Hussein Obama a "counterpunch"? Democrats--actually all of us--don't deserve this tripe.
Why else would I endorse a candidate on the other side? Because as they say in war, the enemy gets a vote, and I think it's important for Republicans to get off the sidelines and challenge the Clinton Machine head on. If she gets nominated, then it would be a good warm-up for the general. If she doesn't, then we have helped improve the American political landscape by pushing that woman and her grasping husband off the national stage.
Update: If Obama somehow gets nominated and picks Hillary as a running mate, then this post is inoperative and all bets are off.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | SpeechNow vs. FEC — Comments (0) »
Obama for democratic nominee 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If our country makes a sharp left turn in 2008 (as it will with Obama and Democrat majorities in the House and Senate), it will be disasterous.
If Hillary is elected, even if the GOP is in the minority, they will be energized and will feel like they can oppose her at every turn, with impunity.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I get the feeling that the Republicans (the ones in Washington, I mean... I don't mean all y'all) want Majority status at the trough again.
I suspect that that will result in another 2006 quicker than you'd expect.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
but he is a political featherweight, which will become all too apparent in the general when people start visualizing him in the role of commander-in-chief.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
If McCain gets the nomination we could see the McCain/Obama ticket-NewTone and BiPartisanship at its finest.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Obama looks good in the polls RCP is using, but he must finish strong and, I think, win by a solid margin over HRC tomorrow. If not, I don't see what he uses as a base to contend strongly in Florida and the Feb. 5th states (Florida has no delegates to the Democrat convention, but of course the results of the voting there will be tallied and announced, and will have some impact).
I'd like to see him pull it out - for many of the reasons listed above. He's a liberal - but so is Hillary. I just feel better about Obama as a person than I do about HRC. Obama at least makes an attempt to be personable and tries to seem open-minded and fair. Hillary is a vindictive and mean-spirited woman who I think may be wholly incapable of being honest and straightforward. She is like Nixon in a skirt - and is probably worse than Bill in terms of slime tactics. She is downright scary.
So, in the event that we lose and are stuck with a liberal for 4 years, I'd at least like it to be someone who I can look at and listen to without wanting to throw up or feeling the need to bathe.
Hillary lacks any firm political principle and will govern as the polls dictate. Rather than moving this country to the left, she will be a center-left moderate who puts her own political hide in front of her party's, just like Bill.
We will deal with four years of left-wing judicial appointments, see a tax increase and expanded government health care, but so long as the conservative opposition provides a coherant and viable alternative to Hillary, it won't be the end of the world, and it WILL end in 2012.
I'm not as worried about Obama in a general election match-up as some of you guys. He had a very liberal voting record in the Illinios Legislature and he is not very good without a script. An organized group of mostly young people actively supports Obama, but most voters don't know enough about him to have an informed opinion. If he's the nominee, we need to start defining him for what he really is: a big government liberal with left-wing social values who lacks the resume to be trusted as Commander-In-Chief.
I fear that if worries on the economy continue to persist, the Democrats will win handily no matter who we nominate. Incumbency and a recession will sink our chances next year.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
that if we were to endorse a Dem it would be Obama however this is a rather nebulous exercise. We aren't voting in their primaries and wouldn't vote for either in the general election.
I believe that Obama is much more formidable than Hillary in the general election. Anyone that is likeable, charismatic and charming is always formidable. That said, in the general, there is plenty of opportunity to attack him. Here is how I deconstructed him.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
I disagree for several reasons. Clearly, I want the GOP candidate to win even if it's not mine. But if the worst comes to worst and the Democratic candidate wins, I very much want that to be Hillary Clinton. Yes, she's slimy and Bill is far worse but I'm not sitting down to dinner with them - if that were the case, I'd probably most want to hang out with Edwards. I think that Hillary Clinton is probably the least liberal of the three. I think she's more pragmatic and power-hungry than anything whereas Obama and Edwards actually believe the crap they are saying. Other than health care, I don't think HRC feels strongly about any issue. I think she'll be the most sensible about Iraq and the GWOT. The Clintons showed in their terms that they were not afraid to send out the US army on occasion after all.
But more to the point - I am convinced that Obama is an Arabist. I think he'll be the second coming of Jimmy Carter and we just can't afford that. He wants to make nice with the terrorists and get all in touch with their feelings. I think HRC would kick some of those Arabs in the balls just to prove that she could.
She would be better to unite the base in the future, and she would be the least liberal because like Bill she is a poll follower.
John Edwards is from North, not South, Carolina.
Above all, an excellent, well-reasoned post. I would heartily agree with you
EXCEPT...
This all supposes the Democrats to be a reasonable, legitimate opposition party,
Liberalism is a scourge on this country, and should be shown, in the persona of Hillary Clinton, for the vicious, corrupting moral disease that it is, especially with the American people forgetting as of late,
For all his charm, charisma, and talk of bipartisanship, Barack Obama is about as left-wing as they come, and were he to win the presidency, would be better able to push through a hard-left agenda, something that would spell disaster for this nation,
AND,
You are right, we are at war. Were both Republicans and Democrats fighting on the same side in this war, the two strongest choices from both parties would be the best for America. But we are not fighting on the same side. And in war, you defeat your enemy, no matter what the cost. You don't wish greater strength on them to make your victory more honorable. That only happens in story books.
...but was senator from North Carolina.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
should be that South Carolina is his birth state and North Carolina is his home state. Either way, if he can't win there even though he was born there, that is rather weak and a sign that it is time to leave the race.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
I think Hitlery would use the FBI, IRS or whatever agency available to attack anyone she doesn't like. We must NOT allow anyone who would use these Stalinist repression tactics anywhere near the Presidency. I would rather see Obama elected President than even risk Hitlery having a chance.
Fascinating.
Question to moderators from somebody who is, admittedly, not the target audience of the site: there are several turns of phrase and comparisons that are considered out of bounds, including "B. Hussein Obama." Is "Hitlery" ok? I thankfully see it fairly little here, but it rubs me the wrong way, for reasons that have much more to do with my ethnic background than my ideology.
...but I don't have a mandate to shut it down. Although I may get to suppress "Hitlery": lemme check.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Your little gag is not appreciated. Don't do it again.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Not the fact you endorsed a candidate from the other side but your reasoning.
Obama gets the nod, for one, because he is a transcendant candidate. He is smart, he has a positive message and he is a less polarizing figure. If elected, there will be plenty of differences to hash out, but he appears to be a person whom Republicans could better work with.
First, this is just ridiculous...there's absolutely zero evidence that Obama would or could work better with republicans in fact his record says it all -- he's more liberal than Hillary. At least with Hillary he know that she'll campaign from the left and govern from the middle. She is more susceptible to public polls and public pressure which may keep her more in line. We can't say the same thing about Obama.
Another reason this is a bad idea is the fact that we can't beat Obama! If you Step away from the CPU long enough to take the temperature of the country you'll see, as I do, the shift in mood and the wanting of change from the folks and Obama is their guy. We're already entering the battle unprepared imo as this fight against socialism can't be credibly waged by any of our current candidates! Our best weapon is the Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton dynasty argument.
Endorse all you want but be careful what you wish for!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
It is your opinion that Obama can't be beat. It is not a fact. Words still mean things. A lot can happen between now and November. This is probably academic anyway because it looks more probable that Hillary will be nominated, not Obama. But if it were me, I'd rather have her go down sooner than later.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
...the argument or the fact your strategy here is weak. Your "opinions" are all over this post who's conflating facts and opinions?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
nt
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
Show me a poll or some fact that shows that we can win against Obama.
since you cant... your assertion that I'm conflating is false.
If your only counter to my argument is to parse words instead of dealing with the arguments posed in my post then I must reiterate your weak reasoning and strategy in the OP!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
and because of this, my assertion that you're conflating opinion with fact holds water quite well. Look at the head-to-head RCP averages. McCain is 0.1% up on Hillary and 0.3% down on Obama, virtually in a tie with both candidates. Note how close Hillary and Obama are. The problem is that the other GOP candidates lose to both Hillary and Obama, all by double digits. Your opinion still does not square with the facts. Based on this data, tell me again why Obama would clean up and Hillary would not, because from what I can see, Hillary and Obama would have pretty much the same results. And words still mean things.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
tell me again why Obama would clean up and Hillary would not
I never said this!
And that poll is for the birds as we all know that McCain is being propped up and pushed by the MSM. McCain gets dominated in a general election by either Dem. You presume to much there's no guarantee of a McCain nomination!
Regardless of my using the phrase "the fact that we can't beat Obama" lets take the word fact out in replace it with "the inevitability of Obama beating us" the idea behind the paragraph I wrote stands. And your reasoning is still weak!
Funny that you continue to harp on words and phrasing instead of the meaning of the post -- speaks volumes! Taking every post for the literal meaning of every word without at least attempting to recognize the intent and meaning behind it seems mind-numbingly robotic and a bit snobbish to me.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
"Another reason this is a bad idea is the fact that we can't beat Obama!" The clear implication is that we can beat Hillary. Your sentence speaks for itself, Steve. Hillary polls about the same as Obama, using the averages of multiple polls, which is the best available data. If you have a higher quality source of information, cough it up. Beyond that, you're just spinning.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
like the OP is just silly!
If you can't or don't understand the intent and meaning of my post I can't do anything for you!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
"from what I can see, Hillary and Obama would have pretty much the same results."
Well, the polls may say that, but I don't think the polls have properly accounted for the young vote. Obama got twice Hillary's young vote in Iowa and three time hers in New Hampshire.
These young people do not have land line phones, and although the pollsters are trying to fudge for that, I highly doubt they have this new phenomenon accounted for.
If Hillary gets the nod, the young folks (and very possibly a good portion of African Americans, it seems) stay home. Hillary is much easier to beat than Obama (at this point in time, at least).
Jerry
I just wonder how many GOP voters will stay home or even vote Obama if their candidate isn't the nominee. For the first time in my young adult life, I am considering that prospect (or writing in a candidate). I have always voted GOP in Presidential Elections, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney who I find too distasteful because of his pandering and evolution in the GOP primary to win an election. I know others feel similarly about McCain (who I actually support). I just think Barack would result in a landslide D vistory, whereas Hillary would rally the base- though I would probably stay home in a Hillary vs. Mitt matchup because I tend to see them as both poll watchers without principles.
I'd rather lose an election than lose a war...
JMac
nine months out is ridiculous. No one knows what will happen in November. Iraq continues to improve and frankly the Rep candidate must start to use that to pound the Dem candidate. Instead of victory we would have the terrorists cutting off heads if the Dems had their way. This is something that must be pounded into the consciousness. Second, we will see where the economy will be. If it is a mild recession that won't be much of an issue.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
...on the Dem side. Look at the head-to-head matchups at RCP. I'd rather see Hillary go out first and avoid all the brain damage.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
than the triangulating, obfuscating, scheming and poisonous Clinton Machine.
And make the WH safe for your daughters!
I'm not defending Carter's miserable term, his mishandling of Iran, etc. But we only got four years, and he opened the door the Reagan's message of believing once more in America and the massive changes Reagan accomplished in the structure of governance and transforming the parameters of political debate. Thus the outcome for the country was a net positive.
On the other hand, we got eight years of Clinton, who devalued on a Weimar scale the currency of respect for the institution of the President and by association, respect for the other branches of government. He also ushered in the internecine partisanship that opened the door to Gore's challenge to the Bush Presidency, which in turn opened the floodgates to a political civil war (e.g. BDS, charges of VRWC) as a certain segment of the populace now denies the legitimacy of a Republican presidency.
Plus, in the promotion of Hillary, he threatens to drag the country back to eight more years of all-out partisan war that will only weaken, perhaps fatally, our ability to prosecute the WOT (which Bill allow to blossom in the first place).
and govern constitutionally. I also think that her proven track record of terrible judgment will be awful in foreign affairs, worse than Carter.
...but we'll do better in the House races if Clinton is the nominee.
Moe
PS: The question is moot, anyway. The only question is whether she wins without Michigan and Florida's delegates - and the only reason that I'm not actively rooting for a disputed convention is that I've got nothing personal against the city of Denver.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
As an Illinois state senator, B Hussein Obama voted against a bill requiring medical assistance be given to babies who survive abortions. According to Obama, a baby born alive living and breathing outside his mother should be denied live-saving medical assistance. This is Auschwitz stuff. The man lacks a soul.
We've have been asked by the commentators not to use that name. It would be wise to follow their advice.
and speculation on the state of a person's soul are also generally frowned upon (though I believe an exception exists in the case of some Planned Parenthood workers).
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
or the gods who run this site, or those who make this site possible, or those who but for the grace of God we could be.
You're right about the request to cease the misuse of names. It demeans the site and weakens out arguments. We want to be the side that looks reasonable.
The details are many behind this sort of thing, but Obama, warts and all, is simply a better person. That counts for something.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party, and to the country.
Yes he is a pretty speaker, but the man quite simply should not even be in the race at this point. Remember 4 years ago today, Obama was a State Senator in Illinois running hopelessly behind in the Primary race for Senate. Then a couple of dirty sex scandals from sealed divorce records later, and he basically wins an unopposed Senate seat.
Obama has been quite the Cult figure with his "Change" mantra. I have heard people i know who are Republicans muttering "Change" over and over again like cult members. Obama is not a candidate of Change, he is a radical liberal, who was a liberal in the Illinois State Senate, and a liberal in the US Senate. He talks a great game, but in the end he would be the biggest leftist to represent the Democratic party in generations, and at the same time he'll manage to pull this off bringing soft Republicans along with him.
Hillary on the other hand is what she is. First she is a lightning rod, which will energize the Republican party. Second she is a person who knows the game, and governs by the polls, which in the end means she wont f things up to badly.
I hate Bill, I hate Hillary, but despite the contempt they show for anything decent in the world, the 90s weren't all that bad. I have little doubt that with the exception of judges, 4 years of hillary won't be all that bad. And the biggest thing she will accomplish would be a strong united Republican party for 2010 midterm elections, and then 2012 presidential election.
Obama would be just another disaster, another Carter or maybe another Kennedy. Someone just completely overwealmed by the responsibilities of the office, someone who could do long term damage to the country
Pres. Hillary would probably be rather worse than Pres. Bubba was. Barring a sea change in Congress, anyway. Possibly despite one.
I'm not sure if Obama would be worse than Clinton, actually. In this regard, his inexperience might work in the favor of small government types, making him ineffective. Of course, that probably just makes him a rubber stamp for Reid and Pelosi.
The good news, I think, is that the GOP candidates can probably destroy him on substance, and people seem likely to vote against Hillary in droves.
the main reason for this is he actually believes the left wing garbage. Hillary and Bill are gangsters, in fact, Democrat Patt Cadell said that today on Hannity's show. Hillary wants power and nothing else. She is a lefty for sure, but she would trade core values for poll numbers at the drop of a hat. I don't agree with your endorsement because Obama is a socialist and would damage the country.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
With Hillary at least some of the very liberals will stay home and not vote. Hillary will also motivate the real conservatives to hold their noses and vote.
I don't see the national numbers working out for Republicans regardless of who is the nominee
unless it is against Hillary.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Let's live in reality shall we. First of all, if it were a perfect world Fred would have had a lot easier time and we all wouldn't care more about where the candidates campaign and whether they shake our hands before we vote for them, but no we are all crazy and can't bother to research anything anyway. Most of us vote for the cutest candidate anyway, right?
So our best won't be there because we don't let the best run no matter what. Let's just win it because the next bad set of SCOTUS appointments may just permanently hurt this country for my and my Son's lifetime!
There seem to me three reasons for a loyal conservative/Republican to favor a liberal/Democrat candidate:
1) Who would be easiest to beat. In which case eliminating Edwards because he is unelectable makes no sense.
2) Who would give the electorate the clearest choice between liberal/conservative values and Democrat/Republican policies. In which case Clinton, who will campaign all about mud and fog and "triangulating," is out. Obama, who will campaign as an empty suit, all about "change"and going "forward," will say nothing substantive about issues or policies, and couldn't be counted on to govern that way in any case. Again, Edwards! He is pure Lib. He will campaign on liberal issues and push liberal policies.
3) Who would actually do the nation the least harm in the horrible event that (s)he actually got elected. A much more difficult case to evaluate. We immediately eliminate Edwards. We know that with Hillary we get another Clinton administration, without the Billy-boy charm, and maybe with an enhanced GOP resistance (think post- '94). Obama is still an empty suit. We have no idea how he will cope with/ buckle under the stress of actually having to run things and propose ideas. He might turn out to be ok, but the safer bet is Hillary. At least we know what we're getting.
First of all, this talk about Obama being 'transcendent' is just too much. Any center-right person who supports him is someone who doesn't have any core principles, as he is a down-the-line, far-leftwinger. The only way I could see a non-Chafee Republican supporting this guy is if they think he would be so disastrous that it would lead to a Republican comeback, the way some think a Hillary win would do. I get the feeling that some support Obama as a way to assuage their white guilt, and that is just pathetic.
But anyway, I have heard from some that the issue of the judiciary is one of the few areas where Hillary would do much damage, as otherwise she'd be too afraid to push too liberal an agenda. But even if this is true, then it still a huge problem. Losing the Presidency in 2008 is likely the same as losing the Sup Court once again. If the Dems were to hold on in 2012, then there would be no doubt as to losing the High Court, as that would likely mean they get to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and maybe even Souter. Sane and constitutional jurisprudence would never recover from that. And since we have all been taught that all court decisions, no matter how outrageous and unconstitutional, must be obeyed, then the country would never recover as well.
Despite some gigantic (and in some cases easily avoidable) mistakes known as O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, we now stand yet again on the verge of finally righting the Supreme Court. If we lose it this time, then we are not likely to get another chance. A president Hillary or Obama would create a lasting activist leftwing majority on the All Powerful Court. Just consider what Hillary or Obama appointed judges would mean;
Roe will be maintained yet again (thus strengthening Giuliani's absurd 'a conservative can support Roe because of precedent' position), and making attacks on it even more, as the media would declare, 'out of the mainstream'.
All traditional state marriage laws and amendments will be struck down and gay marriage/civil unions will be imposed. And despite the 'anti-gay marriage, pro-civil unions' view that many Americans hold, an imposition of 'only' civil unions would not be any sort of compromise from a constitutional point of view, because the court has no more right to impose euphemistic substitutes for gay marriage than it has to impose gay marriage.
The Second Amendment will be gutted, as its meaning will be deemed as pertaining to a worthless collective right, which can be regulated into oblivion.
Private-property rights will be attacked further.
Terrorists and enemy combatants will be given citizen-like status before the justice system.
State and local attempts to crack down on illegal immigration will be struck down.
We will be subjected to more insane Establishment Clause rulings.
'Diversity' will get even more sanction as an overriding public goal.
Leftwing foreign law will gain further ground for those judges looking elsewhere for justification for their ludicrous rulings.
This is by no means a complete list, but it is a good indicator of what we should expect from our black-robed rulers should Hillary or Obama win.
The GOP vangquishing the Clintons in the general would be therapeutic for our country and the party.
Hillary Clinton will deliver House seats to the GOP, Obama will add to Democrat majorities. Hillary Clinton will vastly increase our chances in the Senate as well, Obama will do the opposite. Not to mention governors races and state races. EVERY Republican in the country can run against Hillary, and it will work. Hillary Clinton will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to GOP campaign coffers, too.
If you want Obama to win the nomination, you are also rooting for the GOP to lose the White House, to lose more seats in the House, and more in the Senate too.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”