home

At the risk of offending, I note Paul Krugman's column on the division in the Democratic Party, the risk it is causing to winning the Presidency and what can be done about it:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent. . . . [MORE]

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year. So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November. [Krugman also urges Obama to offer Clinton the Vice Presidency]

Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks. So what comes next?

. . . [M]ainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party. One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight. The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

. . . Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Yes, as has been obvious for months now, I agree with Paul Krugman yet again.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Overnight Open Thread | Electability KY Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not surprisingly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:01:10 AM EST
    Krugman is Evil at the Big Orange Satan. He may find that he is also "Evil" with some Clinton supporters now after this column.

    I don't think he is evil (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    I always respect what he says.  But I am not a columnist.  I agree with what he says, if Obama is nominated.  But I hardly see Obama's capacity to unite.  Like I said, if Obama amasses this power in the party, I cannot support his candidacy cause frankly with the power he will have, his tactics and "the movement" I do not feel comfortable handing him the presidency that has been given all these powers by Bush.  Particularly if he has a big majority in Congress.  I am very dubious of amassed power, wether from the right or the left, particularly when we are talking about someone that I have little or no respect regarding his core values and character.  

    Parent
    why evil? (5.00 / 14) (#34)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    I mean, he wrote something I don't agree with.  There's no reason to vilify or despise folks whose opinions don't match your own.  Isn't that how things used to be before Bush and Rove made it us-against-them?  My dad was very high up in the state dem party, yet we had suppers and parties with repubs all the time.  They disagreed the way that football fans disagree--my team lost this time, your team lost that time, let's razz each other about it over bbq.  I doubt very seriously that could happen now.  Heck, even fellow dems can't talk about politics over bbq unless they are all on the same "side."

    Krugman's basic premise is that Obama has won the nomination.  I don't agree with that.  I think he vastly underestimates two things: the animosity of Clinton supporters (a small group, comparatively) and the animosity of folks toward Obama because of Wright and the bitter/cling comments (let's call it his "appalachia moment").  I think a year from now, that will be called Obama's tank/windsurfing/Dean scream moment.


    Parent

    I opened the can of worms (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    so I should not complain, so I will keep my mouth shut and not respond on the question of voting for the candidate who most agrees with your views.

    Parent
    Isn't that called a paralipsis? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    I vote for "not evil" (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    Clinton supporters shouldn't find PK evil because of this column. Would Obama be more worker-friendly than McCain? Surely, that must be true. Is that reason enough to vote for him? A lot of people, right now at least, are saying no. Is it Obama's problem to fix? Yes. That seems to be PK's view, which I think is spot on accurate.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    he's probably more worker friendly than McCain but probably not by enough I think.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    It's a pretty low hurdle to be more worker-friendly than the GOP.

    Parent
    What an annoying diary at DK. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by outsider on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    Starting with that first line: the confession about being an economist.

    Translation: "I took undergraduate economics course.  Last semester."

    Parent

    Nah, Krugman Is Right On As Usual (5.00 / 11) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    I think the greatest umbrage that will be taken here is his assertion that Obama will be the nominee. While I would prefer that not to be the case, all indications are that will be the final outcome.

    This part interests me and I would like your feedback on it.

    Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won't persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

    This is the part that definitely doesn't make sense to me from a political standpoint. Why would the Obama continue in what I agree is counterproductive actions? By not seating FL and MI and continuing to take a scorch and burn attitude with Clinton, he is just giving people more reasons not to vote for him. This is beyond stupid IMO.


    Parent

    On RFK (5.00 / 15) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    the DAY OF THE SCANDAL, Axelrod absolutely defended Clinton and stood far away from the craziness.

    The next day, Obama was supposed to do the same thing, but he did not do it well imo, clearly he feels resentment about Clinton's "I take him at his word" answer about him being a Muslim.

    He repeated it verbatim. I feel confident he had that answer in mind.

    Obama is NOT a disciplined candidate. Lost in all the shuffle and Media Darlingness is the fact that Obama makes a ton of political mistakes. Not fake ones, but real ones.

    But he is made of Teflon right now for the Media.

    But his problems, as Krugman and I have stated, are not with the Media - it is with the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    well, that day (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    Burton sent out a statement that what Clinton said has no place in this campaign.

    Also apparently the campaign is sending around Olbermann's special comment?  That I find kind of weird.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    Kudos to Axelrod IMO, but the campaign is all over the map on this one.  Very schizophrenic reaction.

    Parent
    maybe it's revenge for (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    the Superdelegate/Clinton camp conversations about Wright?

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    But with Obama in position to claim the nomination (maybe! possibly! all the usual disclaimers!) they are really stupid if it is about revenge at this point.

    Parent
    Seems like a lack of maturity. It's as though (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    they just can't stop themselves. Not only weird but seems like a terrible way to portray a future presidency.

    Parent
    but see - that's another lie (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    that Obama has perpetuated about Hillary - creating false narratives that will be considered factual in history books. Character assassination comes easy for Obama and his winning based on "the end justifies the means" is very Bush.

    Media Matters - excerpt
    http://tinyurl.com/4rqyp5

    Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

    Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

    Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying.
    Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)

    After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."

    The only thing sleazy about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.

    Parent

    Axelrod may have "defended" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    Hillary, but his people sent out the ridiculous Olbermann special comment to the super delegates.  What do you think of that?  You seem to think all these accusations of racism toward Hillary happen in a vacuum.  This is the "new politics" of Acelrod/Obama.  I wonder if you realize that.

    Parent
    I missed what Axelrod did to defend Clinton - (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    could you steer me to it?

    I know about Burton, and sending emails to all media sources with the link to article about Obama being the first nominee candidate to get Secret Service so early.

    I know about the Obama campaign sending out the KO special comment videos to SDs.

    And I'm aware of what Axelrod said and didn't say on Little George's show.

    What did he do on the day? T/U much.

    Parent

    Compare (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cannondaddy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it and I think we should put it behind us. -Obama

    to

    I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America.  -Clinton

    Both candidates apologized in much the same manner, saying their words were not intended the way they were being interpreted.  I've never heard a single Clinton supporter cut him the slightest slack on his gaffe, and she certainly didn't.

    Parent

    The difference is not in what they say (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    but what always comes next.

    Obama makes his typical Eddie Haskell-like comment oozing something that appears gracious, but behind the scenes, his people work overtime to push the message that not only did she mean what she said in the worst possible way, but proceeds to detail what all those possible ways are.

    Clinton just says it right out.

    Parent

    Clinton supporters are generally (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    more rational and less prone to character attack than Obama supporters.  I will be very suprised if you find one person who supports Hillary that will claim Krugman is evil.

    Parent
    Didn't you know (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    that he's really just an evil right wing economist who's bad on television?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    he is not great on television imo.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    but they might as well have called him fat.

    Parent
    Well, if he's going to use Talk Left (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    as a crib sheet for his columns. . .

    I am sure (4.71 / 14) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    he reaches his conclusions independently.

    What this actually proves is that brilliant minds think alike. . . .

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    I an really sorry to see (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    Krugman and other Democrats resign themselves publicly that Obama will be the  nominee. That sentiment extends to the blogosphere where some like you have thrown in the towel.

    Props to Jeralyn for fighting until it is over. Rather than suggesting a VP spot for Clinton (which I highly question that she would accept) she fights on with posts that make the case for Clinton instead of sounding like a defeatist moderate Obama surrogate wiling to throw Clinton a bone.

    Parent

    All I can say for myself is (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    I am of the view that Obama will be the nominee as the Democratic Establishment has decided it will be so.

    Whether that is good or bad is a debate that can be had, but it is not what I am writing about and I do not think Krugman is writing about it either.

    Parent

    The unity Mr. Krugman (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    speaks of should have started a long time ago. Sen. Obama's minions have somewhat changed their tune, albeit still hitting sour notes. He does not seem to care. Neither do I. This is more than a rift imo, this is many tearings outside of the seams and it's gonna take more than mere patches to put it together again, if at all.  

    Parent
    You write about (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    a unity ticket with Clinton losing the nomination and being VP.

    That is trowing in the towel - something that Jeralyn to her credit refuses to do. Like Clinton she is not a quitter. That's all I'm saying, some people have quit on Clinton and others have not. Krugman has quit sad to say.

    Parent

    Krugs is not a HRC surrogate, (4.00 / 4) (#78)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    and seems to be correctly reading the political situation for Hillary.  He's not far from the tone of a few actual HRC surrogates or defenders in the media, like Carville and Begala, who've been sounding lately like they know it will take something extraordinary, like Obama talking about how he's been previously kidnapped by space aliens and taken aboard the mother ship, in order to turn this one around.

    Oh, and I like the way he referenced the suggestion I made in these pages some weeks ago, that it might be helpful to party healing for O to at least make the VP offer to Hillary  -- which, by prior arrangement she would turn down, with many thanks, etc.  

    At least I hope that's feasible, since at this point there probably isn't enough trust betw the two camps to quite pull that off.  A month or so down the line though, after all the public and private conciliatory rhetoric and actions, and it will be more doable.

    Parent

    Smile (none / 0) (#151)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    Well said :)

    Parent
    Great column (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by truthseeker77 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    Krugman reminds us that some effectively portrayed Clinton's LBJ comments as "racist". And it stuck, when in fact the comments had not a hint of racism. And no, they were not "racially tinged", as some like to call it when they have no evidence of racism.

    When the media starts to assign evil intent to inoffensive comments by Obama against McCain, his supporters will know how it feels.

    Obama has been for the most part (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    been the Teflon Man with many Dems. But the primaries are not the general and in the general many more voters come into the process and things will not go a smoothly for Obama once the press turns on him - and they will turn on him as he has been setup from the beginning to be our nominee for a reason: He is an easy target to define.

    Parent
    actually, (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by ccpup on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    he is an easy target to define ... and then irreparably destroy.

    I get a sense we're seeing the height of Obama's political career.  A comet that burned unbelievably bright, but sputtered and then fizzled quickly, disappearing once he got stomped in the General after being drawn-and-quartered by a Press he truly thought loved him.  

    It's downright Shakespearean in it's sense of Tragedy and I almost feel sorry for him.

    Almost.  

    Parent

    I would like to know (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Y Knot on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    Where the idea that the media "loves" Obama comes from?  I've seen that said here as granted time and again, but I just don't see it reflected in the news.  

    They came after him pretty darned hard (fairly or unfairly) with the Reverend Wright issue, the "Bitter" issue, Ayers, the meme the he's inexperienced, when that didn't work, they tried tagging him as "elitist" and on and on.  I'm not saying they're out to destroy him by any stretch, but that's not the same thing as saying they "love" him.

    Have they treated Clinton worse?  (And again, I'm talking about in this election, not how she was treated in the 90's, which was way out of proportion)  Maybe. I think its debatable.  I'd say the media's "Bosnia" faux outrage was less egregious than his "bitter" faux outrage... but on the other hand, the "assassinate Obama" faux outrage is still being played out.

    As for general tone?  I think they came after Clinton when she was the front-runner, then I think they came after Obama when he was the front-runner, and now that he seems to have weathered that, they're coming after Clinton again to get out because... well, frankly another story of Obama still ahead in the delegate count isn't all that interesting.  So, they're trying to stir up trouble.  

    When the primaries are over the whichever one is the winner, will be hit with the string of "can she/he unite the party?" stories.  They'll talk to ardent supporters of the loser, and feed on their genuine, anguished emotions, turning it into a weapon against the winner.  After that, assuming the winner can manage to get some unity, there'll be a love fest until before the convention, then just before, some new faux outrage will be created to see if they can cause a split at the convention, so they can have a real fun time covering that... and on and on until November.

    The details would vary, but that'll happen no matter which one of them becomes the nominee.  The media loves drama, not Obama.

    (Oooh!  That rhymes!)

    Parent

    May already be too late (5.00 / 20) (#5)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    I for one have reached a point where I can not imagine voting for Obama.  The extreme and ridiculous vilification of HRC by Obama supporters, including the blogosphere bullies like A-blog, have turned me from someone who thought moderately well of Obama 7, 8 months ago to someone who just loathes him and his supporters today.

    I really think I'm at the point where I'd prefer McCain to win just because I don't think the awful tactics of Obama supporters deserve to be rewarded.

    If Clinton isn't the Dem nominee I'll probably write her in.

    I won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    o/w, agreed.

    Parent
    Mike H: I Understand (1.66 / 3) (#121)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    I understand exactly how you feel. Substitute Clinton for Obama and Obama for Clinton in your post and you have described my feelings exactly -- except I could never actually prefer that McCain win.

    The question is: What can be done about this at this point? If the shoe were on the other foot, I think I would (a) stop criticizing Clinton and accept that she had the nomination; (b) contribute and work for down ballot Democrats; and (c) quietly write in "Obama" on my ballot in November.

    I have two questions for Clinton supporters:

    1. What would you say to convince me to affirmatively vote for Clinton in November?

    2. Would your arguments for Clinton work to convince you to vote for Obama?


    Parent
    Except it's more than just "tit for tat" (5.00 / 14) (#146)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    It's not just that if we substitute "Obama" for "Clinton" we'll somehow magically understand how each other feels and all miraculously come together.

    The tactics I have seen used by Obama supporters have completely undermined my confidence that we're even in the same book, let alone the same page.

    I do not believe that these people represent the same progressive, liberal values I hold.  Their treatment of Clinton is far beyond the pale.  They take the worst of the right-wing talking points against her and resurrect them as if they were gospel truth, they act as if they can read her mind and ascribe motives to her through simple guesswork and then act as if it's fact, and they build upon this day after day after day until they've created -- wholly within their own minds -- a monster that is nothing like the actual Senator Clinton.

    Her experience, her voting record, her standing tall against decades of attacks that would have -- and have -- decimated lesser politicians, and her mastery of policy that leaves Obama in the dust, are all I need to know about her to know that she is the better candidate.

    The attacks against her say far more about Obama's supporters than they do about her.

    Parent

    Not Tit for Tat (4.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    I still believe that by substituting candidate names we can better understand the depth of the other's feelings. I never meant to imply that increased understanding would cause us to miraculously come together. For some, that may come with the passage of time. For others, it will never come. As an Obama supporter, I hope the Obama campaign reaches out to the former. As for the latter, there's only so much that can be done. No point wasting time worrying about those who will never come around.

    Parent
    Oh please... (1.88 / 9) (#201)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    Spare us.

    Seriously, spare us.

    The Clinton Personality Cult has somehow managed to become the supreme masters of projection, and of accusing others of PRECISELY what they themselves are doing.

    As bad as you lot say that Obama is, we feel exactly the SAME way about Clinton, if not moreso. We feel she has embraced the worst of the GOP tactics, the worst of the Rovian excesses, has shown her true colors as a pandering dogwhistler who came into this contest with a TREMENDOUS sense of arrogant entitlement. She plays the self-aggrandizing bully when she has the upper hand, and pulls out the "pity me, I'm jus a poor widdle woman!" victim card when she's on the ropes. She gets pass after pass after pass for all her mistakes, while the so called "Pro-Obama media" shiskabobed him tremendously over March, April and May.

    You complain that Obama supporters don't see the "real" Obama. Well, we complain that you don't see the REAL Clinton. And instead of trying to understand us, you just say "Yeah..but...WE'RE right, and you're right. Everything we say is correct, and everything you say is incorrect." You don't even TRY to understand why some people might find Clinton to be a deeply flawed, problematic politician. Most folks I know who support Obama are at least willing to acknowledge his flaws and weaknesses (I myself am more anti-Hillary than pro-Obama. He's okay, but not my first choice), but I see nothing but the blindest of devotion from the vast majority of Hillary Supporters.

    Also, the other big difference between the two groups? Far more of the Obama supporters understand what's at stake here. Far more Obama supporters are willing to get behind the Party and it's Nominee and work to help fix this country. Most of Hillary's supporters seem fixated on getting their pound of flesh and vengeance galore, consequences be damned.

    You say you want understanding and empathy? Try giving some first. Try pulling the log out of your eye before you criticize the mote in others.

    Parent

    You seem to ignore when she did it... (1.85 / 7) (#170)
    by Kevin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    At least with his campaign, he isn't the one going out and saying these things about her and piling on.  Who can forget her trying so desperately to attach him to Reverand Wright's statements in television debates?  Or piling on "bittergate", making commercials referencing it and passing out buttons, twisting something that pretty much everyone, including her husband, has known to be factual into something "elitist"?

    It's just politics, some of you just don't like it applied to your candidate.  But she's been more then Obama's equal, and you guys have more then been a match for the Obama supporters in overzealous ridiculousness.

    The fact that there are multiple posts calling Obama "evil" proves that quite nicely.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    Who can forget her trying so desperately to attach him to Reverand Wright's statements in television debates?

    I guess I did because I have no idea what you are talking about.  HRC never talked about Wright until she was hounded and finally answered a question by saying she wouldn't have sat in that church.  Her opinion - can't be wrong, just an opinion.  According to the 'bots, you would've thought she said she wanted to eat his children.

    Parent

    Nothing (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    1. If you've watched the entire primary and still believe that Obama has come by his "wins" honestly and honorably, there's little that could be said to change your mind. Your support is for an ideal that even he can't live up to, but he is the only one who can prove that to you.

    2. No.


    Parent
    I would tell you to (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    look at HRC with an open mind.  You will see tremendous experience, smarts, commitment, wonkishment, and strength.  All things that we must have after 8 years fo GWB.

    And no, those things do not apply to Obama in any way, shape or form.

    Parent

    Questions (5.00 / 12) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    1a.  Her health plan is the best that's out there, and so sayeth many economists.  While it might be a pipe dream in the short term, I know she'll actually fight for it and not start with the premise that leaves 15 million people out.

    1b. National security - she has the backing of over 30 flag officers, which is unprecedented in political history for a Democrat. While many Dems don't like to talk about the military and national security, it's still an issue that our next president is going to have to deal with.  Hillary also said she will work to getting groups like Blackwater out of contracting with the government -Obama will not rule out using Blackwater.

    1c.  HRC is much stronger with her economic message.  Obama has advisors that want to privatize SS.

    1d.  She has been a child advocate for over 35 years.  She has worked tirelessly for families and children, including fighting for reading programs and rural school improvements and early childhood programs.

    1e.  She is the strongest candidate on the environment and has worked to connect environmental concerns with green technology and green jobs.

    1f.  She has laid out the most comprehensive plans of all the candidates and can actually talk to her plans off the cuff because she knows the details so intimately, as opposed to constantly referring people to her website.

    These are just a few of the reasons I support her.

    2.  No.  I won't vote for Obama.

    Parent

    it it a serious mistake for obma and (5.00 / 7) (#176)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    his supporters to assume it is tit for tat. it is much more than that. many of us have very serious questions about obama. i certainly do. when i voice those concerns obama supporters turn typically very defensive. so be it, but that won't help now like we have been trying to tell them all along.

    Parent
    I made a comment below in the open (5.00 / 25) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    thread that seems more apropos here:

    I really do think that this latest episode of trying to trump up Hillary hatred based on nothing (how can the Obama camp explain their complete silence when Hillary made the same remark with essentially identical language in March in Time magazine?) is really going to come back to haunt the Obama campaign.

    Certainly Obama is odds on favorite to win the nomination. And Obama and his camp have been talking about being "nice" to Hillary supporters in the service of their so-called unity.

    And after all that talk, we get this kind of despicable behavior out of them and sheer abuse of Hillary?

    What this reveals without question is their utter insincerity when it comes to their claims that they really do respect Hillary, or her supporters, or their point of view, or their sentiments. What we can know for sure is that, given the opportunity, they will simply take what they need from us -- enough of our votes to install their guy in the Presidency -- and then they will return to their previous abuse as soon as we've served the narcissistic purpose they had in mind for us. It is ever thus with abusers.

    But, from our point of view, what's the relevant saying?

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Reign of terror. (5.00 / 22) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM EST
    I call it.  I will not be threatened or terrorized.   The fear tactic is  being used on me and I refuse to participate.  

    Parent
    it's not working on us.... (5.00 / 11) (#115)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    ...can you imagine how badly it will backfire when the targets are republilcans? They may not have love for Bush anymore, but they will surely rebel against the new "pc" police, especially since it will include the "liberal media" that they already hate. It may not seem like it now, but I worry that the Rebublican base may feel "inspired" to turn out in large numbers against Obama, which wasn't supposed to happen. That was part of the fear of nominating Clinton among some...how she energized the rightwing base. But Obama's campaign is showing all the signs of one that can bring them all out again.

    Parent
    May not hurt in the primary (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    This behavior will (and has already begun) by used by the Repubs.  Obama has said things about McCain and already they brush it off and use Clinton as a reference.  If anyone thinks the repubs won't use his treatment of Clinton to get votes, nor the disparagement of her demographics against him to get votes, I think they will be proved wrong.  Obama benefitted in the primary as the blank slate, it will be used against him in the general.  Insincere yes, and insensitive and elitist, out of touch etc are easy after this primary.

    Parent
    I am a Clinton (5.00 / 18) (#9)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:09:17 AM EST
    Supporter and I don't find Krugman "evil", although some may. That's their schtick and welcome to it.

    I agree with some of what he says:

    And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

    But disagree with him when he says:

    To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries.

    I think he will have a a whole lot of trouble. But that's my opinion and I respect Krugman as much as I always did, I just don't happen to agree.

    Of course he's paid a lot of money for his opinion and mine is important only to me.


    I wonder if you (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    really are disagreeing with Krugman here: note that he carefully distinguishes between the effect of issues on Hillary supporters in terms of their votes, and the effect of the abuse Hillary has received at the hands of the Obama campaign on their emotional reaction to Obama and whether they will vote for him.

    To many of us, a vote for Obama has come to seem like a vote for a serial abuser. And the latest episode of trumped up Hillary hatred, even after Obama has said it's time for his supporters to be "nice" to Hillary and her supporters, would be just one further example of both the abuse and the insincerity of the apology and the "nice" behavior.

    I mean, how many of us can be fooled anymore by the flowers and candy the guy and his campaign bring us just after they engage in more of their hateful behavior?

    Parent

    To me it has all the attributes (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    of the Bush victory.  How can I in any way, stomach his nomination or maybe his presidency?

    Parent
    Issue votes require trust in the person making (5.00 / 11) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    the promises. Obama has not earned the trust of the Hillary supporters, or the Republicans and Independents who want change. He can't get it back.

    He took it all too far, made no effort what-so-ever to stop it. He has behaved as though he is entitled to be handled under different rules: Chelsea is fair game, but Michelle is not, he can pound racism into the dialog, but sexism is out of bounds, he can disenfranchise the voters of FL, MI and PR, but Hillary is only defending them as an act of pandering, he can misspeak and get away with telling voters they have no right to judge him for it, but they have a right to take license with Hillary's benign statements and write an entirely new statement between the lines.

    Anti-Obama people are anti-Obama. It wouldn't matter who he was running against. He is GWB pretending to be a democrat. He can't be trusted with our country.


    Parent

    I so agree with you kenoshaMarge. (4.33 / 6) (#31)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    This all join hands after the primary is pandering and petty. I wrote an email to a colunist this morning for feeling sorry for west virginia voters because they are prejudice and that's why they all didn't vote Obama. I asked why he did, other than both the columnist and Sen. Obama are both black. I say, country first!

    Parent
    I usally (5.00 / 12) (#145)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    hate to paint with a large brush but in my estimation anyone that tries to suggest that a whole state is racist because they didn't vote for Obama is devoid  either of common sense or intellectual honesty. Or both. And not worthy of respect.

    I always felt that way when some self-righteous lefty painted the entire state of Texas as evil Bush country when it was the home of Ann Richards and Molly Ivins.

    Whenever someone cries "racist" now, many people will just shrug and say; "what again?" Such ugly names should be saved for those that deserve it otherwise it becomes meaningless.

    And isn't it amazing the number of people on the left, like Krugman, Joe and Valerie Wison, Gene Lyons, Wes Clark and others are no longer Liberal heroes just because they supported a Democratic candidate?

    Parent

    The white working class voters (1.30 / 13) (#68)
    by 1jane on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    in SD and MT have given Obama a substantial lead in the polls. Obama is up by 17 pts in MT.

    All you McCain voters enjoy 4 more years of Bush policies, the endless war, higher gas prices, a crumbling economy.

    Parent

    Not helpful (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    feel the hoof of the unity pony! (5.00 / 13) (#71)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    So, if Obama becomes President (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dk on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    and gas prices don't miraculously get cut in half, will we finally be allowed to call him evil too?  <snark>

    Parent
    Unity??? (1.57 / 14) (#101)
    by 1jane on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    The last thing Clinton supporters seem to want is unity. The base-driven backlash Clinton supporters are participating in is a carefully orchestrated Clinton campaign strategy.

    Parent
    If Obama is himself (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    interested in unity, why does he have his campaign allege that Hillary was suggesting the Obama might be assassinated?

    I think your idea is that if there's a failure of "unity" in the end, the only responsibility lies on the side of the Clinton supporters, and that Obama and his campaign must be forgiven for any smear against Hillary or her supporters, no matter how vile. We should, for example, be completely forgiving of having been called racists time and again by his supporters and surrogates.

    Sorry, "unity" isn't the responsibility of only one side.

    Parent

    IACF (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    You remind me of this deluded Obama supporter ranting about the "assassination" comment:

    I have no doubt that Clinton keeps certain phrases and buzz words stocked away in her head, ready to pull out for some guilt by association smear whenever she thinks she can work it in.

    Truly, everything that happens occurs due to some cynical calculation by that evil, evil woman.  You claim to not be a hater, but there is no other word for people who repeatedly make such absurd claims regarding Hillary Clinton.

    They don't resent anything Obama has actually done!  They've just been brainwashed by Hillary's machinations!  Please.

    Parent

    Carefully orchestrated strategy? (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    Okay guys, who got the strategy memo and didn't tell me? Nobody ever sends me the memos :-(

    Parent
    Don't feel (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    like the Lone Ranger, I didn't get one either. And boy am I pi$$ed!

    Parent
    Sorry Jane - wrong again. (5.00 / 10) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    As I confessed here last week, my sister is a paid staffer on the HRC campaign. The Obama talking point #482 of a "carefully orchestrated" backlash is just hogwash.

    The outrage felt by millions, however, is completely real.

    Parent

    Of course we want unity. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    Most of us have been life long Dems, unlike many Obama supporters. Unity is not telling us to suck it up and then beg to preform the Osculum to prove our loyalty. If Obama and his supporters wish to win more that just the nomination, he and his supporters  will apologize and he dam well better make us feel it.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    The U pony has no legs, you cut the last one off (4.75 / 4) (#197)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    and all you Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    enjoy 4 more years of Karl Rove (Mayberry Machiavelli) tactics.

    Parent
    More games with numbers (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    Obama has won white voters without a college education in exactly one state, Wisconsin.  He lost them in his home state of Illinois.  He lost them in Oregon, despite endless hype leading up to the election about how it was a "white working-class state."

    No one talks about the demographics of Democratic voters in MT and SD.  No one talks about how Obama will perform with this particular demographic that he has so difficult a struggle with.  Everyone just pretends that because the states fit some overall profile, as long as Obama wins those states that means he has no worries whatsoever.

    I will support Obama in November, but his supporters need to get over this delusion that electoral votes can be won with spin.  Denial is not a strategy for the GE.

    Parent

    so according to some obama (snark) (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    supporters the voters in wv and other places that didn't support him are all doing it for racial reasons and the aa voters are all supporting him for noble reasons that we hicks just don't get. boring!

    Parent
    Are there any polls (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    with crosstabs in MT and SD?

    Parent
    Dunno (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    I'm not as close a poll-watcher as some, I haven't gone looking.

    I'm interested in what the actual results show on this issue, but really, all the pre-election hype about how these primaries will refute Obama's so-called "Appalachia problem" strikes me as the exact same deceptive BS that we heard for weeks prior to Oregon.

    Parent

    Did you know . . . (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    That 78% of Oregon voters had college degrees?

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    "Some college"

    Parent
    8% higher than in Ohio (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    for example.

    Parent
    Perhaps you have not followed the argument (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    Obama has strengths in MOST of the West that he does not have in the East. For example, Obama will win whites in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Nevada against McCain, imo.

    He will also win whites in Wisconsin and Iowa against McCain.

    But he will lose them in every other state by at least Kerry margins. At least he will if he does not do a better job connecting with non-Western white voters.

    Obama has a funny popular vote map. I think he will win out West in the popular vote and run up even larger African American Margins and the in the South and in the cities than Dems normally do.

    But just as the mantra from Obama supporters in the nomination contest is "it is about the delegates," in the GE, the GOP mantra will be "it is about the electoral votes."

    Obama's election is at risk for two reasons - one he has a divided Party on his hands. Two, he has problems connecting with working class voters of all stripes other than African Americans, Latinos and seniors.

    These factors makes wins in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida a difficult task for him.

    He certainly can not afford to lose all 4. He has his best chance to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and if he can flip Iowa, NM, Nevada and Colorado. That gives him 26 electoral votes and if he holds all the Kerry states that gives him 278, 8 more than needed.

    It is a precarious map. If Clinton can help him solidify the Kerry states of Michigan and PA, through Party unity, and perhaps help him in Florida, and deliver Arkansas, as the Clintons absolutely will (6 EVS), he gives him self more margin of error.

    Personally, I think it is a no brainer for Obama. there is no other VP choice, other than perhaps Webb in Virginia (and at this point, I do not really believe even that), that makes as much sense as Clinton for VP.

    Parent

    The HRC as VP idea (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    has some of the flavor of the old saying that for every major problem there's a quick and simple solution which also happens to be wrong.

    Not that I don't see the virtue of some of your upside arguments.  It's just that I think you're overstating them, or the traditional ability of the #2 to move that many voters outside of his/her own state.  

    Asking Hillary to help bail out Barack in PA and MI and FL sounds like quite a demand as we consider that usually people vote the top of the ticket outside of favorite son/daughter states.  And it's probably unprecedented, unless we want to give Lyndon credit for actually helping JFK get several southern states in 60 (though that one may have had more to do with traditional Dems returning to the fold after Ike).

    The major downsides we've gone over before, but with the latest bogus gaffe story involving HRC, the Obama camp is probably more convinced than ever that having her on the ticket would just mean more dishonest negative stories about the team which they wouldn't otherwise have gotten.  

    And it would tremendously undermine their winning Change theme.  Charlie Black & Co would just just make the campaign about Hillary Hate, Hillary hoping for an assassination so she can grab power, and other noxious stuff, and the media would obediently go along.

    He's better off going governor.  Webb concerns me because I'm not sure we could put another Dem, for very long, in his senate seat.  And he doesn't help bridge the gap with disaffected HRC-backing women, not with his background.

    Parent

    Those are McCain weaknesses (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    not Obama strengths. WA is a state that doesn't fall into any norms. Pat Robertson won the primary here in 2000.

    Any democrat will win here. The state always leans democratic, but McCain alienated the state with his active campaign against Boeing following the Mike Sears scandal.

    Reagan won the state in his second term run.


    Parent

    Watching Recount, I had a flash (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    of what could come on election night 2008.  It will be a squeaker, and late in the night, it all comes down to . . . Florida again.  And when Obama loses it, exit polls will show his behaviors lost too many older women as well as too many voters furious at being denied their voice throughout the primary season.  

    And pundits will point, then, to the turning point for his loss being the last week of May -- when he talked out of two sides of his mouth on (a) being "nice" to Clinton supporters while pushing yet another "trumped-up scandal," in Krugman's terms, and (b) claiming he wants Florida seated when he continues to fight it, as Krugman also notes.

    You read it here first: Recount Redux, the Sequel.

    Oh, and the reason it comes down to a squeaker is that Wisconsin goes red.  I've said it before, as have other here who live here: Obama will not win Wisconsin.  He will not keep all those whites, those "Dems for a Day" from the primary.  

    He didn't even have them the next day -- and then, after the primary, the Rev. Wright sealed it for him here.  Plus wait 'til there is more attention to Wisconsin's own Dohrn, Ayers' wife.  A lot of voters still remember bombings here by radicals at campuses who killed a fine young grad student and father.  A lot of voters here remember her -- and our leading paper, a Republican paper, will be glad to remind them of this and much more.  I also don't think he'll "flip" Iowa, unless he can bus enough faux Iowans across the Mississippi River again from Illinois -- but this time, the number of buses it would take would be just too obvious.

    Parent

    Disagree on Wisconsin (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    I lived there once upon a time. McCain is a perfect fit there. He already leads there and once the populace focuses on the election it won't even be close. I think the same will follow in alot of other states that have been force fed the Democratic race news for months. Once the focus switches to the general election the Obama will be left with his 50+1 democratic primary coalition that will turn out to be 50-5 for the general.

    Parent
    Hint (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    Webb isn't really that strong in Virginia. See here.

    Parent
    How many working class white voters... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    ...are Democrats in those states? Not many, I dare say. In the states where there are large numbers of working class dems and that dems need to win in November, the numbers are greater and so is the problem. And really, I don't think it will work to tell working class whites in PA and OH that white people like Obama in SD and MT because whether you realize it or not, it is telling them that they are racists and their counterparts in SD and MT are not.  When the party realizes (or admits) that Obama's working class problem is not racial in nature, maybe the Democrats can do something about it. Until then, it will be a mystery that will continue to elude them.

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    And one could just as easily flip this on its head if one wanted to and say that working class white voters in the West are sexist whereas working class white voters in the East are not.

    I wish Obama supporters would stop demonizing voters who don't like him or who prefer Hillary.

    Parent

    that won't happen! why? well you have (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
    the arrogance factor and many of his supporters are wedded to their positions. sure there are some like perhaps axelrod who might can turn on a dime when needed. but frankly i think obama and many of his advisors like jesse jackson jr, etc all feel this is their time and we hicks just better get out of their way. good luck with that one!

    Parent
    Montana and both Dakotas are sitting on a (none / 0) (#117)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    shiload of oil.

    The resource curse causes Republican (or candidsates promising to be 'bipartisan' with Republicans)votes.


    Parent

    How do you know this? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    do you have a poll with crosstabs for those states?

    BTW, the West has never been Obama's problem. It is where he expands the map. It is the rest of the country.

    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    glad to see you are back today!

    I don't share Krugmans optimism that white working class voters will "come home" in Nov. I don't see Obama's economic policies as appealing to them and he isn't really selling said policies. Obama's economic team is Univ. of Chicago which shares much in common with McCains economic team.

    He's right about the denomization. However, the problem is that the RFK flap is probably the last straw for a lot of Clinton supporters. Obama may not be able to repair the damage.

    One suggestion Krugman does not make is that Obama should take full responsibility for the sleaze that has come out of his campaign. If he would take responsibility and offer a complete PUBLIC apology then it MIGHT help.

    Anyway, I think a lot of this is wishful thinking from Krugman. So far, we have seen nothing of the sort and I believe we are unlikely to see it. Obama seems to think that he's owed everything and there is no need to earn it.

    I don't know if Obama thinks (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    that -- that he is owed things and doesn't have to work for it. What I object to is the attitude of Obama-leaning bloggers that not to vote for Obama means we are more interested in being bitter. They don't think they have to do anything to earn our vote. They don't think an objective person could look at Obama and deem him unqualified for the office he seeks. I object to that.

    I can give him a list of the things he needs to change to earn my vote. I don't know what he can do, however, to make me believe he's actually qualified to be President.

    Parent

    Obama is perceived to be 'qualified' (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    because while media corporations occasionally publish negative info about him, it's rarely on TV.

    Instead, the media goes along with the Obama camp manufacturing another tizzy fit to deflect Obama's lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience on full display last week....

    What the FARC was Obama talking about? - ABC News

    http://tinyurl.com/5zapvv

    Parent

    Don't conflate the two (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    The Obama campaign and Obama leaning bloggers are not one and the same. I wouldn't for one second think to attribute the vitriol espoused by Hillaryis44 and No Quuarter posters to the Clinton campaign. This has been an unbelievable race. And Democrats should be proud that we are progressive enough to have fielded a woman and an AA as our potential standard bearers. It's been a long, long campaign that got too ugly - with supporters on both sides feeling that they and their candidate have been wronged. Regardless, we're going to clean out the republicans' clock this November.

    I'm an Obama supporter through and through, but if the SD's decide in the end, as is their right, that Hillary is who we should be putting up against McCain, I'll vote for her in November. I'm not pretending that I think it would be fair or justified for such an outcome in our primary, but d*mn it, McCain ain't going to even smell that oval office unless he's invited over for a photo-shoot.

    Parent

    Yawn...been reading your bluster (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    for months now and want to LOL that you believe you have not joined in the Hate Hillary campaign.

    As I've told you elsewhere...you've lost us and we're not "coming home".

    Parent

    I Disagree With Your Interpretation Of Krugman's (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:23:32 AM EST
    article. My reading is that he thinks that while Obama should win on a purely issues based campaign, he is in danger of losing the election because of the tactics he continues to use against Clinton.

    Parent
    He recognizes the emotional component (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:25:23 AM EST
    of politics.

    It's something the Obama campaign surely knows a great deal about. . .

    Parent

    obama should know about it. (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    but his reaction to clinton all along coupled with the factor of michelle and rev wright suggests to me it is more than just a political campaign. remember dusting her off his shoulder and shoe? no, what it says to me is that obama doesn't have the correct internal workings for a ongoing successful bridge building. he has set loose some ugly things that won't go back into pandora's box no matter how much he might want to do that.

    Parent
    In the NYT today (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    Dem political analyst Ray Tuxeira also notes that while O doesn't score well right now with WWC types, in a couple of months of working that problem he'll be better situated -- not that our nominee can be expected to win a majority of this group.

    He also feels, again like Krugs, that the major party repair work will need to be done with the women backers of Hillary (and their male counterparts, like yours truly).

    Right now, human nature is at play and will need some time to play itself out.  With some smart and sincere moves by the O camp to extend the olive branch in the 2.5 months before Denver, much healing can occur.

    But TeamO needs to stop playing the sneaky, disingenuous 2-track strategy of denouncing HRC over the clumsy RFK remarks while at the same time sending out Axel to deny the campaign is  trying to prop up the bogus issue.

    Parent

    Could you provide a link? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    I could not find the piece you are discussing.

    Parent
    Here's there article (none / 0) (#158)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    on Teixeira.

    I think you'll find things to agree with and disagree with.

    Parent

    I read it (none / 0) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    and I wonder what he actually said.

    the ending of the article makes me question the beginning.

    Ruy says "Obama has a problem but it is solvable." which sort of contradicts Harwood's article.

    Parent

    Well, we've hashed this out (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    We know he has a problem, but he's shown no evidence that he can solve it.

    Parent
    it's not just working class (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    he may have lost a portion of women voters.  So, I don't buy that the 17% or 23% Gore Kerry loss can be made up with the new voters, cause I think he is bleeding in other places that no one is looking and or taking for granted.  

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by smott on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    What problems has Obama ever shown he can solve other than disenfranchising voters when it serves his purpose?


    Parent
    Lovely post (none / 0) (#177)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    :)

    Parent
    The problem with the RFK flap (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    is that I think it was the last straw for partisans on both sides (though as an Obama supporter it is incomprehensible to me that the flap is somehow the fault of his campaign), and for the Obama campaign.  I support a unity ticket.  But it is no longer possible IMO.

    Parent
    A one timer (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:30 AM EST
    that was on topic to yesterday;s discussion.

    Unless something comes up on FL/MI, I am out for the day.

    Parent

    I lied (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:25:07 AM EST
    I have to do a post on my friend Al Giordano's coverage of Obama's Latin America speech.

    Parent
    It's not just Clinton supporters.

    It's people like me who began with Obama, but were sickened by his supporters.

    His attack dogs should have been muzzled months ago. They've done profound damage, and all they're doing now is complicating things for themselves.

    Curious about (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    how they think these tactics will work in the GE?

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:45 AM EST
    ... a lot of people won't be voting.

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    McCain has called him out twice now on his underhanded tactics. Hasn't stopped him from continuing on, but McCain has no intention of letting him to do his campaign what he's done to Hillary's.


    Parent
    Do you think that is a large group? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    It's funny, I gotta give you big props for your journey CB. Not too many took it though imo.

    Parent
    ... I was after the invasion of Iraq. In retrospect, I know I went temporarily insane from sheer rage, and that rage didn't settle down til relatively recently. Couple that with my genuine belief - or was that hope? - that unity or the appearance of unity was crucial to stopping what's happening, and you have ... me!

    But the rage finally wore off and I regained my senses. Well, such that it is.

    The troubling thing for me is that I'm right back where I was before the invasion.

    As for how many, well, I'm in Clinton Land surrounded by people who traditionally don't vote unless strongly compelled. They share my feelings that none of this really has much to do with them anyway, except their feelings are exacerbated (?) by the belief that they're screwed no matter what they do, so why bother? So I'd say it's a McCain landslide in these parts because a lot of people won't be even bothering to vote.

    Parent

    This is the crux of the problem (5.00 / 23) (#45)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    I'm in Clinton Land surrounded by people who traditionally don't vote unless strongly compelled.

    Gore and Kerry did not lose because they were dems--they lost because they failed to energize the base.  Traditional dem voters have hourly jobs.  You have to get them excited and motivated enough to take time off from work (or get up early, or go in after work), go stand in line, maybe in the rain, and vote.

    Clinton has these people motivated.  Obama has them completely turned off.  He has made no visible move to reach out to these voters.  He has done nothing but alienate them even more.  I'm in the Blue Ridge mountains right now and last night at the Kountry Kitchen, everyone was talking about the RFK thing and blasting Obama.

    These are the dems that change elections.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM EST
    It's 75% registered Dems here, and it's one of the poorest areas in the country with a high minority population.

    But why vote? It has nothing to do with them. And given everything, I can't disagree with that perspective.

    Parent

    especially if/when Clinton wins (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    the popular vote.  Why should their votes matter, indeed?

    Parent
    Exactly again (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    Yet more proof to them that elections and politics are only for corporations and the rich.

    I'd rate your comments ten times, but I have to keep ratings turned off to read TalkLeft. But you're right on target. Good read.

    Parent

    x (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Mary Mary on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    I do remember, though, the people standing in line for hours in the rain in OH in order to cast a ballot in 2004.

    Otherwise, I agree that the Rs will sidle up to the FDR Dems like they always do and will be successful if the nominee is Obama.

    I'd just like to add that I think this year the Rs will be sidling up to female Dems, too. I, of course, shall spurn them. :-)

    Parent

    ... by everyone except the wealthy (of which there are few). The same holds true for Repubs.

    But McCain will win here because people just won't vote. It's happened time and time again - happened in 2004.

    People here genuinely believe it has nothing to do with them anymore except insofar as exactly how the new president will find ways to screw them even more.

    They did well under Bill, though, and Hillary's considered almost a local. There was a lot of pro-Hillary talk. Now, though, there's just a return to things as usual: general suspicion of all things federal.

    Parent

    Little love for Bush in TX (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    either.  Here some people wonder what happened to the guy who was our governor.  Not that he was a good governor, he was mostly inconsequential but played well with others.  People who know Bush believe that the Cheney wing took over and he was too weak minded to get in their way.  They probably have a point about that.

    Obama is just too much like Bush for me.  The potential for outright disaster seems high.

    Those people who feel that politics has little to do with them other than just being screwed by one side or the other are correct.  This election is proving that once and for all.


    Parent

    That wasn't because of the presidential race (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    that was because they put gay marriage on the ballot.

    Parent
    Are you speaking geographically? (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Iphie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    I'm in Clinton Land surrounded by people who traditionally don't vote unless strongly compelled.
    I ask because I always vote, and I wonder if the people you are referring to are those of us online -- it seems to me that many of the people here are invested first, not in an individual candidate, but in the process and what it means for the country and for our lives. I go to the polls in both primary and general elections even when I know that my candidate is going to win or lose by a landslide. I voted for Ruth Messinger against Rudy Giuliani even though there was absolutely no way that she would even come close to catching him. In that instance, I voted because I wanted to register my dissatisfaction. I truly believe that my vote is not only my birthright, but also a responsibility.

    Which makes the decision that I my be faced with in November even more difficult. I will not vote for McCain, but I also am becoming even more sure that I will not vote for Obama. I have never felt mistreated as a voter as I have felt these past months. I have been discounted and my choices ridiculed and mocked. The same could have been said for the way the Bushies treated anyone who didn't agree with them, but there was never the expectation that I would fall in line and eventually support Bush. Which perhaps offends me more than anything else; this idea that I can be alternately abused and ignored, but eventually I'll come home to Obama.

    Which is why come November, I will go to the polls and vote. I will vote for all of the downticket races as I always have and if Obama is the Democratic choice I will more than likely leave the presidential field blank.

    I am very strongly compelled to vote, but I will not be bullied into voting for Obama.

    Parent

    Not sure what you mean (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    Do you mean how large is the group that started out supporting Obama and then left him?

    That was my personal trajectory. He's my senator. I sent him money numerous times to help him start his presidential bid. I was seduced by his DNC speech and rhetoric at first, then became disappointed by his words not matching his actions, then upset, then shocked, then outraged, and I guess finally completely turned off.

    Parent

    I submit (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM EST
    that you describe a small group at best.

    But certainly the existence of such a group should be worrisome as a symptom of Obama's larger problem regarding Clinton supporters and unifying the Party.

    Parent

    You know what else is funny? (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    I think I would feel a lot differently if I had not discovered political blogs, where I learned far more than I would have liked to know about Obama's following and his campaign tactics. Unlike most of you here, I'm a relative newcomer to blogs. I feel like they have poisoned me a little - too much information perhaps, too much of a window into the hate that underlies a lot of progressive thinking. I know that I will never think/feel the same about the left again.

    I'm thinking I should give up blogs.

    Parent

    Blogs are good. (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    They give me excellent info for debunking or disregarding the many conspiracy theories out there.  Ran into an neighbor from the old hood a couple months ago and he started in on one of the CTs about Teh Clintons.  I just laughed.  But if I hadn't hung out on blogs, I might have actually believed him.

    Once you get used to screening out as much of the noise as you can, blogs can be excellent for finding the truth amid the hype.  And when there's politics, there is always loads and loads of hype to wade through.

    Parent

    But it's NOT just his (5.00 / 12) (#35)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    supporters.

    It's his campaign itself.

    His campaign jumped right on top of this latest episode of trumping up Hillary hate over the terrible, horrible, dangerous comments she made mentioning RFK's assassination (no matter that she said the same thing months ago without a single word of protest or even of remark of any kind from them).

    Really, this is what "unity" means to Obama. One day, he talks about being "nice" to Hillary supporters. The next day, his campaign is engaging in one of the most vicious and baseless smears of her that can be put forth: that she was somehow suggesting Obama might be assassinated.

    Who can ever trust these people? What limits are there to their viciousness?

    Parent

    In my view, politicians are politicians, and not really to be trusted anyway. But that's just me.

    HOWEVER, I do believe his campaign fomented the venom of his supporters, and that's just - I dunno - gross to me. His supporters are spoiled, hysterical, shrieking, self-indulgent brats.

    Eg, they claim it takes a pitbull to be in politics, yet squeal and whine at Clinton's fortitude. ::bangs head against wall::

    God help us if they end up in control of the wheel. Makes me glad I have my own place tucked up in the mountains and surrounded by heavily armed suspicious people who've been screwed over a few too many times.

    Parent

    I agree that he's just (5.00 / 10) (#80)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    a politician, and I generally don't have high expectations for politicians.

    But there are limits to what can be tolerated, both in terms of smears of the other side, and in terms of sheer hypocrisy.

    Look, let's just be clear about what the Obama campaign is now suggesting about what Hillary said. They are basically claiming that Hillary was suggesting that she's staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated. And more than that: they are no doubt encouraging the dark intimation that, in effect, she must be on some level hoping that Obama will be assassinated, because otherwise how might she possibly win the nomination? Why would she be effectively planning for the nomination if she didn't on some level hold some dark hope that this horrible event might come about?

    How does a smear get more vile than that?

    And to engage in this smear when just days ago Obama was talking about being "nice" to Hillary supporters just breaks all barriers when it comes to hypocrisy.

    Really, I just don't see how this is forgivable.

    I repeat: in the end, there are limits.

    Parent

    There's only so much hysteria I can handle from indulged children, after all. :P

    However, agreed entirely. It's simply bizarre.

    And these are the same people who were in hysterias when the wingnuts were calling us moonbats. Yeesh. Gee thanks, idiots!!!!

    Parent

    Then why should the working class (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by hookfan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    believe him about promises about policies that would benefit them? What has Obama done that shows he will work for them about their issues? When the chips were down he folded his hand in Kentucky and West Virginia. When the chips were down in Chicago, he went with Rezko and co rather than the people who were freezing in winter. Why believe him when all he's got is empty words or evil predictions about McCain?
       The Unity ticket might help with those who only have issues about Hillary's mistreatment, but what about the apparently well deserved mistrust, or violation of basic Democratic values?
       Vote for Obama just to be used then abandoned? I don't see how that's better than McCain who at least legitimately won his party's nomination. Sure he will abandon the working class too. But at least he knows how to fight a war, understands loyalty, doesn't diss the working class traditions about the respect for the right to bear arms, and shows his love for his country by,you know, actually having risked his life in military service.

    Parent
    And What's More (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by The Maven on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    frustrating is that this episode of Clinton "somehow suggesting Obama might be assassinated" is seen as a vicious ploy, yet the issue first came up more than a year ago -- and it originated from Michelle Obama herself.  I'm surprised that the nedia, in their mad rush to condemn Clinton for her remark, generally buried some seventeen paragraphs into their stories the fact that Obama began to receive Secret Service protection at the beginning of May 2007.  And certainly there have been many other stories over the past year about the fears of many in the Obama camp regarding the possibility an attempt on his life (see, for example, this NYT article from February that mentions RFK and Dr. King just past the lede).

    Once again, an example of double standards that it is okay for Obama's campaign or his supporters to bring something up, but should it come from the other side, it's a demonstration of evil intent.

    I'll also note for the record that some of Obama's people have now gone back to draw up a timeline of at least five occasions when Clinton "has floated the meme" of assassination during the past few months, as if she had been trying subtly to get it out there all along.  Obama's supporters are, unquestionably, the worst thing on his side of the table, and will likely be a major drag on him should he be the nominee (but of course a loss in November will be 100% Clinton's fault, to them).

    Parent

    BTD, You Lost Me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by creeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    as soon as I read Krugman's statement that Obama would be the nominee.

    It's become my policy to ignore completely anything that contains this phrase unless it's qualified upfront as personal opinion.

    We have a convention coming up, remember?  When THAT is over we will have a nominee.

    Not until.

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
     am pretty sure Krugman is published on the Op Ed pages of the NYTimes.

    Parent
    I don't think Krugman is evil. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by dk on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    I just disagree with him, at this point, that electing Obama as President furthers the long term interests of the Democratic party.

    It wont be easy (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by koshembos on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    Krugman fails to assess the strength of the "anything but Obama" forces in the old Democratic party. First, after being insulted repeatedly, spit upon, ridiculed and called the worst names in the book, why would I vote for Obama. As opposed to Krugman, I don't see Obama as a Democrat at all.

    A unity ticket will help with the Hillary supporters who like her personally. It will do nothing for those who support Hillary because of her policy.

    If you are a blue collar worker, why would you vote for Obama? Obama made clear that you are inferior. After hitting us over the head for months, we developed an Obama phobia.

    Still waiting for Obama to (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by bjorn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:35 AM EST
     do one thing that shows he can unite us....waiting on Obama!

    I hope he takes Krugman's advice.

    it is too late (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:25:20 AM EST
    Obama can not get my vote back.  He could have if he had stopped the character assassination of Hillary long ago.

    I am convinced that the only hope the party has is to NOT nominate Obama and it would be perfectly fair and sensible considering more people have voted for Hillary.  
    Why even Krugman has to make the typical disclaimer that Obama will be the nominee is really beyond me.  It is NOT a given.

    mostly agree (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    with Krugman's view in his article. I, sadly, agree that Obama is most likely the nominee. And I agree that seating FL (and for me, also MI) is critical to any chance in the GE for Obama.

    Actually I think giving Clinton those bragging rights is very critical to smoothing over the hard feelings. Because in the end, the hard feelings will be mostly about legitimacy and cheating. If things are resolved in a way that feels fair, then I think many people can move on. And that includes a decision where Obama has the delegate count and Clinton has the popular vote (and well, more electability by the polls). We just need to see that those issues are agreed upon, and the SD's make a decision with that in mind. We may think it's the wrong decision, but what we can't stomach is for FL and MI to be considered some sort of artificial or cheating attempt by Clinton.

    Where I disagree is the view that making things right or smoothing out any divisive feelings with the Clinton supporters over treatment of Clinton or fairness of the process is all Obama has to do to win over those blue collar white workers. I think there is a lot of damage there that has nothing to do with Clinton and has everything to do with the SF comments and the Wright issues. Actually I think the SF comments are much worse than the Wright issues, but I could be wrong there.

    So bottom line, for Obama to have any chance, count the votes in FL and MI. MI can be some reasonable compromise. Then have everyone on team Obama be OK with the fact that Clinton has the popular vote. And then work to keep his team in line and supporters with bridging the divide. Of course Clinton will do what she has to do to bridge that, but the winner is the one in the hot seat, not the looser.

    And finally, Obama has to win the support of voters. All of these things need to be done of course, but he has to convince people to vote for him. A lot of people actually like McCain, so that's not a done deal by any means.

    I Agree That A Lot Of The Reluctance To Vote (5.00 / 15) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    for Obama has nothing to do with Clinton. Many of the things that are losing Obama support are the result of self-inflicted injuries by Obama and his campaign.

    My reluctance to vote for Obama is not grounded in support for Hillary.

    Parent

    same here (5.00 / 16) (#81)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    Primarily, my reluctance is based on his utter lack of experience, his lack of real gravitas (apparently confusing gravitas with a phony, chin-up posturing), and his lack of mental stamina, which is really alarming to me.

    Yeah, Hillary has made gaffes, too, probably from fatigue, but she's been unscripted and  interacting with the media MUCH more than Obama, who's playing it safe and avoiding a misstep like the one that sent Hillary sprawling on Friday.

    Even so, the dude doesn't know where he is or what month it is or how many states are in the union. You'd think Hillary had been punching him in the head all these months; it's like his bell has been rung. And he's actually had more rest lately than she has.

    On the stump, he looks punch-drunk sometimes, doing weird stuff like turning around so the crowd can admire his suit. He's playing to the kids, not the grownups.

    I think he's going to fall absolutely to pieces during the general campaign. He won't be able to sit on a lead and rest up, and his opponent won't be limited by considerations for "party unity" at some point. And his supporters won't be able to insist that McCain should just sit down and let Obama have the presidency.

    And if by some chance he beats McCain, I'm going to be wondering who is really running the White House because it won't be Obama. The guy will be in way, way over his head. I thought he was ready a year ago. But what I've seen lately has given me serious doubts about his maturity and his mental stamina as well as his experience.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    Does Lord Kos (props to Lambert) read Krugman? (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM EST
    Krugman: Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton's strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks. So what comes next?

    Either Markos is sticking his fingers in his ears and saying la-la-la or he's attempting to argue with Krugman by pointing out today that poor whites in Montana are more enlightened than poor whites in Appalachia. Kos points to polls and concludes, essentially, that poor whites east of the Mississippi are indeed racist hicks.

    Nice going. But then Kos has been shooing away the unity pony for months and months in his campaign to purge the party of undesirables.

     

    I know he does not listen to me (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    as I have privately told him this many many times.

    I told him he has more reach and influence than he imagines and what he sanctions spreads like wildfire.

    Parent

    I hope he likes what he's bought (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:42:38 AM EST
    because he's stuck with it.

    Parent
    He will be as irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    as Paris Hilton in about a year.

    Parent
    For the most part (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    all the blogs are irrelevant now.

    It is just noise now I think.

    All of us.

    Parent

    Kos and Arianna have the lion's share (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    of responsibility for the division in the party. Both have countenanced, even led, off-the-deep end Hillary-hatred since January.

    I wondered at the time what the hell either would do if Hillary won. How could they support someone they had vilified so relentlessly?

    Beyond that, they helped to set in motion this anti-Obama backlash.

    Both were amazingly short-sighted.

    Parent

    correction: add "in cyberspace" (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    Kos and Arianna don't have as much direct influence outside the Internet as they imagine. However, journalists do read them and do think, erroneously I think, that what they see at DK and HuffPo is representative of the populace as a whole.

    Parent
    Give Josh some credit (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    he has done a lot of good work for that effort.  

    Parent
    Yes, TPM establ'd cred with its earlier work; (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    now, it's awash in Obama Kool-Aid and if a person has not "seen the light" that person doesn't seem to get much space.

    How can I now judge what TPM reports? By the Politico or Drudge links?

    Parent

    Disagree, "Two-step flow theory" (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    of public opinion and many other theories and models are perfectly exemplified in the linkage of blogs to squawk media and then to wider influence.  The theory is that there are opinion leaders whose direct influence on the public may be small but whose indirect influence is wider, with impact on those with larger audiences.

    They have fed the sick minds of some in the media, who then feed the sickness back to the blogs -- that's the symbiosis model.  The cable media staffers, many barely 20, clearly follow the blogs, and then the blogs follow them.  For example, KO picks up crap from Kos that fits his worldview, especially of women, and then puts it on the air.  That encourages and even ramps up the craziness on it and other blogs; see media legitimization theory.  Etc., etc.

    In sum, the indirect influence of the sick blogs is huge, as is more than evident in their direct influence on media also bereft of ideas of their own -- and also bereft of basic decency but, like the big blogs now, all about ratings and advertising and thus part of the media, all about money.  And money makes blogs just as corruptible as the msm.  We already see studies of when the Internet turned, and the media theorists are enjoying all manner of re-affirmation.

    Parent

    Too many (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    in the media (and blogs) use Andrew Sullivan as a "must read". And then just echo Sullivan's opinion.

    Parent
    I never liked poll discussions (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    until I came here.  At DK, it was obvious that there was almost no objective, what-does-this-mean discussion of polling.  Cherry picking favorable poll results and declaring that polls say something they don't (racism) isn't science, it's just propaganda.

    Parent
    Patterns And Trends Interest Me (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    When I was part of corporate American, studying them was a necessary part of my job and a part that I enjoyed. It is always best to use more than just one data point (i.e. poll) to get a good overview. I also learned quite quickly that you ignored patterns and trends at your peril.

    Parent
    Obama arrogance (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by pluege on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:36:44 AM EST
    as usual Krugman is right. And just as usual, those who don't want to hear his "rightness" are going to ignore him and write him off as a crank.

    In the early days of bush regarding tax policy and the lies of Iraq it was the cult of republicanism. Now, in regards to the dem nomination and the GE, Obama and his supporter's arrogance and delusions of grandeur, i.e., the cult of Obama will prevent them from seeing reality and doing what is needed to win in November.

    Tangential--but? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by befuddled on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    First, I think the kool-aid vapors are starting to get everyone. Why does everyone assume Obama will be the nominee? You feel that emotionally, when you also know intellectually that he is weak--must be disconcerting. I suggest anyone interested in winning try to maintain their sangfroid and work for the strong candidate, regardless of the outlook today. Still time, for instance, before the RBC meets, to make a little noise.
    Second, regardless of who is the nominee and the VP, there is this other subtext going around of the "October Surprise," and, with nothing but hearsay to go on, there is also a chorus of "what then." What indeed. What happens if the nomination is secured and the October Surprise comes out? I'm really not up to speed yet on election rules. What happens if, in the worst case, a nominee is suddenly unavailable? What damage control is possible? Thanks.

    Why assume Obama will be the nominee? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    Come on.

    Parent
    We know what a-s-s-u-m-e means. (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    But, but, BTD, you raked us over the coals yesterday for our saying just the same thing!!!

    Parent
    The assumption that he will be (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by befuddled on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    is contrary to the oft-stated fact that no one is the nominee until August. Why not continue with a multiple outlook strategy? Already he has slipped in public opinion in many measures, still fluffed in the media mightily, no good way I can see to improve on polling to make predictions more precise. Plenty could happen. Right now I think we're seeing the battle of the immediate money vs. job security vs. blowback fear (among the SDs) if Clinton gets the nom and turns on the "traitors." Plenty could happen yet.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    You can write comments assuming he is not going to be the nominee. I thought Clinton had a slim chance but I think the North Carolina/Indiana results put the chances at next to nothing that night.

    Not because of the math, but because of the perception. the SDs will not go against Obama now.

    No matter what imo.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by befuddled on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    I'm trying to say it isn't time to roll over yet, and it isn't time to put all the strategy eggs in one basket. My sentiments can be found elsewhere: in this thread I'm not promoting or bashing either candidate, I'm trying to promote calm reason in the face of the fact that it isn't over yet.

    Parent
    Krugman sez (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment

    How is Obama's "grotesque treatment" tactics different than, say, Karl Rove's "grotesque treatment" tactics?

    Obama vs Rove (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    Rove never promised unity, or change from old politics.  Moreover Rove never went after the supporters of a candidate by denigrating them the way Obama has done.  One has only to see the video of Obama wiping his shoulders when speaking of Clinton or the "snub" at SOTU, to understand his contempt of HRC.

    As to the unified ticket, that's not going anywhere because HRC does not owe Obama or the DNC to save them from a loss. I would not vote for Obama now, even if HRC was the VP.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by mrjerbub on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    You don't remember: "I'm a uniter, not a divider". "Restore honor & dignity"..bla, bla.. I personally don't see a lick of difference. JMHO.

    Parent
    Hmmm..equal opportunity abuse? (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    Are the voters the ones being vetted?  If I can deal with all this cr@p on behalf of Clinton in the primary, I can certainly deal with it in the GE!

    So can she.

    Parent

    Rove to those (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    tactics into the White House and they were embedded into almost every policy action.

    Will Obama do the same?

    Parent

    Well.... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    I do try not to say so explicitly, but I think it an awful lot.

    Parent
    Unity is healthy (period). (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by EL seattle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    If every part of a political campaign is treated strictly as an  absolute-victory -or- humiliating-defeat proposition, it doesn't leave room for forging the sort of alliances that are absolutely necessary for any future progress.

    Conan the Barbarian said that what was best in life was, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."  I suppose that this sort of thinking might provide some intense instant gratification in an emotional sense.  But I sort of think that the founding fathers would have doubted its effectiveness as a way to nurture and support a healthy Democracy.

    as for Oregon, (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    as shown here by BTD, the answer is, yes he is still weak with white working class voters there.

    Premature... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:57:54 AM EST
    ...for Obama to consider making Clinton VP, while she's still in the race, hasn't conceded and is pressuring him to put her on the ticket.  If the situation were reversed, and Clinton offered the VP position to Obama immediately after the primaries ended, some Clinton supporters would undoubtedly see that as a sign of weakness on her part, particularly if Obama surrogates had been pressuring her for weeks to do just that.

    She should go through the same vetting process that all other prospective VPs will go through, including  an interview/interaction phase.  If her negatives (from vetting) aren't too high, if the two candidates are compatible, and if internal polling suggests she'll help the ticket more than any other potential running mate, then I'm sure she'll be offered the position.  

    The problem I'm having right now is that some Clinton supporters are presenting this as some form of extortion (put her on the ticket...or else) rather than making the argument that her negatives are exaggerated, that she can play the VP role cordially and effectively, and that he'll poll better with her as VP than any other potential ticket.

    The "...or else" crowd is not doing anything good for her chances of becoming the VP nominee.

    I disagree. (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    Job interviews are all about networking anyway.  Compared to everyone else, she's got millions of voters on her side.  It's a no-brainer.  The polling has been there all along anyway (Unity ticket polls).

    Clinton said she's make Obama her VP in March.  I don't think she was kidding.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    I am pretty sure that Obama will not be factoring blog comments into his VP considerations.

    Everyone here is well aware that the same Obama supporters who go on and on about "food tasters" will not be persuaded to accept Clinton as VP by any reasonable argument.

    By the way, how ironic is it that the same people who make "food taster" comments rant and rave about how terrible it was for Hillary to bring up the topic of assassination in any way?

    Parent

    She is not. That VP stuff is coming from his (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    camp to suppress the remaining votes. Ridiculous.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    Extortion? How about presenting reality.

    Parent
    Then why phrase it as a threat? (3.00 / 1) (#147)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    If Obama is perceived as "caving" to Clinton's demand to be put on the ticket, he'll look like a weak nominee.  If she concedes the race first, then endorses him, and he picks her in July or August to be VP, the optics are a lot better for both of them.  

    Right now, talk of a Unity ticket is premature, because neither group of supporters is really ready for that right now.

    Parent

    It is a threat to Obama;s chances (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    It is not a threat made by anyone to another person.

    Do you know the word threat has more than one meaning?

    Parent

    So does the word "patronize".... (4.00 / 2) (#183)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    ...Her supporters, including fundraisers, are in fact making threats behind the scenes.

    It remains to be seen whether not putting Clinton on the ticket would be a threat (in the other sense of the term) to his chances in the fall, because the race is still ongoing and Clinton hasn't conceded.  
    When she concedes, we will see how much of her support he picks up right away.  That will give some kind of preliminary picture of how much work he has cut out for him to win over her supporters.  
    If, after she concedes and endorses him, and he's reached out to her supporters, he still hasn't won over the vast majority of her supporters, then yes, he may have to put her on the ticket.  

    But that doesn't look like a given at this point.

    Parent

    Krugman doesn't get it. (5.00 / 11) (#98)
    by mystic4hill on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Krugman says: "...many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House."

    He's going on the assumption that many of us Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama because of the treatment she's received from the media, the DNC, the Party elders, and the Obama campaign itself.

    That is NOT why I cannot, and will not, vote for Obama. I do not think he is qualified to be the leader of the free world. His utter lack of experience, his poor judgment, his choice of associations, his voting (and non-voting) record, his lack of an inner strength necessary to stand up against the Repubs, and the almost cult-like worship of Obama by the Dems in Congress, are a few of the reasons an Obama presidency scares the hell out of me. And yes, it scares me more than a McCain presidency.

    I'm past  voting just the party line now. I've done that for 36 years, but no more. As a matter of fact, my party is now the DTS (Decline To State, aka Independent) party.

    So, I beg to differ with the brilliant Krugman and BTD. There's nothing that Obama can do that will earn my vote. Not even with Hillary as the VP.

    Too many 'don't get it' (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    For most people I know this is less about Hillary and more about Obama himself.

    I do not think he is qualified to be the leader of the free world
    ...
    yes, it scares me more than a McCain presidency.

    The simple truth is that a lot of democrats and independents see this as fundamental about Obama.  For "character" voters I don't see how he gets them onboard.  During the campaign, he's shown a decided lack of character and pretty much constant waffling.

    Say what you will about Sen McCain, he has character and the strength of his convictions.  That will get him a lot of votes in the end, Hillary or not.


    Parent

    Yes, those poor hicks in Appalachia (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    will vote for a Dem -- if it's Hillary.

    If she won, she would (a) pick Obama as VP; (b) go back to the AAs who have supported her and her husband and ask for their vote again and again until she got it. She has both the inclination and the ability to unify the party. Obama, well, it remains to be seen whether he has either.

    Living in an Appalacian state (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    and knowing more than a fair share of "poor hicks," I can tell you, experientially, they can "read" people better than my WASPy college educated friends and neighbors...in a lot of ways they are smarter, more realistic, and wiser in "the ways of the world" than us "ivory-tower" "shoot for the moon" the "world is our oyster" types...

    They don't see the issue with Obama as a black/white issue, they just don't see Obama as "one of them."  Which is tantamount to saying, Obama is clueless as to how working class folks (blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, etc...) have to live...paycheck to paycheck, praying against sickness or injury, no expectation of children going to college, etc...

    And they are probably right...like I said, they do tend to "read" people better...

    Parent

    A young voter I was talking with yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:30:58 AM EST
    is voting for Obama and his reason is that Obama has a better view on the economy! We talked about the poor and how many really can't fathom what that must be like living from paycheck to paycheck, w/gas and food prices. He just looked at me with his big eyes and shrugged his shoulders. Dems are supposed to be the party of the "people"    

    Parent
    It comes back to expecations (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    I think a lot of young folks graduating college today (Include me in this when I graduated) expect to live their parent's lifestyles (ironically supported though debt, HELOCs and 2nd mortgages) right off the bat...they expect 6 figure incomes from their first job...they think they will live the MTV lifestyle...

    I think there is a disconnect between reality and desire that our (me included again) young people have today...this causes the nonchalance that your referred to.

    People actually THINK of themselves as celebrities in their own self-created reality.

    Parent

    The image that HRC (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    has among the working class is that she listens to them. She answers their questions and addresses their concerns. To win in NYS, HRC went to every county in the state. Sure she had some big rallies but mostly she went to diners, peoples living rooms, school auditoriums and she LISTENED. She won over hard core Republicans in upstate NY and counties like Richmond (Staten Island) in NYC. I doubt that Obama could or can match that.

    Parent
    Obama is up 17% in Montana right now and (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    there is no way to judge who is a republican or democrat as we don't name a party when we register to vote and we have the choice of voting for either candidate when we vote (they give you two different ballots for a primary)....The republicans are having fun voting for Obama in the primary but he stands precious little chance of winning this state in the general election....One glance at the GE polls will tell you what they think....

    It may be too late... (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:04:48 AM EST
    It just may be too late for  Obama activists to make nice to Clinton supporters.  Any Clinton supporter who is a regular visitor to Democratic blogs knows the level of discourtesy and downright hate that she (and we) have been enduring.

    I've always said that I would vote for Obama, but I swear that the last few days have nearly pushed me over to the other side.   I don't see myself actually voting for McCain (yikes!), but I also don't see myself working alongside most of the netroots activists who have so viciously pursued Senator Clinton and her supporters these last months.

    want to vote for McCain in protest.

    I believe the continued Hillary Bashing is an attempt to drive down her relatively strong poll numbers to further marginalize her candidacy? Why "twist the knife" (as Obama once said himself) if your opponent is politically dead in regards to pledged delegates? I don't understand why people keep bashing Hillary especially when their site viewership has decreased as a result of it.

    If you really care about party unity, and Obama really empathized with Hillary about the carelessness of her RFK remark, why have your campaign forward the transcript of Keith Olbermann's special comment to press reporters the day after you say the flap is overrated?

    I'm reminded of the Obama campaign's treatment of the Bosnia flap and Candice Tolliver forwarding a confidential memo about Hillary's MLK comments. Yes Hillary took political advantage of Obama's bitter comments, but at least she did it publicly for the whole world to see. She didn't pretend to play innocent and empathize with her opponent and have her campaign send memo after memo  to reporters doing the exact opposite.  

    This type of behavior is really turning Democrats who support Hillary away from Obama, and I have heard from several who said they will vote for McCain. Nobody is racist; some are Indian Americans who won't vote for him because of the D-Punjab remark, others were angry at Jesse Jackson Jr. for wondering why Hillary didn't cry for Katrina victims right before he mentioned that Obama was moving on to South Carolina where 50% of the electorate is black (CLASSIC RACE BAITING)

    Some who work at Hospitals and who were in favor of a mandate were angry that Obama engaged in demagoguery by describing a mandate as "forcing people to buy health insurance even if they couldn't afford it" and Obama himself likening Clinton's health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house (her subsidies are just as generous as his)

    Still others are angry about Obama's double standards in demagoging Hillary's sense of the senate vote on the Kyl-Liberman resolution, particularly in regards to framing it as giving Bush the benefit of the doubt in a rush to war. If it really was a rush to war, why did he miss the vote? If it really did give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, what about Dick Durbin, one of his earliest supporters?

    Others just believe that ALL POLITICIANS triangulate and change positions, and they'd rather vote for divided government because one party rule just breeds corruption. In regards to Clinton, they'd rather vote for someone who is covered as a politician, rather than vote for someone who is covered as a messiah, yet has his campaign "twist the knife" behind closed doors (They've seen enough of that with Bush).

    Of course, many feel that Obama isn't that qualified either and recoil at the media enhanced unwarranted messianic hype.

    As Obama himself said "I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work."

    So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes during the 2005-2006 session, and failing to convene a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European affairs. Right?

    As one editorial put it "Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing"

    These people can keep bashing Hillary in an effort to hurt her in the polls, but its not going to help in electing Obama, at least not with me and probably not with a lot of her other supporters as I mentioned above. Don't get me wrong, I will proudly cast my vote for Mark Warner in November, but as of today, I'm really tempted to vote for McCain as a protest vote against Obama's double standards on the "smallness of politics" and against race baiters like Eugene Robinson, gasbag pundits like Rolaids Martin, and misogynistic tools like Chris Matthews (Obama induced orgasmic leg thrills aside)

    As Obama himself told David Brody on January 23, 2008:
    OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

    Isn't it ironic?


    Parent

    Pragmatic is not a synonym for evil, and (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:01 AM EST
    I think pragmatism is where Krugman is in this column; I happen to disagree with some of what he says, but rather than raise my blood pressure, it generated an eye-roll or three (I don't know, maybe I am just getting somewhat numb to the dumb things people say - and even Krugman can wander there from time to time).

    I've decided that if people want to proclaim Obama the nominee and pretend that Obama still does not have the magic number - either one - of delegates, I can't stop them; their insisting on saying it does not make it so (See: Mission Accomplished, May, 2003).

    I think the mistake that people like Krugman and others make is that they think the only way to discuss party unity is to do it from the assumption that Obama is the nominee; I think this is tunnel vision at its worst, and that it contributes to more tension and animosity within the party than it purports to be trying to solve.

    Starting from that supposition - that Obama is the nominee - is a great way to make sure that the Clinton supporters will tune you out, because let's face it, the same thing would happen with Obama supporters if you started from the premise that she is the nominee.

    So, what does that tell us?  That there is a unity problem no matter which one of them is the nominee, and solving that is not as simple as them being on the same ticket; there may have been a time when an arranged marriage like that would have worked, but it was back in the day when there was no minute-by-minute news cycle, and us Clinton supporters did not feel like we'd been trashed at every opportunity.

    For me, I would like people to stop telling me that I have to get over whatever is happening and climb on the Obama Train.  I would like the Obama supporters - and the Obama campaign - to realize that if they had spent as much time talking about actual issues and plans and solutions for the things that face us, maybe I would now be willing to consider getting on board, but the only reason that seems to be being offered has to do with the greatness of The One, and it requires me to be willing to completely suspend my thought process and rely only on the "Trust Obama" factor.  Sorry - that's not good enough.

    Part of the reason why Clinton supporters are not inclined to have to do all the mending, is that neither Hillary Clinton nor her supporters did the breaking.  And frankly, what we see Obama as having to offer just does not measure up in any way, shape or form.  His candidacy is built on money and the cult of personality ( a personality, I might add, that leaves many of us cold) and is as empty as the promises of unity and change he's been making for months.

    My advice for the Obama campaign and for the well-meaning who think we have to impose unity NOW, is to just back off.  Stop looking at us to fix this.  Start looking within a bit more.  Do some analysis of what is lacking in the Obama candidacy that has brought us here, and stop looking for the quick and easy fix.  Realize that "quick and easy" may be a theme for Obama that will not carry over well to the presidency.

    Just hold your horses and let this play out.

    In the unlikely event Clinton is the nominee (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    Obama will be the VP choice.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    I think she has made that startingly clear already. it is also the winning ticket for November and it would allow Obama to gain the experience he needs.

    Not to metion it would more than likely give the dems 16 years in the whitehouse.

    There is a part of me that is still angry with Obama for running this year and depriving us of those 16 years, making us choose between two historic candidates where we could have had both.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    He did lose them working class in Oregon.

    I have no idea how his doing with them in south Dakota and Montana.

    I know he won the WHITE vote in Oregon.

    White does not mean "working class" you know.

    And for the umpteenth time, unless Appalachia extends from Florida to Arizona to Massachusetts, NH and Rhode Island as well as the more traditional definition, this game of ostrich that Obama supporters have invented is simply insulting to working class voters. Krugman makes that point in his column but I see some Obama supporters will persist in it.

    November be damned.

    Clinton unites the party (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    by asking Obama to be her VP for the good of the country. A Clinton/Obama ticket is an absolute winner and will give Obama the credibility and experience he will need to succeed HRC.

    The problem for Obama that ... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    people like Krugman and BTD miss is that it's not about being right on the issues, or offering the VP slot.

    If getting working class whites was only about issues, or Veep choices, the Dems would never have lost them.

    Like so many things it politics it's about displaying an understanding of their plight.  And this isn't something you can get with ads or slogans.  

    You either have it or you don't.  Obama doesn't have it.

    It's as simple as that.


    Agree Being Right On The Issues Has Not (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    resulted in Democratic presidents. Also, Obama does not just have a working class problem. He also has a problem with seniors. I keep hearing that Obama will offer seniors incentives that they won't be able to refuse. Well my experience is that seniors have a tendency to put a lot more value on experience than they do on "campaign promises."

    Also, my own take is that Obama lacks empathy as well as understanding of people outside his normal environment. They are the "other" to him and it shows.

    Parent

    I think this big focus on Democratic unity is (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    (while important) leaving certain things out. Yes, Obama needs to find a way to bring over Clinton supporters. I'm not one who thinks it will be too difficult to bring over a large number of her supporters. But he has certain inherent faults of his own, unrelated to Democratic unity, that he needs to fix real quick or all the kumbaya in the world won't matter.

    He needs to get some depth along with his lofty rhetoric. He needs to develop some patriotism as he runs against the war hero. He needs to get a little credibility on both foreign policy and just general competence. He needs to change his growing elitist image and cast off some of that arrogance he oozes. He needs to start building up himself as the heir to FDR, not Kennedy. That's an important one in my mind.

    We need more then unity to win this fall and I think we're getting a little side tracked here.

    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    But don't you think it's too late for that? I mean, if he starts being the greatest patriot ever, doesn't that play into the Republicans' hands? ("Look at Obama - pretending to be a patriot against John McCain - former POW - a REAL patriot")

    We know what happens when he tries to get detailed plans - they are all rehashes of Hillary's plans.

    And when he's tried to show he's not elitist? Can you say "bowling"?

    I think in theory you are correct - I just don't think he can actually pull it off.

    Parent

    I Don't See Obama Making The Effort To (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    do the things that he needs to do to win in November. Even now, he just doesn't take the time to do his homework before the debates  (past tense) or individual town hall events. Obama is supposed to be very smart but it appears that he has not taken the time to even read or flesh out his own policies. This was very evident in the debates. Also, IMO there was no excuse for not knowing anything about the Hanford (Hanaford) Waste Site when campaigning in Oregon. That is a major issue in that area.

    I, also, find it troubling that Obama is a proponent of nuclear energy and he doesn't know about Hanford. Seems to me he is either pulling opinions out of his @ss or only looking at the upside of the issue without factoring in the negatives. Lack of knowledge on major issues is dangerous at the presidential level IMO.  

    Parent

    the very things obama used to (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    get the nomination ie racial dog whitles and pumping up his base may not work so well in the general in his favor. the dog whistles will turn off the rest of the voting public including the middle leaning republicans and independents. it will hard to tone down his base. the won't shut up on cue. the things that he has set loose ie pandora's box won't climb back in that chest now. the black panthers, etc see this as their time.

    Parent
    None of this should (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Virginian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    surprise any of us...by and large Obama has run a heavily negative campaign (despite his calling it an "issues based" campaign, it has been much more based on the superficial and the negative...I think this is beyond debate)...but it is clear that the big blogs have been leading the vitriol proliferation against HRC (much less so against the actual opponent, McCain interestingly enough), but again, this should NOT surprise ANYONE.

    The big blogs have been advocating for Atwater style  , Nixon style, dirty politics...they have been advocating a scorched earth variety of politics in order to win the 2008 presidential election since Kerry was swift boated in 2003-2004. This is just the culmination of the energies spent...

    So the question becomes why is HRC their target? 1) They never liked her anyway...many wanted Gore, Edwards, Clark or Warner...Obama was at that time not expected to run, AND considered much to inexperienced and an easy win for the Republicans (which still is very possible)
    2) When Obama skyrocketed to stardom, a conscious decision was made to hitch the "netroots" wagon to him...by and large, the "netroots" has advocated losers, with exceptions like Webb and Tester where the "netroots" choose the nominee while ignoring the claimed "progressive principles" that they cited in support of candidates like Lamont. Obama is their chance at being with a winner, and the "netroots" hope that by supporting a winner, they will become legitimized in the political discussion, earn a chair at the table, and actually carry some weight outside of being an ATM. The bloggers want to be invited onto the very media stage they once (not that long ago) decried, they want to make their dedication to blogging full-time become profitable, and their voices become truly influential and valuable...its a political AND financial decision...

    With that said, they resistance to hitting McCain as hard as they have hit HRC is this...TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY. The republicans will play dirty, and apparently we will too...but who will get the blame? The person playing dirty the longest...which would be our side in this election. Its also to premature to go after McCain...nobody knows what the political landscape ACTUALLY looks like. The polls show Obama behind, or tied, or barely ahead...so which is it? Nobody knows...is Obama really a map changer? Nobody knows.....the issue isn't McCain here...it is the actual abilities of Obama in the GE, nobody knows what kind of GE candidate we have, and there really isn't any surety that can be extrapolated from the primary and premature GE data...you can't attack effectively without knowing your own position in the battle...and that may not be known until September or October (which may be too late)...

    If Mr. Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    thinks Obama "will be the nominee" then to his paragraph:

    Here's the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn't happen.

    I say: too late.

    The signs of Obama losing the GE should he be the nominee are portentous !!

    Depressing as it may sound; it will be a humiliating defeat....

    "the things that he has set loose... (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by esmense on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    ie pandora's box won't climb back in that chest now"

    I agree. The racial, generational, gender and class divisions and prejudices he has exacerbated and exploited during the primary can't be healed for the general election. And, if he persists in using these divisive tactics in the general election, will play much more negatively with the broader electorate than it has with the most elite elements of the Democratic base.

    Both Obama and McCain will run as candidates who start out greatly distrusted and disliked by large numbers of people in their own party's base. Both will run by disassociating themselves from their own party's most recent history as the "reform" or "change" candidate. Since "change" is an argument that, to be successful, first requires gaining the electorate's trust, both will spend most of the campaign doing everything possible to to create distrust of and undermine any positive personal image of their opponent. As a result, 2008 is likely to be one of the ugliest, most personally negative general election campaigns we've ever seen -- with the winner being the candidate who marginally emerges as the less despised and distrusted of the two -- rather than the most respected.

    Krugman gets it (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the Obama camp labeled him quite a while ago(back when he pointed out Obama health care flaws) and I daresay they will start listening to his advice now. . With the pedestal that Obama has been placed upon it is going to be a mighty hard fall. I feel sorry for him. His surrogates are another story. If ever a team deserved to have their arrogance rewarded its TEAM Obama.

    We won't back down (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by chopper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:50:26 PM EST

    The 'won't vote for Obama' movement was just getting started and needed a catalyst like NARAL to coalesce.

    More websites have popped up in addition to petitions pledging not to vote for Obama.

    The DNC and Obama have treated Hillary Clinton with amazing disrespect.  Women have had it.  And, their fathers, husbands, and sons agree.

    There won't be any backing off.

    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and in the electoral votes.

    The delegates are based on a corrupt caucus system and are further corrupted by Obama's thugs going in and pushing, blocking, throwing out, and threatening voters.

    TX is a prime example of some of this mayhem.  Hillary won the legitimate Texas primary, but "somehow" lost the delegates.  Delegates are useless, corrupt, and meaningless.

    If Hillary is denied the nomination we would rather put up with 4 years of McCain, who will have his hands tied by a Democratic Congress, than put up with a corrupt, lying, cult leader who has no experience whatsoever.

    And, believe me, WE MEAN IT.


    I think it has been (1.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    clear all along that the way the loser, loses will be the difference in winning or not.  She isn't going to win the nomination.  Trying to strong arm her way on a ticket, calling Obama sexist, saying he won unfairly, are all examples of losing poorly.  Paul Krugman is an intelligent economist, he is a terrible political pundit.

    On the issues, Obama certainly should (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    win over the working-class voters that have overwhelmingly chosen Clinton in many states.  Knowing this, it gives him the opportunity to recast his issues as working-class issues.  I have faith that the GE provides a lot of time for makeovers.

    I'm beginning to think Obama has to find a way to call out the media on their treatment of Clinton though (to get the Clinton Dems on his side).  Ignoring all that anger against the media has made people see him as part of the problem.  The entire primary he has stood there during the onslaught against Clinton shrugging his shoulders as an onlooker.  He may need to connect with Clinton voters on the subject of Clinton.  Again, the Unity Ticket is obvious.

    don't fool yourself (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    Obama's campaign is behind a lot of this.  Obama knows and approves of and has taken part in the Character assassination of Hillary and Bill Clinton.  He is a despicable human being and a bad democrat.

    Parent
    Can the need for unity (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM EST
    be lost on Democrats? Perhaps those who deny it will be condemned to endure four more years of suppression, disappearing wealth and fear as policy.
    I just can see how the new Democratic majority, those of face book and social networking, might forget to come out if instant gratification is withheld or it's raining. We need them all or January 20 will be just another ugly, hopeless day.


    the Obama camp is already fearmongering (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    If the Dems he's called "racists" don't vote for him, females will be reliant on coat hangers.

    Parent
    Coat hangers (5.00 / 9) (#157)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    You know what I think they can do with those coat hangers, don't you?!

    How disgusting - we are supposed to believe that these blogger boys (and girls) who've been marinating in misogynistic hate speech for months now actually care about women's rights? I guess it's only abortion that's supposed to motivate us. Not.

    Parent

    Amen,Robot (none / 0) (#187)
    by mogal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:46:12 AM EST


    Want to see how weak Obama really is... (none / 0) (#219)
    by chopper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    Take a minute and listen to this to see how weak Obama really is.  He can't win without Hillary. Period.

    http://www.bartcop.com/141-bombshell-sample.m3u

    Windows Media Player

    Is Obama losing the working class voters dems... (none / 0) (#220)
    by weltec2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    It is fine with me if Hillary wants to choose Obama as her VP but the idea of her as Obama's VP is completely unacceptable. She would have to sit by quietly why this inexperienced individual implements his misguided economic and foreign policies. I'm sure she would lend her voice, but I'm just as sure he would ignore it. IF... she is not the nominee -- and that is still my first choice -- I would rather see her as Secretary of State, Attorney General, or on the first available seat of the SCOTUS.