home

What Obama Needs To Do To Win In November

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is almost certainly going to be the Democratic Presidential nominee. The Superdelegates will decree it. Of course Hillary Clinton has every right, indeed, she has an imperative, to continue. But it is my view that Obama will be the nominee. As such, he needs to think about what he needs to do to improve his chance of winning in November.

This is a Democratic year. The Dem nominee SHOULD win November. But there are some danger signs for Obama. I will concentrate on 3 in this post.

1. Unify the Party. I think this is the easiest task, if there are grownups in the Obama camp. The answer is simple. Pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Problem solved. It is a no brainer. Only Clinton haters can argue against this. Imagine for a second, two candidates running for President having such a tight race and the winner NOT picking the second place finisher? It is unthinkable. It should be unthinkable here.

More . . .

2. Break the narrative that Obama can not connect with white working class voters and does not care about them. In essence, Obama has to stiff arm the Creative Class on this issue. He has to play the game and take some lessons from Bill Clinton. And he needs to focus on this now. Change was a lovely opening act for Barack Obama. But now it is time for Act 2. Obama must move beyond the pretty slogans about change. He must find a way to reach out to Clinton Democrats and convince them that he cares for them and that he will fight for them. BTW, picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate helps in this as well.

3. Obama needs to be out front in fixing the Florida/Michigan problem. He needs to completely reject the silliness that Donna Brazile spouts on a daily basis. He can not stand against the voters of Florida and Michigan by droning on about the RULZ as Brazile does in her desperate cling to her DNC fiefdom. Obama needs to throw Donna Brazile under the bus. And he needs to do it soon. The goodwill he can reap from this in both states is important.

Of course Obama can choose to do none of these things and still win in November. The political climate is just that good for Democrats. But why take the chance? Besides, not only is doing these things the political smart play, they happen to be the right thing to do. So tell me, are there any grownups in the Obama camp?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Saying No to Voter ID Laws | DNCC Chooses First Group of Credentialed Bloggers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Obama Needs To Do To Win In November | 281 comments (281 topical)
    Obama's campaign will do ZERO of those (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    3.  They will NOT offer VP to Hillary (and I don't think she should accept 2nd place to a less qualified MAN). They will NOT address the white working-class problem. They will NOT resolve MI and FL.  

    But you are totally right in one thing BTD.  The supers will give him the nomination no doubt.  There's no way that HRC will get in the way of that long thought-out plan.

    And he can't fix Fla and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    because the latest numbers show that he could well lose the delegate count that way now.  The team always did good projections (except for Indiana and WVa) and knew they could not go for voters' rights there vs arbitrary rules that could be modified (according to those rules).

    Parent
    Sorry, he'd lose the popular vote that way. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    Fla/Mich allowed in per voting

    Parent
    Obama will accept the delegate slates put forward (none / 0) (#235)
    by jimotto on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    by each state.  That is guaranteed.  As evidenced by it's acceptance of the proposal of the 69-59 slate offered by Michigan (which was shot down by the Clinton campaign, by the way).  

    Parent
    Here Is His Big Plan For MI....He Will Need (none / 0) (#250)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    to do more than just throw money at their problems.  And please notice the crowd he spoke to was only 200...think people aren't feeling him...just my opinion.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#79)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    WHEN OH WHEN has the presidency EVER been about who is the most qualified?????

    Seriously.

    If she wants to be the president (and she sure seems to) she should accept VP. It's a guaranteed nomination in 2016.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    about qualifications if you have the serious problems we have going on today. Voters won't hand over the country to an unqualified individual who they think will make things worse.

    It's Bushian to put the less qualified on the bottom too.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:00 PM EST
    should be it's Bushian to put the less qualified candidate on the top of the ticket.

    Parent
    A. Obama is not anywhere near (none / 0) (#138)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    the idiot that Bush is. He actually worked for his position in life. Bush did not.

    B. I was responding to the commenter's assertion that Hil should not take VP to a less qualified POTUS.

    C. If Hil doesn't get the nomination this time, then her last chance may be in 2016. How bad do you think she wants to be president? Bad enough to wait 8 years? My take is definitely! My take is imagine the footprint we can make with the two of them in office for 16 years!!!

    Parent

    He'd have her banned from meetings (none / 0) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    in the first year of his term. His ego would never allow him to have a smarter person that close.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:02 PM EST
    That is quite the projection. Any basis for that other than your feeling like a jilted lover?

    Parent
    And you know this, HOW???? (none / 0) (#221)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    Because you really really love Hil and really really don't like Obama?

    Parent
    all his life. (none / 0) (#232)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    He had no daddy (like Bush) to get him into Yale, he came from a modest background. He is no legacy.

    There is no comparing his character with Bush's.

    He is as up to the preseidency as anyone.

    Parent

    Do (none / 0) (#269)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    not agree that he is up to the Presidency.

    Parent
    Do not care (none / 0) (#280)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    why should I, seeing as your reasons for believeing so must be top secret?

    Parent
    Emotion Aside (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    If it is possible. There are no objective qualifications for POTUS other than the legal ones. It seems a silly argument to me because the things that are presented as qualifiers, by either fanclub, fall apart when you use the same qualifiers as a basis to evaluate how past Presidents have performed. Reading tea leaves are a better if not equal indicator.

    All the arguments that one candidate is somehow more qualified than the other is based on emotion, and baseless opinion. Certainly ones age, length of time in government, having children, living abroad, being a woman, being a black and male, getting a PHD, being a lawyer, being married, writing policy, writing books, etc, tells us NOTHING about what would make for a better POTUS.

    Unfortunately there is no test other than the job itself.


    Parent

    I don't think it's based on emotion (none / 0) (#214)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    That seems pejorative to me.  How about saying it's based on intuition or judgment? Many of the things you mention do tell us something about how the person will do as POTUS, but of course there are also intangibles. I've hired many people for positions where a college degree was required, for example, but once people passed that hurdle, there were still many other factors and intangibles that influenced whether I thought they would be successful at the job.

    Just because we cannot identify a complete set of factors does not mean that we cannot make a judgment about a candidate's likely performance in the job. If it's really a c**p shoot, elect me.


    Parent

    It Is Pejorative (none / 0) (#270)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    Because if you want to be an honest broker when talking about qualifications you need to examine presidential history and compare how past presidents performed using the same basis as you use to compare Hillary to Obama.

    Unfortunately the argument falls on its face because based historical presidential performance none of your "qualifications" are indicators.

    It is an empty talking point.

    Parent

    no my basis (none / 0) (#219)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    for qualifications would have to be at least being reelected to federal office. Obama hasn't met that qualification.

    He's spent 143 days or so in the senate and 28 months in the IL senate. He seems to have assorted other part time jobs, exactly what I don't know besides being a community organizer.

    Parent

    convenient specifications (none / 0) (#233)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    for your particular candidate.

    Parent
    That's at (none / 0) (#243)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    a minimum. She barely meets the qualification hump. Obama doesn't meet it at all.

    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#248)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    how convienient.

    Parent
    Dead wrong; (none / 0) (#245)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    I knew Shrub would be a disaster and I was right.  

    I knew the same about Reagan, and (you may not agree, but) history does and will continue to prove me right.  How about Reagan's (virtually) first act in office?  He took down the solar panel Carter had had installed on the WH.

    The nomination process is an audition, however flawed, for the presidency.   Reagan showed his colors off the bat by announcing in Philadelphia, Mississippi, home of racists and murderers of Voting Rights activists.

    I started out for Edwards, but when he dropped, I switched to HRC on the basis of experience.  Over time I have come to like her better, and Obama less.  Why?  She has rolled up her sleeves, fought the punditry, and defied expectations; while he has embraced Republican talking points (limited health care coverage, Harry and Louise adverts, tort reform, Social Security overhaul etc. etc.) and has played a game of media expectations -- I am sorry to have to say this, but the business of creating a victory narrative, annointing oneself the inevitable winner before the votes come in, is straight from the playbook of Karl Rove.  I'm not complaing -- it's his right to campaign how he sees fit -- but it doesn't make me think the better of him.

    Parent

    She started the "victory narrative" (none / 0) (#251)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    she was inevitable...don't you remember?

    Jesus. People in blogland, whatever side you are on...take a step back. Wherever I go on political blogs people's eyes are clouded by this race. It is really truely frightening.

    I don't really have a side in this....I am for winning in November. Because of this, when I come here and when I go to dKos alike I am constantly shocked at how blind people are to any facts that don't mesh with their particular candidate.

    can I just say "aaaarrrggghhhh!!!!" ?

    Parent

    This ain't Dkos by a long country mile. (none / 0) (#266)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    I stepped away from Big Orange months ago.

    I am also for winning in November; and I'm for who I think has the better shot.

    I said my views have evolved over time.  If the HRC camp invoked the inevitability meme, it was before Superduper Tuesday; and they never invited Obama to leave the race.

    Also, there is the issue of Fl and MI.  I am against voter suppression-alienation, and if people argue it's because of rules, well my reply is, the rules must change.  In fact, no one (not Donna Brazile. certainly) seems able to give a coherent account of the rules.  My bottom line: seating MI and FL after the fact will cost the Dems hugely in November.  Remember, we all want to win.

    I think it's pretty clear that Obama and his supporters have been a major obstacle to seating these delegations, which is one of the reasons I'm for Hillary.  We can't afford to alienate the voters in such important states -- particularly FL which is arguably (demonstrably?) the most important swing state.

    Parent

    It's getting closer to dKosland (none / 0) (#279)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    believe me. I have taken breaks from blogs and now I come back to both and am noticing many similarities.

    Parent
    Hilarious (none / 0) (#262)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    Great intuition, that you knew Reagan and Bush would be terrible. You must have some special talent....

    I would never have guessed that they would not have been good Democrats by their campaign rhetoric, voting record and policies.

    Parent

    Glad you are easily amused; (none / 0) (#281)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    usually I play tougher rooms.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#282)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    I try to keep amused. I agree with most of what you have to say. I voted Hillary because I thought she would be stronger in November. Now I think that they are equal against McCain. On a personal level I like Hillary's style more, although policy wise they both seem pretty much the same and more to the right than I would like.

    Not sure about Rove's playbook though, it seems that Obama is just tooting his own horn to show that he is a fighting contender.

    Parent

    Fair enough; I'll drink to that. (none / 0) (#284)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    For the record, I am not blind to Hillary's faults; and though I like her on some policy issues, I have never gotten over thinking that she is still tarred with the brush of NAFTA in Bill's administration, which I still see as a disaster for American workers, let the pundits spin it how they will.

    Parent
    Cheers! (none / 0) (#285)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:00 AM EST


    Parent
    thank you squeak (none / 0) (#252)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:10 PM EST
    you are sounding sane

    Parent
    This time or next. . . (none / 0) (#172)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    for Clinton, but not 2016.  She'll be 68 then.  Given the degree to which she's been criticized on personal issues I think running as a elderly woman would (unfortunately) be completely insurmountable.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#227)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    she ages very well, and she would have 8 years of VP under her belt.

    She would be unstoppable, and besides, by then America would have those 8 years to get over the fact that she has ovaries and not testicles.

    IOW, America will be different after 8 years of Obama and Clinton.

    Parent

    68 (none / 0) (#272)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    is not elderly by any means.  

    Parent
    Please explain (none / 0) (#257)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    1. He won't beat McCain.  Why should she hook herself to a loser?

    2. If he miraculously beats McCain, why do you assume he'll be around for 8 years?  Many of us think he'd be an utter disaster - so bad, in fact, that there will be a Republican sweep in 2012.

    3. 2016?? You think a WOMAN who will be 68 will get elected?? As it is, we hear about her laugh, her thick ankles, her pantsuits, etc.  You think with 8 more years worth of wear and tear, that's going to change?


    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    well, well

    Ageism and sexism all rolled ito one post.

    Yes to woman
    yes to 68

    Parent

    answers: (none / 0) (#258)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    #1 yes he will
    #2 he will win again

    See, I can make unsupported assertions too!

    #3 refer to me earlier post...and read it this time. That WOMAN with her pantsuits and her bad-boy hubby seems to be kicking ass currenlty. In 8 years her body and clothes will have been vetted, AND as VP, we would have watched her get older.

    She will look a hell of a lot better that Thatcher, and women live longer anyhow.

    Parent

    the base or everyone else? (none / 0) (#263)
    by diogenes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    Giving Hillary the VP might appease the base, but how will it play to the rest of America (the woman has 54% negatives, after all).  Seems like you use the VP to REACH BEYOND YOUR BASE.  People pretend that Hillary appeals to white working class guys, but this is only in comparison to Obama.  Pick Virginia's governor if you really want to reach to that group.

    Parent
    Question: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    how do you think he goes about getting Hillary on the ticket?  Is the media going to buzz about it for a month?  Will it happen in August?  Will it happen in secret, or will it be like a wedding of the Dems?  I guess the key is for Obama and his supporters to be as gracious as possible until the primaries are over.  Which IMO rules out the May 20th party which seems like perfect fodder for Clinton to criticize.

    If Clinton wins the popular vote I expect her to stay in until the convention.

    She Might Agree to Be VP Before the Convention (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    If she doesn't have the votes to be the nominee now and would lose to Obama, there's some logic in her agreeing to be VP.  She shows she cares more about the party than herself.  And I'd say given the way Obama has been shedding support the last two months, there's a decent chance he's roadkill by August.  If she has so many delegates and is the presumptive VP nominee, an Obama collapse would almost certainly make her the new nominee.  Of course, she lessens the chance he will collapse if she takes the VP slot.

    Parent
    She doesn't have to accept VP (none / 0) (#116)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    until the delegates (pledged/supers) vote in the convention floor.  If she loses, then Obama can ask her (if he wants to or is pressured by the party)  and she may or may not accept it.  Certainly Barack has made it difficult to accept. I am hoping that she would choose to remain in the Senate.  Being VP for a woman has been accomplished by Geraldine Ferraro.  There will be no synergy with these two in a ticket.

    Parent
    I expect her to stay in (none / 0) (#6)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    even if she loses the popular vote and all the supers have already declared for Obama.

    Parent
    And I expect that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    and his supporters will never show the graciousness and lack of arrogance needed to do any of them.

    Parent
    I expect no one (none / 0) (#274)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    could show you enough graciousness to make you happy with anyone other than Hillary.  I think she stays in till the convention.  She does this so that if Obama losses, she will always be able to say she never quit fighting.  I don't assume she'll automatically run in 2012, but she'll be better positioned if she takes it all the way.

    Parent
    I expect her to stay in (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    until some accommodation is made for FL and MI.

    Parent
    I expect her to stay in (none / 0) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    until the votes are cast at the convention. It's how this process was designed, and I won't let the media pundits convince me otherwise.

    No one wins this simply because they are ahead in the quest for 2209 delegate votes.

    Parent

    if it's in secret (none / 0) (#256)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    it's more like an elopement.

    Parent
    Ack...that is a sausage-making (none / 0) (#259)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    question!

    Parent
    I think all of this is more difficult (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    than you say.

    We shall see.

    It's Been Made More Difficult (5.00 / 16) (#34)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    Obama has made decisions all along that makes all three of these things virtually impossible for him to do.  

    1.  By leveraging misogyny and Clinton hatred, he's made it more difficult to offer Clinton the VP slot and more difficult for her in the VP slot to do him any good.  Personally, I kind of resent the idea that even though Obama is severely weakened, the Democrats will nominate him anyway and then simply put Hillary on the ticket so she and Bill can carry him across the finish line in November. It might work and it might be good politics, but it still sucks, particularly given the deafening silence of the Democratic Party leaders to the onslaught of misogyny against Clinton.  She's not good enough to defend from that, but she's good enough to help their man in November.  

    2.  Reaching out to white working class voters, let's see now, Obama has called them bitter and claim they cling to racism, his campaign strategist has said Obama doesn't need them to win, and he's blown off appearing in West Virginia and Kentucky.  Now, he's going to try to win them over?  Yeah, that won't come off as false or condescending.

    3. Florida/Michigan - Obama has dragged his heels every step of the way, going so far to schedule a Mission Accomplished announcement on May 20 at 2025 even though he knows the DNC is likely to decide FL/MI on May 31 and that has a good chance of changing the magic number.

    All of your ideas, BTD, are good ones.  It's just that Obama has shown no interest in doing a single one of them.  There are two potential explanations for this: 1) Arrogance, or 2) He's not as confident he's going to be the nominee as it appears and so can't give up any potential edge in the nominating contest regardless of whether it would help him in the GE.  Or both.

    Parent
    Given the state of this race (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    it is almost unbelievable to me that Clinton won't be the nominee.
    But the nature of our rules makes Obama's nomination essentially inevitable, so we go forward. . .

    Parent
    Watching her last night (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    made it all the more unbelievable.  

     The only conclusion I can come to is that actual qualification to be president is around 100th on the list of what some (too many) people look for in a candidate.

    But yes, we go forward.  

    Parent

    It's not the rules. The rules don't (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    demand this. The Superdelegates were put in to decide the election based upon determining the best candidate.  The MSM is making up their own rules. I just read today in my local newspaper that Obama will "win" as soon as he has 2025 delegates which will happen "soon."  Hillary has "no chance."  The election is WVA is "largely symbolic" and so on.

    This is, as Riverdaughter says, a "Haka" meant to mislead and frighten us unbelievers into submission.  None of this is true. The Fla/Mi delegate problem could have been solved long ago.  There are forces at work here who don't want the Clintons to win because they will do something about the corruption of our democracy.  

    I hope Clinton does NOT run with Obama.  I would be sad that she felt she had to demean herself in that way and it would make no difference to my vote. I intend to vote for McCain to save the Democratic party from being taken over by the corrupt corporate thugs who control our media.

     Whatever I think about McCain's policies, I also believe he has the good of the country at heart.  I do not believe that about Obama.   I will vote for Dems downticket and hope that the "leadership" gets the message when their candidate goes down in flames.

    Parent

    I'm with you. (none / 0) (#216)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    It is sad to see McCain have to pander to the right wing.  If Obama is the Dems nominee, he doesn't have to do this.  He can be more moderate and would then win against Obama.

    Parent
    It's not the rules... (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    It's fear.

    Fear of Jesse Jr.'s threats...fear of AA backlash...fear of 'riots in the streets' if the nomination is 'taken away' from the entitled one.

    Threats and intimidation.

    Fear.  Pure and simple.

    Thanks, Teddy.

    Great legacy.

    Parent

    Fear and Loathing (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    The MSM made Obama an heir, not a candidate, early in the nominating process.  All of the entitlement was bestowed on him - lavish attention despite no accomplishments, outright swooning by pundits, dismissal of all who interrupted his path.

    I don't get how Obama could be "entitled" to the nomination when he made damn sure that 2 critical states would excluded in the final tally (not counting and no revote).

    But the undertone of threat and intimidation is real, and explains much of the irrationality in the party.

    Are we all supposed to pretend that Obama is a better electoral gamble than Hillary - just so no one is offended?

    Parent

    I'm In The Same Place (none / 0) (#92)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    If this was February, I'd totally understand why the party was nominating Obama.  I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would understand and accept it.

    Now, it just seems like another example of how pathetic the democratic leadership is.  They are going to allow themselves to be bullied into nominating him even though he is clearly on a downward trajectory and Clinton is on an upward trajectory.  Either they have become so entrenched in their own power they're willing to risk November or they are so waek they are willing to let the media push him across the finish line.  For me, it makes me question whether the Democratic Party is salvagable or whether we might not be better off figuring out how to split the party in a way that creates a better alternative.    

    Parent

    The best answer would be to right (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    a short pamphlete on the subject if Obama fails.

    It may be that America is ready to elect an exotic and cosmopolitan Ivy League liberal type.

    OTOH

    It's never really happened in recent memory.   Even Kennedy was more Irish-Rogue than aristocrat. The Appalachian voters who are connect culturally with Ulster could at least relate a bit to the catholic upstart.

    So I'd keep loyal and write about what is wrong with the party in terms of culture and attitude if obama fails.

    Parent

    The Only Reason To Stay Loyal (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    to the democrats at this point is to win elections against Republicans.  If they aren't committed to doing that, then why should I stay loyal?  Because of their failure to stand up on Iraq and force a withdrawal timeline, their continued corporatism, their silence in the face of widespread misogyny?

    Parent
    Any Self Respecting (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    political party would be angry with Obama over his move to discourage money going to 527s, his dismissal of white working class voters, and his Mission Accomplished plan.  Yet, I see no evidence that any of these things are costing him with SDs even though these things tend to show him as being more interested in promoting himself than the party.

    Parent
    write. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST


    Parent
    kennedy was a war hero, too. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Also, why would Obama be automatic now? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    A Redstater made a very astute observation that Dem leaders would have to explain as anything but a suicide march off the cliff.

    ...
    Here now, this week, and next week, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democrat nominee, will have lost every election since February except North Carolina and Guam, and lost nearly two thirds of the vote in West Virginia, and yet the media will sweep it all under the rug, flailing about wildly to find burning crosses and white sheets instead of recognizing Obama's significant general election
    vulnerabilities.

    Hillary is still done for in the media's mind, but Barack still can't win. The media will ignore that. After all, West Virginia and Kentucky and Indiana and Puerto Rico are all racist.
    ...

      BTD, are you buying Obama at this point yourself, for November, with all that we know now re his strength now before the usual vetting that even Hillary would not do?

    I ask, keeping in mind, that Howard Dean has said that the focus will be on the last 6-8 races and the momentum there, and electability will be the focus.

      His problems would be survivable as a VP but I don't think they would be as Dem Presidential nominee.

    Parent

    Don't Forget Vermont! (none / 0) (#97)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    Although even in that blowout, he still lost white voters with no college degree.

    Parent
    And Mississippi (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM EST


    Parent
    He'll probably win OR (none / 0) (#185)
    by davnee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    but I'm looking for Clinton to at least triple the margin of victory in Kentucky.  If Obama blows her out in OR that probably gives him just enough to keep the supers headed for the cliff.  Then they can say he won 2 states since Wright/BitterCling not just one!  For me the key is the OR exit polls.  If his latte sipping supporters don't show hostility to Clinton (and assuming she runs well among working class and Latinos in OR) in the exit questions then what possible reason could there be to play electoral chicken between the Dems?  You know which groups are most likely to defect to McCain or their couch and you know the size of their slice in the electorate.  But I think the supers are only listening to the $$$ at this point.

    Parent
    Even (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    the Clintons can't carry a broken backed unity pony over the finish line.

    Parent
    I Worry About That, Too (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    Sure, Clinton could help unify the party, but ultimately decisions are made about the top spot.  

    I still cannot believe the Democrats are going to jump off the cliff with Obama.  I see it coming, but I can't seem to accept it or believe it.  It's not just because he isn't my candidate.  I'm perfectly used to not having my candidate win an election, I'm a democrat.  It's that it appears to be incredibly risky and stupid at this point.  He's bleeding non-AA support and there haven't even been hardcore negative ads run against him.  Have we learned nothing from John Kerry?

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    it looks like our best option to win in Nov is for Obama to completely implode like Dean or Hart did. Wright has made him unelectable but that doesn't seem to bother the party much. A complete collapse would have to happen.

    Parent
    With all due respect (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by suisser on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    1. He won't and she shouldn't.
    2. He can't because he doesn't
    3. He won't because he is impatient.


    OK, fine... (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    ... but if these are all such great ideas, then why hasn't he already done them? I mean, if you lose a race to someone you want on board with you later, do you  make a concession speech, or leave some voicemail?

    My model is that Obama and his supporters are all and only about creating the Obama Movement as a distinct and permanent institutional presence. That's what the database is about; that's what the GOT[Obama]V operation is about; that's what undercutting the 527s is all about. And they're using the Obama Movement to get control of the Democratic Party, in a sort of hostile takeover, after which they plan to shed unprofitable divisions (like, anyone who actually needs goverment to work).

    And when I say "all and only" that's what I mean -- winning in November is a nice-to-have. It's control of the Democratic Party apparatus that's a have-to-have. Donna Brazile committed a gaffe in the classic mode: Speaking the unspoken truth.

    Occam's razor, man....

    I think that's right, but WHO (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    is fighting to control the Democratic party? Stealth Republicans?

    Parent
    Take a look (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    at this.

    It's very possible that KKKarl Rove is actively encouraging and propping up Obama's candidacy.

    Think about it.

    If McCain wins - great, they've got at least four more years than they thought to rake in the cash for the super-rich. Plus, he gets to appoint the Supreme Court Justices and further their conservative agenda.

    If Obama wins - great, he's in their pockets anyway.

    If HRC wins - not great, but expected, and they'll just hang all of Bush's failures on her with the media in their pockets to prevent the complete and total death of the Republican Party. Doesn't matter, they'll come back again in a few decades and they're ready for that too.

    This makes so much sense to me that I am afraid it is true.

    Parent

    I've seen that article before. (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    I don't find it convincing.. needs more evidence.

    Parent
    I am not 100% convinced either... (none / 0) (#47)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    but I wouldn't put it past them.

    Parent
    Actually I agree with you and I am not convinced (none / 0) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:02 PM EST
    the problem is that it could happen anyway wether it's a planned thing or not.  To the detriment of the Democratic party and IMO to the Country unless this mess is fixed pronto we are all the loosers with probably 4 years of McBush or maybe a weakened Democratic administration.  Just a fear hopefully we will garnish strength and carry enough Democrats to Congress so that if Obama is the nominee and if he wins we can get some constructive legislation passed.  Or enough strength so if McBush wins we can block any damage he may try to inflict..

    Parent
    that tin foil hat (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    looks pretty good on you.

    Parent
    I have a "hat face." (none / 0) (#156)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    Seriously...I know it's a bit out there. Just thought it was interesting in terms of what MarkL said.

    If the goal is NOT to win in November, but simply to torpedo the Clintons at any cost, Obama's actions make a lot more sense.

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    I am sorry, but I just get a bit irritated when people project nefarious intentions (not using evidence) on either candidate. Lots of people elsewhere like to say that the Clintons undermined John Kerry's campaign just so she could run.

    It's all projection of the posters' feelings of candidate tribalism that is evident in the Dem party right now.

    Parent

    Apparently the Obama campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    At TLC Steve Soto says they are requesting all donations for dem interest groups go to them so they control the message. I assume that means no dem 527's.


    Parent
    That is very cultlike. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    You are only allowed to have intimate monetary relations with Obama.

    It's also BS. The 527s are probably controled by his top staffers.

    Parent

    Very cultish (none / 0) (#127)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    and unsettling. (spectre of Karl Rove swooshes past)

    Parent
    Jim Jones... (none / 0) (#225)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    said that all Marriages only existed through himself.  That of course was his excuse to justify sexual relations with every woman in the cult.

    Parent
    Read Evelyn Pringle's articles. Obama is the (none / 0) (#125)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    corporate, mob candidate, acc. to her.  She's an investigative reporter for Op Ed News.  She has a number of articles on this. They are long and convoluted and hard to follow because of all the unsavory characters who are connected with O in Chicago and internationally.  She claims they were going to run Blagojevich (the Dem Governor) for President, but he got too entangled in the Rezko case and so they decided to run Obama. The last governor, Ryan (Republican), is currently in jail.  

    Supposedly it isn't about the parties --these mobsters support both, it's about money and corruption, both in the U.S. and in Iraq.  There are a number of Arab figures involved, including Hadhmi Auchi, a international crook who can't come into the U.S or France because he would be arrested. It was his money, lent to Rezko, that helped Obama buy his house.  

    I know this all sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but you really should read it.  I will never vote for Obama because I think he's a trojan horse, meant to destroy the Dem party and take it over in the same way that the Republican Party was taken over by the Neocons and Rove  (who Pringle says is also involved in this, along with the Carlyle Group).   They want free rein and don't care about the American populace.

    Just a few days ago, in the Wall Street Journal, a front page article  (May 5, 2008), title "Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight," says that Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters this year "after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials in the union and the Obama campaign." He wants to get rid of an "independent review board set up  in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the Union."

    This is hardly the only thing out there on him.  He scares me, frankly. Once these creeps take over both parties, they will have complete control over our government and continue to shut third parties out.  There's a reason why the MSM is trying to shove him down our throats. They are owned by five corporations who do NOT have the public interest at heart.

    I'm not sure they even want McCain. It's possible this is a ploy to get McCain elected, but McCain's fund raising problems and Obama's limitless supply of money make me think they WANT Obama to win and are determined to make it happen.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I'm really nervous and upset about this. You have to dig, but this information is online.

    Parent

    Obama pro-teamsters. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    And they dare compare Obama to Bobby Kennedy?  

    Parent
    If I take this at face value.. (none / 0) (#229)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    then I would have to throw my full support to McCain in an Obama v. McCain race.

    Parent
    Who? Everyone who lost ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    ... to the Clintons!

    (And who thinks that their own seat is safe because of the money Obama gave them or promised.)

    Parent

    Lambert, I agree (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    and I'll take it one step further and ask a variation on my tired, old, "name one thing he has taken a stand on, voted on, that caused him political capital," by asking, "What makes you think he's capable of reaching out now?"  We can only look at Obama's past to predict future actions (or inactions).  What has he done during this entire camapign that would indicate he has any notion of doing any of the things Armando listed?  I'll dip my toe in even deeper by saying that going by Brazile and Axlerod, they don't even think there's a problem.

    Obama continues to block FL and MI.  He continues to mock Clinton and her supporters with this fake win crap when he hasn't won.  He continues to act as if rural voters do not matter by not even bothering to campaign for their votes.  What is going to magically change?

    And, speaking for women here, too many of us have had men figuratively kick us in the teeth, then think that an apology and a nice flower arrangement will solve the problem.  Nuh-huh.

    We're not Tweety.  We're not Russert.  He can't make Teh Best Speech Evah and persuade us that all those things he's been doing for the last year don't really matter.

    This is an unsormountable problem that Obama's side won't even acknowledge, let alone seek to fix.  He's coming across as even more elitist than Kerry, and that is saying a LOT.

    Parent

    "Honey, I've changed!" (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    Yep.

    Parent
    capable... (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    "What makes you think he's capable of reaching out now? We can only look at Obama's past to predict future actions (or inactions).  What has he done during this entire camapign that would indicate he has any notion of doing any of the things Armando listed?"

    the key word here is 'capable'.  While I think Obama has the capacity to ask Clinton to be VP, and the capacity to get MI and FL seated, I don't think he has the capacity to repair the damage he's done with not just "working class" voters, but seniors, Latin@s, women, LGBTs, etc.

    Obama can inspire people, but thats about it. And once you've seen "the man behind the curtain", the image of the Great and Powerful Oz loses its capacity to inspire.  Obama can't convince anyone of anything, as far as I can tell -- they either take the leap of faith required to support Obama, or they remain skeptical.

    Obama can't just "take a page out of Bill Clinton's book", because you can't teach empathy... you can acquire it (or a reasonable facsimile of it) but that takes years to do -- not weeks or months as BTD seems to suggest.

    I really admire and appreciate BTD's analytical skills, but I don't think he gets it quite yet.  The vast majority of the people who say they want Clinton in the number 2 spot will wind up voting for Obama regardless of who is in that spot -- and to those of us who support Clinton, FL/MI is more important as a symptom than as a problem per se.  I think that Obama can win Michigan even if its not seated, and can't win Florida even if it is seated.  Treating the symptom does not address the real problem -- Obama's political short-sightedness.  

    Obama focusses only on short term solutions, and pays no attention to the impact those solutions have on the long term problem.   So while it was samrt, in the short term, for Obama to act as if he was the nominee and didn't need to bother with West Virginia, long term it was a really stupid decision, because while his arrogance feeds into the prevailing media narrative, when that narrative changes as the media focusses on McCain v Obama, the chickens, as rev, wright would say, will come home to roost.

    Parent

    What we really needed (none / 0) (#184)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    was a Populist Party.  And maybe we will need to form one going forward.  Who knows how this will all turn out?

    Parent
    Condescension speech (not the other thingy) (none / 0) (#238)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST
    Obama's forward momentum has relied on step-stoning from one slogan to the next without explaining (or delivering) anything, and now that he's all about The Math and The Roolz, he's trying to jump to the next stone but getting bogged down.

    Clips of his speech (and other visuals) shown in yesterday's news were really awful. I know the Math and the hype are hard at work, but this clunker is out of gas. Not just sayin': look at what's being delivered compared to what was promised just a few weeks ago. (IMO, pre-PA was when TeamBO hit E).

    His No. 1 Inspiration Hit that oPods claim makes Obama (and them) different -- LOL -- is that the movement always says "we we we", but Bad Monster Lady and her supporters say "I I I". This huge selling point moves into the Yes We Can chant, and the footage, into the Unity talking point. (sigh)

    That worked well, echoing back and forth to leave warm fuzzies behind while exciting advance audiences for the upcoming appearances of Obama Montana.

    It also got doofuses who care about such things -- Obamann, the veritable army of Soul Brothers No. 3 in the MSM, Collective Class -- scrambling to stock up on Groovy Flavored Koolaid to serve up at their Socratic cave sessions.

    But yesterday's dull Obama speech was all about The American People and "they they they". What a dud it was. Obama's usual backdrop of young hopeful faces was replaced with bored, disengaged people who could barely sit upright.

    Obama sounded like he was lecturing the (on-site) audience about some exotic animals none of them had seen before.

    The overall effect would likely play to the home viewer like s/he was being talked about in the third person. (Who was at Obama's speech in realtime? The People of Kazachkstan?)

    This is as likely to set off the same wave of buyer's remorse that happened as quickly as the tidal wall'O'bama that swept ... well, not the nation.

    Flogging The Math doesn't even excite righteous indignation except in Left Blogostan and after it's major "wins" -- ::: crickets ::: -- that's unlikely to spark any bonfires over the summer.

    Parent

    Your are absolutely right. (none / 0) (#255)
    by Mari on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    Obama and his so-called movement is very dangerous to our democracy. They basically want to kick out the base (working class, women, seniors, union members, etc.) and leave them completely powerless. He needs to be stopped.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    I can't see Obama or his supporters doing any of these three things. I am resigned to a McCain presidency if Obama is the nominee. With luck we'll have a  veto-proof majority in COngress but we'll miss the administrative Executive picks and policies and SCOTUS and judicial picks. So more power but not enough to start fixing enough.

    Write in Hillary... see here for how.. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    WriteHillaryIn.com
    As far as I am concerned, her candidacy isn't over until the day after Election Day. She could win with write-ins, and even if she didn't, we would be sending a very strong message to the DNC.

    Parent
    Unless Obama can undo (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    the many entrenched anti-Hillary narratives out there, I do not see how VP Clinton will magically Unify the party.  To the HHers, VP Clinton would be a betrayal of Colin Powell proportions.  To Clinton supporters, it would be more symbolic than substantive.

    Plus, my every instinct tells me that Obama would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it.  Obama does not share the spotlight willingly and he would have to.

    OTOH, if Obama could graciously and willingly team up with Hillary, they could be unbeatable.  The key there is "team".  

    I do not know if Obama has it in him.  He could learn so very much from Clinton if only he would LISTEN.

    The -people would be fine with it (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:50 PM EST
    The polls have shown that people are in favor of a unity ticket.  The people, of all ages, races, genders, religions and creeds, actually have something called common sense regardless of their education level or bank account balance.

    The problem is with the party insiders, as usual.

    Obama and his inner circle would have to be coerced into it.  Nancy Pelosi says it's off the table.  Who knows what Howard Dean is doing -- I hardly recognize the guy anymore.  Ted Kennedy is working his unity magic again, a la 1980.  The Republicans are doing everything they can to cause trouble and divide us, the so-called leaders do what they always do -- nothing productive.  "We'll take care of this in the back rooms," says Nancy, "and get out of my garden, you dirty protesters.  You'll take what you get, and you'll like it."

    My guess is that the party leaders and Obama will decide that they know better, once again, and will not listen to the people, and it will cost us this election.  All along the way they will be enabled by the media and the leaders of most left blogs.  Six months later they won't know what the hell happened, and finally, they'll do what they always do.  They'll blame Clinton.

    Parent

    Grownups (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    A mature, pragmatic political approach will unify the party. IMO it's not about the Democratic party for BO, it's about change. If the Democratic party comes along for the ride all well and good. If not that's fine too. If the latter approach elects McCain then that's just how it is.
    I know you've said it before that Obama will win despite it all, but I shiver when I hear the Swift Boat loonies are going to viciously attach him in the general. Combine that with the corporate media and it's not looking good for our apparent nominee unless he unifies the party, no matter how he does it.

    They will go Torquemada ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    ...on Wright's heretical theology.  

    who knew we had a theological blind spot like this?  

    We are the Secularists G-d D-mn it!

    Parent

    Well, Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    the new secularist religion of the political 'believer people.'

    You know....a president you can believe in....

    Oh, Gawd.

    Parent

    mel brooks (none / 0) (#182)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    heh
    now I have The Inquisition musical number from History of the World PT 1 humming in my brain
    high kicks and all!

    Parent
    Power corrupts (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    But its what it does to the people around you that is the bigger problem. It silences them. It makes them yes-people who are incapable of either seeing the reality around them or expressing a dissenting view.

    What you write is common sense. But they won't think of it on their own. They won't read what you wrote. And even if the message got to them, they would dismiss it. Not because they aren't intelligent, but rather that they are so locked into their opinion and they have so strongly reinforced those opinions with each other, that they are not able to consider it at this point.

    if he picked Hillary as VP (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    his anti Clinton supporters, including his wife, would probably go completely ballistic.
    I mentioned something about grownups (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST


    Parent
    That's the key (none / 0) (#136)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    unfortunately they have been acting like 2-yr olds. IMO.

    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    are there any grownups? They seem to all be acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

    Parent
    But it would be a chance (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    to start standing up against the misogyny and frat boy attitude that has pervaded among his supporters, the media, and yes I will say it his campaign.

    He can then become a real candidate of change, standing up for minorities and women and have a truly landscape changing administration.

    But heck, he didn't want to do it before, why would he want to do it now?

    Parent

    Well, If Ballistic Means We Will Never Have (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    to see michelle again, then I say go for it...seriously, I do not want to see Hillary playing second fiddle to this inept, arrogant, wannabe.  She has so much more to offer America than obama; and anyone with an ounce of sense would know that.  There is much more to this campaign than just winning for the sake of being able to say "I won".  But this is all you can expect from someone like obama with his sense of entitlement that oozes from his every pore.

    Parent
    I don't see criticizing Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    as helpful, whatever her flaws.  

    Parent
    oculus, I agree somewhat (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    I am never comfortable with attacks against MO that debase her because she is a woman, but I think it's fair game to hold her accountable for her own words, and she has been really bad for Obama in myriad ways I do not have to list here.  The nominees' spouses have always mattered.  I myself feel Teresa Heinz Kerry lost John several points, especially when she reached down and made one of the Edwards' kids take his thumb out of his mouth. I actually remember seeing that and say, "bye-bye, soccer mom vote."

    As I said ages ago, if MO stays in the spotlight, she will find out what people in this country, and the media, do to smart, powerful women.  She attacked Clinton outright as only a woman can attack another woman.  Karma always comes back to haunt you.

    Parent

    I Didn't Criticize michelle, But I Did Criticize (none / 0) (#234)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    obama, which I will continue to do.  BTW michelle
    has inserted herself into the public eye, so I guess that would make her fair game if someone did criticize her.  

    Parent
    Michelle and Hillary (none / 0) (#264)
    by diogenes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    Isn't what you're saying about Michele what lots of people said about Hillary in 1992?

    Parent
    Check The Record. When Did Hillary Ever Get (none / 0) (#271)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    a break?

    Parent
    I think they would bend to his will (none / 0) (#87)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    Well, maybe not his wife. Assuming that rumor is even true. But I have no doubt he could turn half of DKOS into Clinton lovers. Yes he can.

    Parent
    That would be a good start; impossible, but (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    a good start.

    Parent
    He might want to (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    apologize for his over-the-top supporters harrassment of her.

    Truth and reconcilliation and all thet. Take a page out of Mandela's playbook.

    Just a thought.

    can't use mandela's playbook (none / 0) (#148)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    Without rubbing it in, after all he had his campaign pushing Bill as racist because he preferred his wife by his side to mandela.

    Parent
    I wont be Uniting... (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by northeast73 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    ....sorry, this may not make me many friends here, but I am oneof the 50% of HRC supporters who will be voting for McCain if Obama is nominated.

    He is a FRAUD. His supporters make me ill.

    I would rather just deal with McLame for 4 years.  Cant be any worse than Bush, and his stance onthe enviroment give me a good reason to voter FOR him.

    Sorry, I just cant do it.  besides, his supporters (including the media) will continue to turn me off.

    just abstain on the presidential line. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    McCain ain't your chum.

    Obama will appoint many trusted liberals to his cabinet.

    Parent

    Any examples? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Chuck Hagel? (none / 0) (#141)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    He's pretty liberal.

    Obama's going to govern from the center right (if he's nominated, wins, and is allowed to take office). The liberals will be marginalized.

    Parent

    IIRC Lugar For Sec. State (none / 0) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    Great liberal Dem. Oh, wait that's wrong.

    Parent
    I dunno. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Like Chuck Hagel?? nt (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I won't vote (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    for McCain either. But I will vote for Hillary no matter what. If it's on the ballot wonderful, otherwise it's a write-in vote for Hillary from me.

    Parent
    His cabinet (none / 0) (#152)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    will be appointed by Teddy, Kerry and Daschle.

    He knows no one.

    They know everyone.

    He will appoint whoever they tell him to.

    Parent

    an idea (none / 0) (#224)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Then why don't we vote for THEM?

    Parent
    Obama is another Democratic loser (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM EST
    Obama alienated me and I will never vote for him.  I have voted Democratic since I became citizen in 1982. I have never voted for a Republican, and until now, had never considered it. I have volunteered for the GOTV for Democratic candidates, or like in 2006 for no particular candidate.  I will not consider voting for Obama because he has done everything to push my vote aside and I will not forgive him.  There is nothing he can do to change my mind.  If my position is anecdotal, then it's just one vote, but I don't think so.

    Make that two votes.... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by northeast73 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    ....I will N E V E R cast a vote for Obama....not even for dog catcher.  I hate him...truly.

    Parent
    Me Three! +5 (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    It's Hillary or McCain for us!

    Parent
    Me four + another 5 that I know of. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    NObama 08

    Anybody but Obama!

    Parent

    moi aussi (none / 0) (#191)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    me as well
    and hubby too

    Parent
    Alienated (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    Obama and his 'style' have alienated me too. If my vote makes a difference in the MD electoral votes I will vote Dem because having the WH is needed. But I think in my safely Democratic state I may write in Hillary.

    Parent
    Me six (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    and there are many more like us.  I would say that of the Hillary supporters I know, about 1/3 would vote for McCain, 1/3 would stay home or write in Hillary, and 1/3 would vote for Obama.  

    He's got a lot of fence-mending to do if he's the nominee, and I don't expect him to do any of it.  The first step is admitting you have a problem, and I've yet to see any evidence that Obama or his campaign is inclined to do that.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    the political climate is good for Democrats.  But didn't you also notice the fact that both childers and cajayoux actively and publicly vide ads (childers) distanced themselves from Obama in their campaign. So does a good climate for Democrats translate to a good climate for Obama? I don't think so.

    Also in 2004 almost all the opinion polls showed a good climate for Kerry vs. Bush yet Kerry lost.
    I feel the Wright and other assorted controversies for Obama came too late in the day for Obama and he has not been able to properly address them. When running against McCain this will be a huge huge disadvantage for Obama favourable political climate or not.

    Also note, right from the start the Obama team have tried to portray his campaign as an Obama movement rather than a democratic movement. He has become Obama the candidate rather than a Democratic candidate and this I believe will not work in his favour in the GE.

    Labour won all the by elections leading up to 1992 (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    and promptly lost a race they were favoured to win.  they held all the local councils.

    The Leader of the Labour party was Welsh (and a good speechmaker and organizer).  This was almost certainly the decisive factor in the Tory win--he was a sheep shagger.  

    Parent

    Won't work to the Dem's favor (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    The entire focus is on himself rather than the party and the follow-through in voting ballots showed this in Texas, with so many not bothering to look at the lower ballot issues.

      It's the Movement (as he does keep saying).  Add that I have no faith in his ability to do more than speak with prepared speeches -- he has shown little zest for the work he could do as a Senator, he was bored.  He hasn't changed his stump speech until today and then he read the policy changes he'd go for and I could see people dropping off.  Clinton gets excited by that stuff and has the details in mind because she's interested.

      Sorry for the negative response but I think the media has no clue how disaffected we are by the whole atmosphere of what has been done to Clinton on a daily basis, the total disregard, the treatment of her as an object of ridicule, the encouragement of it by ObamaTeam, and many feel that this cannot be rewarded.  Those affected this way plan to vote the lower ticket to contain McCain.  

      Also, any president will be considered a failure in the 2nd year because the problems are horrific, and the opposing party tends to do well in mid-terms.  So that's a helpful thought too.

    Parent

    And I'm voting for a movement? (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM EST
    Led by a charismatic figure? No checks and balances? No policy content? Lots of idealistic followers with "conversion narratives"? I can imagine plenty of ways for that to end badly, particularly if the country slips (further) into Shock Doctrine mode.

    I don't want a "Movement." I want someone to make the government work.

    Parent

    childers (none / 0) (#193)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    and Childers
    is anti choice
    anti gay union
    not a liberal like Obama is rumoured to be

    Parent
    You are ignoring an important factor (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by hummingbirdv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    which is sincerity.  Hillary is winning voters because her connection with them is real.  Even if OB follows your roadmap HIS HEART IS NOT IN IT and everyone knows this.  He doesn't believe or intend to follow through with most of what he says, and voters know this in their guts!

    AND I Emphatically Disagree with "he is going to be blah, blah, blah".  Ever hear the saying... LIfe is what happens when you're making other plans?

    There are MANY weeks left and this isn't over yet, no matter the math, no matter the delegates, no matter the media, or one candidate self-appointing himself king.  MUCH can happen, as we have seen over and over.

    I say that Senator Hillary Clinton WILL BE OUR NOMINEE... and it's o.k. if we don't know exactly yet how it will pan out.  Possibility is a force to be reckoned with.

    So, respectively Big Tent, there are holes in the canvas.  Go Hill Go!

    If Obama was the man to do that stuff (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by katiebird on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    You wouldn't have to give him this advise.

    The man who played the juvenile game of scratching his cheek with his middle finger while smirking.

    The man who wiped Hillary off his shoes like dirt

    The man who denied how many revote offers for Florida and Michigan

    This guy is playing the election like a street game (throwing elbows)

    This man is not looking for unity.

    It's probably not going to happen anyway (what woman is going to fall for his superficial changes) but it's not going to happen without him.

    Right! (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    Even if he isn't all the things his fans think that he is, if he was a smart politician no one would have to "tell" him these things. A smart politician would know. And he just blunders along as if all he has to do is defeat Hillary Clinton and then all will be well.  

    Maybe it isn't "grown-up" of me but I don't want Hillary Clinton to validate all the sexist attacks on her by his surrogates and supporters by accepting the secondary spot on the Democratic ticket.

    Parent

    Unify the party? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    lol.  Nope, not this time.  Ain't gonna happen.  He's gone too far and alienated this 40-year yellow dog Democrat.  And I know I'm not alone. www.writehillaryin.com

    He and looney tunes Brazile can take their "new coalition" and shove it.  He can't win in November and everyone knows it.

    Exactly. I'll accept BO will be forced on the (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    ticket as VP, though I strongly object to him, but since he can not win, I see no reason for her to try to prop him up as his VP.  It won't work anyway.  He'd still lose.

    Parent
    Also to reiterate I am still (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    so not for the Unity Ticket. Hillary deserves better than being the VP of an underqualified, thin resumed' younger male. I would rathe,r if she looses this nomination, she waits it out till 2012. She is too important to the women's movement to be now sacrificed for the good of the party. Sorry but that's what I strongly feel.

    Use his proper respectful name. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    Please.

    He needs to win support by (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by santarita on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    campaigning for it and not expecting that we sheep will all fall into line once the convention is over.  I don't think he will select Hillary as the Vp and I'd hope that she wouldn't accept that role.  But he does need to nominate someone who is a progressive Democrat to counteract his march to the right.  And he needs to show that he is clearly different than McCain and not just superficially.  Both candidates will race to capture the center, the center-right and the center-left.  If people don't see that much difference between the two, McCain will win, especially after the typical October Surprise.

    For me the probability of naming Supreme Court justices is enough to get me to vote Obama but I remain concerned that under his concept of "New Politics", Pres. Obama may placate the Republicans by naming conservative justices.

    No Guarantee of Dem GE Victory (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD, but I don't see it as a given that we win the fall.

    Obama has steadily been losing ground since February. He's bleeding voters in almost every category except AAs. His ineptitude in dealing with HRC supporters is now extending to his press relations (always a shaky thing anyway). Many longtime dems are infuriated over how he and his supporters trashed Clinton presidency. Finally don't even get me started on how pissed off women voters are right now.

    If he wanted to - or perhaps better to say if he could - he would have already started to fix it. But this is a guy who has been able to move spectacularly far without a lot of effort (knocking off Alice Palmer, getting Alan Keyes as his opponent) so in his mind why should now be different.  

    Looking outside his mind, however, I see "different." McCain is wisely courting the women's vote - left wide open by DNC's indifference to sexism. Too many of Obama's supporters are working double time to spurn Clinton voters. The Press, Karl Rove, and DNC leadership hacks are gleefully stirring the pot. Plus too many people are paying attention this time.

    Yes, all of those are reasons to unite candidacies. But most of us on HRC don't see process as remotely fair and won't countenance her as second on ticket.

    He had supporters working in 11 WVa offices (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    and there were news stories about how hard it was on them, during a campaign in which he outspent Clinton 2-1.

      He couldn't bother to address WVa in a speech last night, to thank them for that effort or to congratulate Hillary on that wild a win.  He might do it today, but it was pretty glaring.

      He has been known to mope after losing.  I just have no confidence in the guy, though I find him an attractive conversationalist in interviews.  I think he is better off in a spot where he can, in a relaxed way, talk about ideas.

      That he would talk about Hillary's sense of entitlement when he was running for this office after barely a year in the U.S. Senate (after being given bills others had worked on, in the State Senate) was truly difficult for me to absorb.  

      That he insists he has more foreign policy experience than Clinton or McCain because of his years in Indonesia as a child from ages 6-10 and a couple of weeks visiting the mideast as a college student is INSANE.  No one would give Hillary a pass with such a statement.

    Parent

    They can't make nice to me (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Sunshine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    It just won't work... When they stripped the deligates from Mi and Fl, don't you think they knew at the time who was likely to carry them, and do you think that Donna Brazille would have pushed it so much it they had been likely to go to Obama?  Now they don't want to seat them until they make sure it won't effect Obama... There's plenty more, the media bias and rush to claim racism and forbid any mention of sexism... The unjust attacks on Bill Clinton... I'm just getting started but I'm going to stop here... They can make nice and kiss whatever they want to kiss, it won't effect me....  Divided government will just have to do....

    The genie is out of the bottle. (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    So true BTD  "...it is not about God, guns and gays. It is about standard of living. It is about respecting these voters"
    I've been trying to say this on this blog in several occasions, never well as BTD put it.
    The discussion here about what Obama should do to win the working class voter is all cosmetic stuff.  

    Respect for the economic condition and standard of living working class:  If you do not have it in your hart, in your guts, in your soul, it won't come out no matter what you say, or do.  

    Obama doesn't have it: this is his genie out of the bottle.  No cosmetic cover-up work will bring it back in.  And you know what?   Any attempted to change now will look, smell, and feel so phony, it'll make him look like a bad dressed-up clown.

    The "creative class" think... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    ... they're not working class. But that's because they're on the upswing in their employment life-cycles, and there are plenty more who are aspirational.

    They will discover their working class nature within a decade or so. Probably too late for us...

    Parent

    And perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    too late for them...

    Parent
    well, slap on my thigh (none / 0) (#198)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    Yep, you earn the right to call yourself working class.

    Parent
    Two are possible, one is not (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    1)Unity: Clinton on the ticket will not counteract his campaigning deficiencies. Also, every single exit poll shows that even Obama voters give Clinton the edge on experience. Placing a more experienced woman in second place to a younger man is a suicidal move we women have been trying to point out ever since the whole concept of a "unity ticket" was first broached.

    What he could do is publicly apologize for any implications that he or his surrogates have made that suggest Clinton is, or has, been racially divisive in this campaign. He needs to do a John Edwards and say that he doesn't want the votes of anyone who is voting for him just because he is AA, or because he is a man, or even because his last name isn't Clinton. Furthermore, he needs to praise not just Hillary, but Bill Clinton as well. He needs to start running on the great Democratic legacy--including the Clinton years.

    2)FL and MI: Easily taken care of if he wants to do it.

    3)Breaking the narrative: Personally, I don't think this is possible. Al Gore admitted, not too long ago, that he loved being in politics but he hated the campaigning--a major reason why he was unlikely to ever run for office again . Obama has the same problem:  he hates retail campaigning. You can see it in the physical tiredness, in the facial expressions and body language. People like the Clintons thrive on retail politics, and that comes across to voters. Obama can no more change that aspect of himself than Al Gore could. It was only when Gore left politics and became involved in what he truly loved that he was able to connect passionately with people. Maybe that will happen for Obama some day, but I don't see it happening in this election.

    Oh... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Marco21 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    One very, very small way Obama could help me feel better about supporting him would be to ignore Donna Brazile till the end of time. Here's why...

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27672

    Ignoring (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    Donna is not enough. Ignoring sounds like agreement to me. He needs to do a sister souljah on her.

    Parent
    If Obama does none of these he wil still win? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Saul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    I doubt that very seriously.  If he does not unite the party like choosing Hilary as VP, which I seriously doubt he will do because he will see it as a major contradiction to his campaign philosophy of getting rid of the old ways, then those that were for Hilary, will demonstrate in very large numbers not to elect him.  They will not care to look at the big picture and they will show their anger and say let McCain win. They will say,  I loved Hilary and I now I hate Obama and that's what you get for not picking Hilary as your VP.

    can't, narrative of new coalition already set (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    by the O-team. That is, they're not going after "Hillary's demographic" because they have their own. Hillary has her followers, white working class, and Obama has his. It's a new coalition for a new democratic party. The rules have changed, it's a new world. After hearing this for a while from enough people, I think this isn't just politics but what they believe and what they will shoot for.

    So no, Obama will do none of those things. The white working class vote will be written off. At least the Appalachia/rust belt area versions. Hillary strong supporters will be written off. And Hillary as VP is about the last thing in the universe they want.

    They will seriously campaign in the west, midwest, northeast, and even south. They will go after the very states they won in the primaries. They will of course try to get NY, NJ, MA, and CA and a few other usually dem states. But I think they won't even try hard for OH, PA, WV, FL, and similar places.

    Assuming he's the nominee, it will be interesting. Maybe they know what they're doing. Maybe they'll build a new coalition and a new party that's basically the republican party w/ AA's. Maybe they'll win that way. Perhaps it's time for parties to evolve and for new parties to form. It will be an interesting year to be sure.

    The question is... (none / 0) (#149)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    But I think they won't even try hard for OH, PA, WV, FL, and similar places.

    Can he win without those states?  

    This could also be the end of their little experiment, because if he loses, you're going to see a backlash against the arrogant little pissants in the creative class.

    Parent

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    The same demographic that is in most of PA is embedded in Upstate NY (not to mention all those folks who do the NY-FL trek each year).

    Parent
    The creative class... (none / 0) (#240)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    deserve to feel the full wrath of that backlash.

    Parent
    I don't think it's possible (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    Here's the thing: regardless of how often and how eloquently Obama talks about it, the "unity" message is centered around him, and the reason it fails is because Obama does not know what it is he believes in, what his core principles are, what he identifies and connects with.  Yes, I get that he needs to appeal to a broad coalition of voters, but you don't do that by selling out one group in order to curry favor with another.  If you believe, for example, as Hillary Clinton does, that we must have universal health care, you do not go around chipping away at that belief, or blurring the line between universal and not-so-universal every time you run into someone who says, "but what about ____?"  What you have is an answer for why what you believe in, what your plan advocates, is right, and how you intend to make it work.

    If he could find himself, he might be able to make inroads on unifying the party, but something tells me Barack Obama is not going to have an epiphany on this anytime soon.

    Breaking the narrative on Obama and white, working-class voters cannot be undone by bowling or playing pool or milking a cow.  Frankly, I think he has the same problem John Kerry did, and I think his image as someone who sees himself as standing above the crowd is pretty firmly fixed.  Look at him in Missouri, trying to connect with those voters - would anyone have been surprised if he had actually started saying, "blah, blah, blah," instead of acting so bored with his own presentation that that's how it came across?  Contrast that with Hillary's energy, her excitement and genuine interest in meeting the people whose votes she is asking for.  Is there a bigger turn-off for an audience than a candidate acting as if he wishes he were somewhere else, or as if resents the fact that he even has to be there?

    Forget about Obama "leading" on Florida and Michigan - it's just not going to happen, and the reason it won't happen is because he's too afraid to put principle above self-interest.

    In my mind, Obama has failed the leadership test over and over and over.  My assessment is that he's actually afraid to lead, afraid to really put himself out in front - too willing to glom onto the policy ideas and positions of others, too willing to blame others for his own mistakes, too afraid to be honest about his own actions.

    This man has a lot more to learn about himself before he'll be ready to take control of an entire nation.

    Oh I think he knows what his beliefs are (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Manuel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    They tilt a little to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic party with a tinge of spiritual appeal thrown in.  He knows, however, that running strictly on his beliefs, would lose the election.  He is sincere in his desire to reach out to Independents and Republicans to create a new post partisan majority.  IMO this plan is doomed but that appears to be where he wants to lead the party.

    Parent
    Baloney (none / 0) (#260)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    Obama wants to win.  Period.  If he has honest-to-God core beliefs, I haven't seen them.  

    Obama "Post-partisan?"  More baloney.  He wears that hat because it allows him to pander ("reach out") in the name of bi-partisanship, while trashing the very party he's running under.

    He wants to win.  If it takes GOP talking points, he's there.  If he has to trash me to get your vote, so be it.  Because none of this is about us - it's about him.

    If this is Obama's idea of a post-partisan majority, count me out; it makes my skin crawl.

    Parent

    If he wanted to win, (none / 0) (#268)
    by Manuel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    he would not do what he is doing.  He has drunk his own kool aid.  Of course it is about him.  He thinks he is uniquely positioned to bring about this fundamental change in politics.  He is wrong but I don't think he can see it and he doesn't appear to have anyone around who can tell him.

    Parent
    another class act (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by hummingbirdv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    by those advocating for Obama.  Let's invite Hillary as VP so she (women) can continue to take the criticism, blame and heat (hate) so frail little guy BO will be able to make it.

    Good one guys.  We see exactly where you're coming from

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    I'm appalled.

    Parent
    yesterday I run a focus group in a women's (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    shelter with 15 women who escaped domestic violence and abuse.  

    One of the question was:

    What was the most important reason that made you finally leave him?

    Unanimous answer: Tired of being his punching bag.

    Sorry BTD - Women are not punching bags, figuratively or for real

    With all due respect: Is this a discourse for Grownups?

    Well: for myself and for every women that is a domestic violance survival: I AM A GROWNDOWN

    Parent

    Let's call another meeting (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Sunshine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    I think this strategy has failed..  Too many head strong Hillary supporters..  So as far as going to Obama....  Hell no, we won't go..

    Obama's position on women? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by hummingbirdv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    Well... let's see is we can guess:

    "Umm Umm She's likeable enough..."
    Finger to cheek.

    This to a U.S. Senator and former First Lady of the United States of America.  I think his position on "women" is crystal clear.

    From what I'm reading (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by zfran on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    here as well as earlier posts here, Sen. Obama's mother apparently taught him some really wonderful things, however, I believe (and as a mother of a 16 and 18 year old) he hasn't been taught taking responsibility for his own actions. Blame everyone else, find someone else to blame. Bush does it, BC even did it. If Sen. Obama is a "new sort of politician" he must take responsibility for all of his potential voters he has ticked off. BTD can make the suggestions, but then Sen. Obama will be admitting he is responsible for all and every outcome...if the outcome (of this election/primary) are not to his liking, everyone else must be responsible!!!This is why I don't believe his "change" is in the air.

    BTD, BO will not win a GE. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    Here's thought, why not nominate the most qualified candidate, who is clearly the most electable, and she can choose him as her VP?

    concede the nomination now, (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by cpinva on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    What Obama Needs To Do To Win In November

    to avoid embarrasing himself and he democratic party, by getting beaten in a landslide by mccain.

    I would say that 4: (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    stop eating arugula and expensive ham, is something he is able to do, and might help.

    Well Said (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    Now we only need them to listen. There is much sense in waiting, though, until after all the votes are in to take on the Veep question, because the remaining voters need to stay charged and not be tossed aside as irrelevant. The race is still undecided and that is a good thing for us. However it plays out June will be a healing month where we send the GOP back to the dark ages where they belong.

    True that he can wait to announce the VP (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    But he at least needs to stop his surrogates from going out there and dismissing the unity ticket.  That seemed to be the talking point last weekend.

    Parent
    That Would Be Nice (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    I do not know what Pelosi and Brazille think that they are accomplishing with this divisiveness. Makes no sense to me. They are not acting as leaders.

    Parent
    Traditional route to power (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    for some women...that's what they're doing.

    So long as they do what 'the guys' say, they can maintain their own positions of power.

    Parent

    HRC trading for universal health care? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    Trading suspension for UHC has been my advice to HRC.  I'd be delighted to learn negotiations are under way for her to be the VP and take over the health care portfolio.  If that was announced today, she could still campaign in the remaining states, but just against McCain, and I doubt the voters would care or lose focus - there would be too much buzz about the ticket.

    Parent
    Trust but verify (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    How do we know he won't sell us out?

    10 to 1, there'll be some crisis, and the whole thing would be temporarily [cough] postponed.

    The way to give your policies at least some chance is to elect someone who believes in them.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM EST
    Heck wait until the Convention if he likes.

    Just do it.

    Parent

    On VP I mean (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    The other two should be addressed immediately.

    Parent
    The Other Two (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    Should've been addressed a month ago.  Instead, he's taken steps backwards on both of them.

    Face it, Obama isn't interested in unifying the democratic party.  He's interested in taking it over.

    Parent

    Here's a suggestion. This language (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    is entirely infuriating, no matter who says it:

    Of course Hillary Clinton has every right, indeed, she has an imperative, to continue.
    [Emphasis added.]

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST


    Parent
    It is paternalistic. (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST


    Parent
    oculus (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    making it even more condescending, Edwards saying that she can stay in the race so long as she keeps it civil.  Wtf?!

    I suppose he'd need a couple of phone books to stand on in order to pet her head, but this works just as well.

    Men who cannot see how infuriating this coded sort of talk is do themselves no favors.  It is just as insulting as saying WWTSBQ.

    (With the exception of BTD, because of course we know him here and know he is not that way at all.  Some of us are very good at giving others the benefit of the doubt...)

    Parent

    Except that (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    we all know what BTD meant - that she has every right IN SPITE OF WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN SAYING. He wasn't saying it the way others have said it. And he followed with the 'imperative' phrase.

    Context is always important. I think that language is offensive coming from Tweety, but not from BTD. Context is completely different.

    Parent

    You're so right about the context. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    BTD has been wonderful in his coverage of feminist issues and sexism in this campaign. That phrasing was just unfortunate.

    Parent
    Because it should be a given. (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:48 PM EST
    It's implies that the speaker is granting her permission to do something that she needs nobody's permission to do.

    That's why.  Women do not need permission to make up their own minds.  It's condescending to imply that.

    Parent

    Wha? (none / 0) (#160)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    She has the right.  Not "she may do x", "it's ok with me if", "let's let her do x until June".

    Parent
    If it's a given (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    then you shouldn't need to explicitly state it.

    Just stating it makes it obvious that there's a narrative that it is presumptive for Clinton to continue to campaign.

    Parent

    Presumptuous n/t (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST


    Parent
    let's just add that (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    BTD has often stood up vocally against misogyny.  

    But, back to the topic: Does anyone know if Obama made a concession/congratulations phone call to Clinton?

    Parent

    Senator Obama left a voicemail! (3.00 / 2) (#210)
    by eleanora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    Pretty funny, apparently he called when she was on her way to give her speech. What's a bit disturbing is McCain called to congratulate her early enough to get through. He's being scarily good about courting Clinton's voters, nice light touch. McCain is a better pol than I ever realized :(

    Parent
    John McCain (none / 0) (#265)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    is from my dad's generation.  Women were to be treated with respect even if you weren't sure that they belonged in the workforce with you.  When I headed off to college to enter a field that was overwhelmingly male, my dad was very proud, but he was also quick to point out that I should take some ed courses so that I could teach if I changed my mind. John McCain was a class act last night.  His stance on women's issues is out of date. Sexist but not necessarily misogynist.

    Parent
    That's not BTD's fault (none / 0) (#205)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    You don't like the narrative, he doesn't like the narrative - but he has every right to discuss it.

    Parent
    Infuriating because if you believe it... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    ... you don't have to say it. And there's always an implied "But" --"She has the right, but ____" and then fill in the blank with "destroying the party" (not true) or whichever talking point you want.

    It's just like "you're likeable enough." Given context, it means just the opposite of what it ostensibly says.

    Parent

    No Sh*t (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    The Obama base does not need any more charging up. If they are so sure of victory it is time that they stop the teenage rampage and act gracious, of course that has to start coming from the leadership. Hillary hate and Obama hate are absurdities at this point especially for those of us who have cast our votes. Whoever loses the nomination is still on our side at the very least as senators and advocates for Democratic principals. The loser will unquestionably campaign as fiercely for the nominee as they have for themselves because they are Democrats first as are most of us. The rest of the Obama and Hillary supporters are, at the very least, against the GOP and what it stands for today.

    The hate needs to stop, as it has no more function but has a habit and identity.

    Parent

    I have already switched to (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    my blind Dem follower mode.

    Holding feet to fire from me will come AFTER the election now.


    Parent

    I'm sure you know that after the election (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    is too late.

    Parent
    You know how you asked (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    the campaign and it caught on?  Yesterday you mentioned Plouffe's response to a delegate switching from Clinton to McCain.  I got the impression that you might see this as something that could be viewed as confirming Clinton's position and that the delegates and superdeez could switch up and until the convention... bolstering Clinton's position of going to the convention....

    Are you going to ask the campaign about how they might view Plouffe's statements and what it means about the possibility of going to the convention?  You could try for another footnote? :)

    Parent

    asked about the 2209 that is (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD... (none / 0) (#20)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    ...in your honest, objective opinion, what potential negatives might Sen. Clinton bring to the ticket?

    Actually none (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    the argument is that Obama will be faced with Media inquiry about campaign infighting, Clinotn etc,

    I say think about that for one moment.

    all negative press inquiroes about the Obama-Clinton campaign will be focused on the VP candidate, not the top of the ticket. Obama HIMSELF will get a free ride.

    Now somehow this is supposed to be a bad thing?

    Excuse me, this is something you pay for.

    Personally, I can not imagine for a second McCain would play it so stupidly.

    So here is my classic "name your biggest weakness, I care too much answer" - Clinton's negatives actually HELP shield Obama from negative scrutiny.

    Parent

    Interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    I think that may be true to an extent. But I believe the MSM will be loving Maverick Man.

    Parent
    No way!!! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Clinton remains the object of ridicule while Obama continues to get a free pass.

    Is that what you just said?

    Parent

    Do you doubt Clinton's ability (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    to take on the Repubs?  I don't in the slightest.  That's a strength for her in the GE.  She's a fighter.  She's in a better position than ever to say, it is the same old attacks and the same old media spin.  She's survived both for years and did so through again with this primary. There is no one like Clinton.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    For Obama, that is a great thing.

    Parent
    Don't see that swaying many Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    supporters.  

    Plus, there is a strong CDS amongst some Republicans; might they shy away from voting Dem. just this once is she is on the slate?

    Parent

    She's just proved Dems aren't wimps (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    Good thing IMO.

    Parent
    She's proved that SHE is no wimp. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    As for the rest of the Dems, including Obama?

    No comment.

    Parent

    Let's reserve judgment. (none / 0) (#231)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Count me out (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    Really?  I want to be clear.  You take a group of people (large or small) and they're royally PO'd because Clinton gets a raw deal from the media and Obama is given a free pass, and the argument that you make to those people for a Unity Ticket is "woo hoo, more of that please, it's good for Obama!"

    Sorry.  Maybe you'd phrase it differently for the sake of selling the idea.

    Or rather, I missed the point here, cause in this case you were trying to sell the idea not to a Clinton supporter but to an Obama supporter.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#222)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    the audience for the Unity Ticket idea is the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign.  Whether we blog commentors are sold is really beside the point.  No one is going to ask us for permission.

    Parent
    Great thing? (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    So Obama stands quietly by while his VP gets savaged and doesn't defend her?

    Do you think this will play well with voters?  With women?

    Or will it stamp "Elitist" in big bold letters on his forehead?  (Plus a few other choice adjectives.)

    Parent

    So basically she will be the fall guy (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    for the teflon one.

    Now more than ever I hope and pray that Hillary does not ever accept Obama's VP position.


    Parent

    Unbelievable. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Sometimes BTD doesn't see (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    the Big Picture.

    This is one of those times.

    "May I have another, please?" is not in my lexicon.

    Parent

    Wrong. He sees it. (none / 0) (#208)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    He just thinks the endgame will play out differently than you do.

    Parent
    Intersting point (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    The Late Nioght shows can keep up their obsession with Clinton and avoid bagging on Obama himself.

    This is the Leno Strategem.

    He's happy because he can still use twenty year old material and as a bonus avoid taking the mickey out of the black guy.

    Parent

    Nah. For the Party it is a great thing (none / 0) (#217)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    and they ought to nominate the better candidate.  Actually, the more you glorify talk of Hill as Obama's(whom I think clearly peaked in February) VP, the more I become repulsed.  No, she has won the electoral map.  He can be her VP if he wants.  But the idea that she would be his is the same old story.  The more qualified(in this case, by FAR more qualified)  woman playing second fiddle to the inexperienced, less qualified man.  No thanks.

    Parent
    Hahahah! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    If it worked that way...man. Sick. But Beautiful. In a sick way. I think it very well could work that way. I hadn't considered that angle.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#220)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    This is sort of the Paul Lukasiak argument, that a unity ticket is bad because the media will focus entirely on the soap-opera angle.  

    While this may be true, I see it as a positive because (1) it means the Democrats will continue to soak up all the media oxygen, and (2) at the end of the day, very few voters will actually vote against the ticket because they think Obama and Clinton won't get along.  That's not something voters care about.

    Paul L. is a very smart guy, but he seems to be under the impression that if not for the soap opera, the media will spend its time focusing on the issues and the substantive merits of Obama's campaign.  That's not the media I know.

    Parent

    constructive criticism (none / 0) (#30)
    by bab23 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    "...if there are grownups in the Obama camp"

    What?

    "...move beyond the pretty slogans"

    Yes, by all means, let's discuss his positions rather than his "pretty slogans." Which do you like; which would be winners in the Fall; which won't; which should be altered?

    If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion.

    I am giving political advice here (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    Not reading off his website.

    I am sorry if the discussion is too mundane for you.

    Parent

    Women's Issues. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    They don't even rate a mention on his website.

    Does he have a position regarding them?

    Parent

    Obviously, (none / 0) (#211)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    that IS his position.

    Clear now?

    Parent

    But what (none / 0) (#48)
    by 1jane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    are we going to do about Bill? Seriously.

    I think you could not get a better (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    political and policy advisor than Bill Clinton. Why is it that everyone has bought into the republican twisted picture of the Clintons? This man is probably the most accomplished politician and policy person the democrats have today. And you are implying what exactly?

    Parent
    Put him to work (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    Campaigning his a** off.

    Believe you me, you will be happy when he is on your side working hard.

    When Democrats are silly enough to believe the Media's nonsense about bill Clinton I know we have jumped the shark.

    He will be the best surrogate the campaign could possibly have.

    Again, grownups are necessary for all this.

    Parent

    I thought the discussion (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    centered on what Obama should do.  If he and his supporters won't accept that there are serious problems here, they're doomed.

    Parent
    I'll welcome Bill with open arms. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    Don't know what anyone else will do.  I'd rather have Bill Clinton on my team than, well, I don't think I'll name names.  It'd use up too much bandwidth.

    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Send him on a world tour. (none / 0) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    Without GHWB of course.

    Parent
    send him to Hope (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    and Little Rock.  

    Have him throw the biggest house party in history.

    Parent

    Use him to campaign and then (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    kick him to the curb (administration wise).  The guy has a foundation to run or he can be put in a position that involves a lot of travel.  If Obama can't get past his wife's objection (frankly, if the guy can't take on his wife, I don't want him near the White House) and can't figure out what to do with B Clinton, he has no business near the White House.  

    Parent
    what will we do about Michelle? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    her anti-America remarks are elitist and material for GOP ads.
    Perhaps she could undo some of the damage by wearing a flag pin?
    And she obviously knew but couldn't even handle her own husband by preventing his "boneheaded" real estate transaction with Rezko.


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#49)
    by lefty lawyer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    over several glasses of wine last night, I made precisely these three points (I allowed as how Hillary Clinton might not want to be VP, and that Ted Strickland would be an acceptable substitute).

    Did I get so drunk that I sent you an e-mail and don't even remember it?  Or are we just equally brilliant?  That'll work for me.

    Needless to say, well put.

    Strickland said no thanks. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    Read that earlier.  He's staying in Clinton's camp.

    Parent
    what do Rendell and Strickland (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    know about their own states?  That Kerry doesn't?

    Parent
    My Mother and I were talking about (none / 0) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    Obama's deficits in the Appalachian Region last night and I said, "What are they going to do?"  Her response was, "Obama and Clinton have to run together.  I told you months ago that that is what has to happen."  She did.  It was in February I think.

    She also mentioned that Mario Cuomo endorsed both candidates yesterday.  Did you see any mention of that anywhere else BTD?

    Cuomo has been saying it for weeks (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST


    Parent
    But what (none / 0) (#69)
    by 1jane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    about Obama losing all the Independent and moderate Republicans votes if a Clinton is on the ticket?

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    note what happened in WV.  These are the Reagan Dems.  Quite literally she has gotten the cross over voters.

    you are still thinking pre-Wright.

    Parent

    That is actually what he is doing now (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Good points; I'd add #4 & 5 (none / 0) (#82)
    by Lora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    I would just add that Obama needs NOT to wimp out like Kerry did, but INSURE that every vote is counted -- and counted honestly, transparently, and accurately.  Also the corollary that everyone who is entitled to vote be allowed to vote.

    Realistically I am afraid this won't happen.  The dems are too afraid of being labelled left-wing conspiracy theorist nutcases to raise the entirely legitimate issue of who can vote, how they can vote, and how the votes are counted.  They way it's currently done is shameful, quite possibly illegal, and ripe for fraud on an enormous scale.

    To ignore this may cost him the election.

    I will never vote for McCain. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Marco21 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    I am surprised anyone would turn over the reigns of our country to Bush III after all we've endured.

     I wanted Hillary, too. It's not going to happen.

    I sure as hell will be voting Obama in November as Hillary and Bill Clinton will be doing.

    I won't vote for McCain (none / 0) (#226)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    but I sure as hell won't vote for Obama either.

    Parent
    I odn't see the difference. (none / 0) (#244)
    by Marco21 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    Again, I will be voting with the Clintons this November since it seems I cannot vote for one of them.

    Parent
    Here's one reason (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    to keep speculation about her being the VP.

    Mccain can't strat showering her with praise until he he knows that obama has counted her out completely.

    Because if I were mccain i'd be throwing rose petals at Clinton's feet as soon as I could.

    He already is. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by davnee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    He called her to congratulate her last night.

    Parent
    McCain did? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    Obama best take note because I'm sure others are.

    Parent
    McCain's going after her (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    voters.  He doesn't have to mention Clinton. All he needs to do is go after Obama and his campaign and how they disrespected and dismissed people.  Fox is already doing it for him.  Last nights themes: elitism (Obama, his supporters and the party elite selected Obama) and who Clinton is attracting.

    Parent
    He's (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    already started. He treated her better after her win in WV than Obama did.

    I tell you guys, McCain is saying that he wants our votes while Obama is constantly implying that he doesn't. It's deadly.

    Parent

    Great advice, but I don't see any evidence ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    that the Obama machine will see reason. They seem to be intoxicated with hubris.

    5/20 is the key (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    Obama can take the whole campaign over the cliff. I'm betting he will.

    Parent
    Oh no. (none / 0) (#118)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST
    BTD, you're so close to understanding how unelectable he is...and then you put up something like this.

    1. Obama won't do anything differently. He is always right. It is the voters who are always wrong.

    2. The only way he can be on a ticket with her is as VP. Her supporters won't "unify" behind him as President.

    3. How in the world can you still be thinking Obama is a media darling? Why do you think Bob Somerby has a job?

    Democrats are NEVER EVER media darlings. It's been that way since Jimmy Carter!

    As soon as a nominee is chosen, they will show their true colors and start howling about how McCain is the bestest candidate evah.

    Same as it ever was.

    If it can't be Hil/Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    I am great with Obama/Hil.

    The reason this race is soooooo heated and sooooo close, is that for once we have two awesome dynamic, powerful and qualified candidates.

    Frankly, I always wanted them both on the ticket because I want each of them to have a turn as president.

    I have wanted this from day one.

    Will it happen? Probably not.

    But a girl can hope.

    I meant (none / 0) (#166)
    by hummingbirdv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    let's see IF we can guess.

    From what I'm reading (none / 0) (#181)
    by zfran on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    here as well as earlier posts here, Sen. Obama's mother apparently taught him some really wonderful things, however, I believe (and as a mother of a 16 and 18 year old) he hasn't been taught taking responsibility for his own actions. Blame everyone else, find someone else to blame. Bush does it, BC even did it. If Sen. Obama is a "new sort of politician" he must take responsibility for all of his potential voters he has ticked off. BTD can make the suggestions, but then Sen. Obama will be admitting he is responsible for all and every outcome...if the outcome (of this election/primary) are not to his liking, everyone else must be responsible!!!This is why I don't believe his "change" is in the air.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#192)
    by Manuel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    All words and actions in the Obama camp to date point to a belief that reaching out to Independents and Republicans is more important than uniting the party.  It looks like he really thinks he can forge a new coalition with post partisanship at its core.

    To dream the impossible dream (none / 0) (#202)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    None of the above can happen or is likely to happen. How can Clinton accept a VP slot when the differences between them are so great? And they don't even like each other. He texted her a congratulations message yesterday. Texted.

    The narrative argument goes out the window because that is not who Obama is. He is who he is. He can't change even if he wants to. It's a pipe dream.

    On MI/FL, his view is that to win the nomination he needs 2,025 delegates. Why would he change his mind? Especially when under that formula, Oregon puts him over the top.

    BTD is right about much and he is brilliant about demographics but I think he is hoping for the impossible on this. I wish he were right to some extent but it is at this point pointless to think that the Democratic Party can mend itself. The damage has been done. At this point, I'd rather just teach the DNC a lesson and prove to them that without the working class, you can't win a general election. Let the Democratic Party burn. Out of the ashes will rise something better.

    If HIllary (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    is underqualified to be President then Obama is completely unqualified.

    You're dreaming (none / 0) (#207)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    BTD. He won't do any of this. He's had problems with the white voters for over 2 months. He's had numerous chances to solve MI and FL and hasn't.

    He's not interested in unifying the party. He's interested in creating some sort of Obama fiefdom. He wants to do exactly the same thing to Dems that Bush has done to the GOP.

    No Unity (none / 0) (#215)
    by SoCalDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    I don't see Obama winning the G.E. We will endure another 4 years under Republican rule. Hillary can run again in 2012. This is Baracks only shot and he is going to lose. I personally don't see him carrying California in the G.E. My state is bigger than San Francisco, alot of latinos, and McCain is not their enemy. We'll see how this plays out. We have a large Black population, a large percent of that are either in prison or on parole, so they don't get to vote, and yes we do have alot of typical white people. I know I won't be voting for him, or any congress person that supports him.

    You do know (none / 0) (#223)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    that the Senate Majority Leader is chosen by a vote of the senate majority, right?

    How do you propose she get those votes?  By challenging Harry Reid?

    I keep pointing this out (none / 0) (#275)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    but no one wants to recognize seniority.  Why would Reid step aside for Clinton?  It makes no sense.  Clinton will get the nom, take VP or go work hard in the senate.

    Parent
    You know, the Democrats don't owe (none / 0) (#239)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    Obama the nomination, and spare me pledged delegates.  Neither will earn the required pledged delegates.  This is becoming an absurdity.  She wins all the swing states, swing groups and big electoral states(save IL).  She is the clear choice of registered Democrats.  She has the popular lead when all the votes are counted.  The Democrats should and can elect the better candidate.  We don't owe Obama.

    No second place for Hillary (none / 0) (#246)
    by goldberry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    Forget it.  It's either the top spot or nothing.  I will not vote for looking at her humiliation for four years.  She's much more presidential than he is.  No thank you.  If that's the deal, she should turn it down.  I won't vote for Obama unless HE is the VP.  It's a more sensible solution and one that most of us can choke down.  

    Obviously. I am sick of this. (none / 0) (#247)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST


    Parent
    He Can't Win in Nov. Period. (none / 0) (#249)
    by LCaution on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    1. Yes, Obama will be the nominee. The media have made it impossible for the SuperDs to do anything else.  With his face on the covers of Time, Newsweek and The Economist and the universal media proclamation that he is the nominee, the SuperDs are faced with the following unpleasant options:

    Vote for Hillary and be labeled racist by the media who will also say that they stole the nomination from Obama. Lose the AA vote in the GE. If Hillary then loses to McCain, they will also be accused of having snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They may believe that Obama will lose to McCain, but they will decide it is better for the media to label Americans racist than to label the Democratic Party as racist.  

    1. Hillary will be much more effective as Majority Leader, or even just as a Senator than as VP. I am praying that she realizes that.

    2. Obama's problem is not that he doesn't know how to talk to blue-collar voters.  The problem is that he does not have the experience to be President.  Were he to win, I think at best we would have a one-term Jimmy Carter again.  At worst - well, I don't even want to think about it. Yes, Americans have elected a bunch of numbskulls to be POTUS, but given a choice between McCain and Obama, they will go for McCain.  There is nothing Obama can do about this.

    This is shaping up as McGovern/Nixon all over again and there is simply no way to stop the train wreck.

    How can you not like (none / 0) (#253)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    her on the ticket if you are sick of the current policies? I wouldn't want to be strong armed into my pick for VP, but politics is based in strong arming. I can understand the reticence of having Bill around the WH, but Bill is a company man and will do whatever it takes to make the admin successful. 50% of the Voters strongly want her in the top job and she helps the ticket tremendously. How often does a VP selection "help" the ticket? Give me an example of one in modern history that actually swung an election. Picking Hillary no doubt swings this election. Problem is, if I were HIllary I wouldn't take it. I would wait four years and run again, it worked for McCain....

    I wish I believed (none / 0) (#254)
    by nemo52 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    That Obama was capable of doing any one of the three things BTD mentioned.  But alas, I do not think he can or will.  He and his followers are far too involved in his "movement" to care about the party any more.

    She won't take it (none / 0) (#261)
    by jarober on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    Why do you think Hillary would take the number 2 spot?  She has no interest in being VP under Obama, and there's no upside for her:

    -- If Obama is unpopular, and only gets 1 term, she can't run in 2012

    -- If Obama is popular, and get reelected, her chances of following on in 2016 are slim.  Before H. W. Bush, the last sitting VP to get elected was Van Buren.  Clinton can read those odds as well as anyone else

    -- If Obama runs and loses, she gets consigned to the "loser bin" and doesn't get a good shot at running again - Democrats in particular don't tend to give second chances to losing candidates (John Edwards being the most recent example)

    If, on the other hand, she sits out, and Obama loses, she can try again in 2012.  If Obama wins, she can still try to run in 2016, and won't have the dead weight of VP-ness hanging around her neck.

    Politicians are self interested above nearly everything else.  There's just no upside to her taking the number 2 slot, unless she gives up all future ambitions for higher office.

    guru??? (none / 0) (#267)
    by diogenes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    Hillary is experienced RELATIVE TO OBAMA.  What exactly has she done to qualify as a guru?  Biden, Gore, Nunn, and others may qualify to be behind the scenes gurus, but with all due respect all Hillary has arranged behind the scenes is a failed national health plan and a poorly organized presidential campaign.

    I finally got what I've been waiting for: (none / 0) (#276)
    by s5 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    Analysis on whether or not Hillary's white support in the primary translates to a problem for Obama in the general.

    This poll points to "it's not a problem" as the answer. Or rather, it's only  a problem in the sense that it affects both Hillary and Obama equally. Hillary's advantage in the primary doesn't appear to translate to an advantage in the general.

    Poll: McCain Beats Obama And Hillary By Equal Margin Among Working Class Whites

    It's only one poll, but it's the only poll I've seen on the subject. I know the Clinton campaign keep beating the drum about working class whites, but that assertion should be backed up by facts and analysis, not gut feeling.

    I would still like to see more analysis of this, since it's a pretty important question.

    Rendall seems to take the right (none / 0) (#277)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    direction on the VP question:

    LA TIMES

    BTD, there is no Act 2.... (none / 0) (#278)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    and Obama is not the nominee -- so please stop saying that he is likely going to be the nominee, please.

    What Obama Needs To Do To Win In November | 281 comments (281 topical)