On Friday, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by a panel of three environmental experts who have different areas of expertise but are united in supporting the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. One of the presenters, Dan Martin, is a Republican. After the panel broke up I asked him this question: “I hear a lot of people telling me that the ‘Obamicans,’ Republicans coming out as Obama supporters, are really part of an underhanded sneaky conspiracy to elect the weaker of the two candidates so that the Republicans can win in November. As a Republican yourself, I wonder how you respond to that.”
Dan Martin’s response:
I say look at the polls. The polls are consistent in saying — now that you have Republican nominee clear you can run those polls — they say that McCain and Clinton are neck-and-neck, and Obama is ahead of McCain by 8 to 12 points. So? I like to say that the Democratic Party has a long history of shooting itself in the foot. If it doesn’t nominate the more electable candidate, it will do so again. If the Democratic Party can’t elect a president in 2008 it should fold its tent and go home. It’s got everything going for it with the calamity of the Bush administration, and I could get into how the Bush administration has absolutely flushed any Republican principle that I ever grew up with. It would be just an unbelievable thing to nominate someone who has a 49% disapproval rating.
He didn’t answer the question, did he.
Bush can’t run again, he’s already had two terms. There is no question of nominating him.
Wasn’t Kerry supposed to be the more electable candidate?
Huh, Iroquois? Martin was talking about McCain (the presumptive R nominee), and about Hillary (49% disapproval rating). He makes some good points. If the Dems can’t see that Barack is their best candidate, the one who has the ability to win and bring America together with some positive progressive leadership…
I understand that Hillary describes herself as “a fighter”. I think that’s a perfect example of the partisan behavior we’ve spent the last umpteen years in, an example of why so many Americans have been turned off about politics and about voting, etc. Now comes Barack, the everyman with brains who can relate to all of us and who hasn’t sold out.
I’m not going to respond to the Kerry question. At the time he ran, I certainly thought he was the better candidate. His rating by League of Conservation Voters was not slouchy either. Barack is on a level, as exemplified by his experience as president of Harvard Law Review (which he never brings up himself) he can work with everybody to get the job done in a positive, successful manner. Unlike some other candidates, he is genuine and honest in his character.
Character is a very important issue for a PRESIDENT, as we’ve seen in past history. I believe Barack has the right character for the job of leading America forward, empowering individuals to make a positive difference in this world.
I don’t think you can equate how someone is running against another candidate in a state poll with a president’s national approval rating. That type of confusion about facts is the downside of blogging about a remembered conversation instead of dealing with facts you can link to (hint, hint-you know who you are).
This was a recorded conversation, not a remembered one. I can’t link to it on another webpage because this is the primary source.
I wasn’t complaining, Jim. I find it quite interesting to hear what real people are saying about the election, unlike some of the obamabots here who get all worked up when someone references a conversation that isn’t peppered with the “appropriate” talking points.
And Creekguy, those are some nice adjectives about Obama–on the level, genuine, honest, has character—but how do you KNOW those things? What do we really KNOW about Obama?