home

Hillary Clinton: "Obama Will Be A Good Friend To Israel"

Unity, Hillary Clinton style:

I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend. And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are sayng the right things. Now if EVERYONE ELSE can get the message, we can get this right.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< "Unity" Jimmy Carter Style | NY to Study Wrongful Convictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Everyone Will Catch On Soon (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    It is amusing to think that the two who have accused of having the biggest egos are looking less self centered right now than many of their respective supporters.

    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    How is Obama "saying the right things"?  

    Not a snark, a genuine question.

    Gosh (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    I thought he was very classy and complimentary in his speech last night.  It was much more than just a token shout-out.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    It seems that Obama and Hillary have already pivoted.  Althought he media focused on Hillary not conceding, she was also complimentary to Obama and his supporters in her speach.

    Let the healing begin.

    Parent

    But I asked about how Obama has been gracious (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    to her.  So far I haven't seen it, but I easily could have missed something.

    Parent
    how Obama has been gracious (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by uncledad on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    Watch his speech from last night, if that was not gracious then you cannot be swayed.

    Parent
    "She will be central to that victory" (none / 0) (#163)
    by s5 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    He's making it completely clear that he wants to work with her, and that he admires her skills and tenacity. I'd say it was different than gracious. Gracious is usually "you were a good opponent etc etc", but this was Obama publicly expressing his desire to collaborate with her.

    Parent
    I was hoping he'd recognize (none / 0) (#203)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    that she has been slandered by saying "certain folks have said unfair things about her, and that needs to stop." I think there's a fine line between praising her and saying he's like to collaborate etc versus having the guts to call out and denounce the negativity.

    I know Hillary didn't do that, and I'm disappointed, but she doesn't have to earn votes in November.

    Parent

    But the problem is (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by dk on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    that many of the people who have not voted for Obama don't care about what he says in his speeches.  I understand that a lot of people get blown away by them, but clearly about 18 million people never have been.  

    So, for Obama, saying nice things about Hillary just doesn't mean all that much to the people he is targeting.  For those people, actions will speak louder than words.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    but the premise of this thread is that they are now saying nice things about each other.  So I don't get it.

    Parent
    I undestand (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    And I think there are people he will never reach.  Anything positive he says in his speeches should be part of a larger campaign to bring the party back together.  

    For those that are reachable, he'll have to display some social and political skills to reach them.  He's run a good campaign, and he's a great speaker.  Let's see how his other skills are.


    Parent

    She can reach them (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    I think the point of the conciliatory rhetoric is that a Clinton "endorsement" (either a technical/political one or just a list of "nice things to say") of Obama will go a long way to healing that rift.  If the result had been flipped, Obama would likewise need to be responsible for brining his more zealous supporters onto the Clinton bandwagon.

    It's just the nature of primary politics.  The folks in the trenches always feel betrayed, but the candidates, being professionals, are better at seeing the big picture and guiding the rest of us to make better decisions.  That's one of the things we pay them for.

    Parent

    But also understand (4.00 / 3) (#75)
    by FruitlandGenerics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    there are lots of people she won't reach, either, fairly or not.

    Today was much better than last night from Sen. Clinton, as far as the supporters of Sen. Obama (or at least THIS supporter) are concerned. Acknowledging the race is over would help, and then allow him, as the presumptive nominee, to decide whom he wishes to have as vice president, and not be backed into a corner over a decision that is his to finalize.

    And I have a feeling he's a smart enough politician to realize there are plenty of reasons why that choice should be Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    And you can understand why supporters of Sen. Obama are getting a bit miffed at her refusing to even acknowledge that he has the needed majority to become the presumptive nominee, right?

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    and not be backed into a corner over a decision that is his to finalize.

    He'll accept the VP choice that they all decide can best help win the presidency.  It is not his decision alone.

    Parent

    Senator Obama (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    would be the first candidate in a race anywhere near this close to get unfettered choice over his VP.  Do you think JFK wanted LBJ?

    And Senator Clinton is the first candidate in a race anywhere near this close that has been required to concede IMMEDIATELY!  In the past, male candidates (although I'm sure that has nothing to do with the disparate treatment) have been given weeks even months and often to the convention to wrap up their campaigns.

    Parent

    they want her to concede, (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    because he's still on shaky ground politically if he wasn't he would have won South Dakota.  If they get her to concede and step away they can ignore her and Clinton's platform concerns at the convention. They can wishy wash the platform to make it more appealing to those independents and repubs. he's talking about courting instead of us bitter, angry, gun toting, low information, typical white persons.

    We're back to when does Obama stand up and what does he throw under that proverbial bus. Think UHC. Its over before its begun. I think if she goes to convention she maintains some power to achieve UHC. If she refuses to concede until the convention, what's going to change? Nothing. The media will still trash her. They'll protect Obama while he fights with McCain. She holds her cards and 18 million voters backing her up and maybe some real solutions are afforded the American people. (I know wishful thinking on my part.)

    Parent

    Examples Please (none / 0) (#159)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    Examples (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Gary Hart.  Funny how the DNC didn't go into a meltdown over any of them and send out stern letters.

    Parent
    Brown, Kennedy, McCain n/t (none / 0) (#166)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#173)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    Bad examples (none / 0) (#189)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    1.  Brown - was being called to drop out by Bill's campaign.  The race was declared over long before June.
    2.  Kennedy - was very much encouraged to drop out, wouldn't, and it left us with a split party and we lost.
    3.  McCain - he was out of the race two days after Super Tuesday.


    Parent
    It isn't over until August. Get that? Also, the (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    VP nominee has to be voted on at the convention.  Note the word:  voted.  The presidential nominee doesn't get to choose the VP carte blanche, the VP has to be accepted by votes at the convention.  

    Parent
    Yeah, but in actuality (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    once the convention officially nominates for P  and he's announced his VP choice, the delegates aren't going to turn around and select someone else.

    Doesn't exactly help the party's chances in Nov to go right out on nat'l teevee and undercut the nominee.

    O will get his pick, and unlike JFK, who had less than 24 hrs to choose then had to accept someone he didn't want because the guy just flat out refused to step aside, he will have over 2 months to choose wisely.

    Of course, Kerry had even more time to pick; ditto Gore.  At least in the latter case, time wasn't the issue, but judgment was.  

    And, interestingly and possibly relevant in O's selection process, current O backer John Kerry soon enough came to regret picking Edwards over the guy he was more comfortable with -- Dick Gephardt.  

    Parent

    Kerry was the guy who got it all wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    If you think a VP can be blamed for the loss--what did he do wrong btw?  Then you know the top guy was not a good candidate.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    everybody knows he reads a teleprompter pretty darn good. That seems to be his best talent. But his race speech, and his discarding it just a few weeks later, shows he will say what is politically expedient.

    Parent
    Speaking is how politicians communicate - (none / 0) (#52)
    by minordomo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    - and it's a huge part of how they are judged in public as well as build good relationships and, on the flipside, inflict harm. It also happens to be how they communicate their goals and policies (as Obama did in his speech last night). To dismiss a politician's words because they are speech seems a little surreal.

    And while Clinton supporters may have many reasons for supporting her, I doubt that a large part of her appeal is that they like that she is not an effective speaker while Obama is. (Mainly because she is also a very effective speaker, of course.)

    Parent

    Again, there are a lot (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by dk on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    of people, believe it or not, who don't like his speeches.  Also, there are people who think speeches are only as good as the reputation and experience of the person giving them.  Obama suffers from a low reputation in many people's minds, and a woeful lack of experience for the position he's running for.  He has never had to make hard choices on the issues he is campaigning on and, for many people obviously that pretty much nullifies anything he says in a speech.  

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 7) (#139)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    HER speeches bring tears of emotion to my eyes...Obama's fill me with distrust. Yes, I am biased but when his eyes narrow down, "uh" is uttered every five words - how he speaks in phrases of five or six words as if he isn't clear in his head just how he will present his thoughts and feelings - I don't know, but I find her ability to articulate so clearly at a minutes notice - especially when attacked as she often has been - to be indicators of the best and most honest speaker.

    Parent
    Your Mileage May Vary (none / 0) (#215)
    by minordomo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    Yes, Clinton is a faster speaker, and Obama does have a tendency to pause as he thinks about what he is going to say.

    I have no idea, however, how you go from "her ability to articulate so clearly at a minutes notice" to the conclusion that this is an indicator of her being the "most honest speaker".

    One instance stood out to me in this regard. It was the one where she was interviewed by Stephanopoulos and she stood up, and then Stephanopoulos stood up and they conducted the rest of the interview that way (in front of an audience). This was around the time of the gas tax holiday.

    Right before they stood up, a woman from the audience said that even though she was living on a tight budget and relied on her car etc., she still thought that the gas tax holiday was a disingenuous proposal. Perhaps some of you remember this moment. She asked how Clinton could defend the proposal when she couldn't point to a single economist who thought there was any merit to her proposal. It was a populist appeal to voters right before one of the primaries, and it wouldn't have the economic effect she claimed it would. Clinton was not able to defend it - but that didn't stop her from "articulating clearly at a moment's notice".

    Just found the transcript of that section:

    VOTER QUESTION: "I have -- Sen. Clinton, I actually make less than $25,000 a year, so talking about gas prices is not academic for me. I really do feel pain at the pump.

    However, I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax. I don't think that it's really a reasonable plan, and call me crazy, but I actually listen to economists, because I think that they know what they studied.

    You say that you have both a short- and a long-term plan for our energy consumption. However, since the suspension of the gas tax would encourage continued overconsumption, which could possibly cancel out any price savings and also undermine our efforts to curb global warming, and your long-term plan includes trying to, say, curb global warming, don't you feel that these two plans are in conflict?"

    CLINTON: "No. And let me stand up, because I can see you better from this angle.

    You know, actually, I'm glad you asked this question, because I want to make it very clear that we're talking about short-term relief and a long-term plan. And I have a very comprehensive, long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase the mileage of our automobiles, and to do it in a way that will push us forward as a leader in the world again, which we have not been, on the issue of global warming. And I invite everyone to go to my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, and read about it.

    But if you are driving on average in America this summer, you'll save -- according to Department of Energy figures -- about $70. If you are a long-distance commuter, and a lot of people in Indiana and North Carolina are, if you are a truck driver who depends upon your truck for your living, you're going to save a lot more. In fact, truckers will save about $2 billion in fuel costs.

    You see, I really believe we've got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I'm on record as taking on the oil companies. And I think having a good debate, like we're having right now in this campaign, helps to lay the groundwork for what we're going to need to do."

    She completely evades the question posed to her. Here's another part right before it:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They're not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.

    Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?

    CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we're going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system, because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority -- I think something like 90 percent -- of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10 percent of wage earners in America.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?

    CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.

    (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4783456&page=1)

    No doubt she is articulating clearly, but what she is articulating clearly are not honest answers to the questions posed to her.

    They're two different qualities (being articulate and being honest), though by no means mutually exclusive. I really don't think you can deduce one from the other.

    (Not that Obama is inarticulate, of course, quite the opposite; but in general he does think carefully about what he says while he says it. Yes, he makes mistakes and he'd be the first to tell you that, but he aims to give well-considered replies as much as he can.)

    Parent

    In the UK we have a distrust of politicians, you (none / 0) (#213)
    by WelshWoman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    only see them when they want your vote.

    So we like to know more about the individual i.e. do they share the same values and a track record for getting things done.

    Then we look at their promises for the future.

    Words matter to a certain degree but to some people actions matter more.

    I believe the RNC will run ad's based around "actions speak louder than words".

    Parent

    but both of them are always saying that (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    (except on occassion for Obama)....

    personally, I was much more impressed with McCain's sincere tribute to Hillary than I was with what Hillary said about Obama, or Obama about Hillary.

    Right now, the only way that Obama can fix things is to make it clear that there IS NO NOMINEE, that the nomination will not be determined until the convention, that the superdelegates can and should feel free to choose the person that they think makes the best candidate and President, and that he is preparing to run IN CASE he is the nominee.

    Now, I know that this is not in his character... but if he wants the wounds to heal, that is what he needs to say -- AND ACT like he means it.

    Parent

    McCain knows Hillary voters are considering him (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    Honey, not Vinegar, will be the lesson of this election.

    Parent
    absolutely! (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    he, unlike Obama's campaign, clearly sees a strong opportunity to peel off Votes from blue collar workers, "low information" voters, "low education" voters, a massive amount from Latinos and Hispanics and a fair number of older women not to mention all those from Appalachia.

    Add to that fact that those Republicans who may not necessarily like him will vote for him anyway as a way of keeping the WH in republican hands and -- once again -- beating the Dems with one hand tied behind their backs. (cue post-November crowing)

    McCain is anything but stupid or arrogant.  He sees a Golden Opportunity to play to her Base and I trust he'll play it a lot more skillfully and respectfully than the frat boys running Barack's campaign who, evidently, don't believe they really NEED her "supporters" to begin with.

    Parent

    as you say (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    absolutely

    Parent
    can I just say, (none / 0) (#144)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    Capt Howdy, that your handle always makes me smile?

    Actually, maybe I shouldn't say it as, taken out of context, it could seem ... well, open to interpretation.  

    As Gilda Radner's Emily Littella would say, "never mind".

    Parent

    Well, then you are one of the very few (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    who were impressed with any part of McCain's speech.  

    I think it was a huge mistake for McCain to make a speech on the Dems night.  He did himself no favors.


    Parent

    Very Few (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    I'd say you underestimate slightly.

    I found it, on its face value, to be very cordial and respectful. Underneath, it is a crass attempt to divide dems further by contrasting how nice he is towards how snobby and petulant Obama is perceived to be.

    Solution? Obama must show respect to 18 million voters and one especially talented woman.

    Parent

    Judging by the comments on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    News and a few other Republican strategists who popped up elsewhere, McCain's speech was more a miss than a hit.  The poor setting, the strange backdrop, the stilted delivery, the audience sound or lack thereof, even the notion of making a speech on the Dems night, were all mentioned by those on Fox.

    I strongly agree with you that Obama must find ways to show respect 18 million voters.

    I believe his comments last night and today are a good start in showing respect to that one especially talented woman.  


    Parent

    we are talking (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    about electing a president not american idol.
    you think W got elected using his speaking skills?
    I keep asking this and it always seems to get ignored.

    Parent
    You are right, Captain... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    but you're also wrong.

    Bush was able to speak in soundbytes, and use coded emotional language to get his point across. The Republicans always know how to do this. McCain is good at this in debates, but not on the stump.

    Obama is also good at speaking in soundbytes, but only on the stump - not in debates.

    It will be the battle of the dueling soundbytes this summer, IMHO. McCain may be better at it than we think.

    Parent

    I think he is going to surprise (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    some people.  and I absolutely agree that the debates will be Obamas waterloo.  assuming he makes it that far.
    McCain is a tough and smart old geezer. he will come at them sideways.
     

    Parent
    "he will come at them sideways." (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Thanin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    As in DOA?  I agree.

    Parent
    Since we saw 3 speeches last night, I think (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    it is valid to talk about them.  McCain's speech suffered in comparison to HRC's and Obama's.  I realize that doesn't mean he loses the Presidency, as there's much more to winning the office than speeches.  However, when more than one of the Fox talking heads says McCain would have been better off not appearing at all, I'd say his speech was a bust.  

    I've never watched American Idol so I can't comment on your analogy.  

     

    Parent

    His mistake was to intrude on the drama (none / 0) (#177)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:39:21 PM EST
    period.  The delivery was secondary.

    It's mcCain's first blunder.

    He allowed himself to be compared to Obama when Obama was really burying Clinton.

    Normally you posture before you expose yourself to a face off.

    Parent

    His campaign is blasting (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    the Clinton people with e-mails this morning.  They are angry.  They are telling Clinton exactly what words to use and what tone to take.  When asked about what Clinton supporters would do (McCain/Obama) a Dem strategist said 'look, Obama is the head of the party now and is entitled to respect.'  Wanna bet?

    It seems that either Obama is being hypocritical or he has lost control of his campaign and the media.  It's apparent it's the first.

    Parent

    I am not convinced (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    he was ever in control or would be in the WH.
    its one of my major problems with him.

    Parent
    Waldenpond - (none / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    how do you know this?

    Not that I'd be at all surprised.

    Parent

    Ha! Fox news (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    Lanny Davis was on!  I think some of the Clinton people have had enough of the Obama campaign and Davis is very sincere in his support of Clinton... and then a panel.  

    I don't watch CNN or MSNBC and I can only take Fox in small doses.  I will most likely watch Fox until some of this settles out and when they get whigged out over all things Dem, I will watch the SciFi channel.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Can't take Fox, but it's interesting how their hatred of all things Dem has given them a little more balance than MSNObama in the past few months.


    Parent
    just one more thing (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    this:

    "The poor setting, the strange backdrop, the stilted delivery, the audience sound or lack thereof. . . "

    are we even talking about a presidential campaign?
    anyway, to your points

    setting - what was poor about it and who cares?

    backdrop - "a leader we can believe in"? again what is strange about that?  I thought it was pretty good.

    stilted delivery - whatever, wait for the debates.

    audience sound - I dont even know what to say.
    are we electing audiences now?  also just because people were not fainting in the aisles like at an Obamafest doesnt mean they were not paying attention or will not vote.


    Parent

    Tell it to Brt Hume and Wiliam Kristol. (none / 0) (#135)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    McCain's speech was terrible!

    I started fake-snoring after 30 seconds.

    However, I agree about the honey vs. vinegar. Plus, he is now merging his own campaign with Obama's, at least in a bumper-sticker way. I heard he said "change" about 30 times.

    I think he's going to go for "I'm a kinder, gentler, war-hero-ish, white version of Obama."

    We'll see if it will be successful.

    Parent

    Kinder, gentler, (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    and more accomplished.

    Parent
    18000000 which includes Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    especially Bill Clinton!

    Parent
    not that few (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    Sorry (4.33 / 12) (#18)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    I do NOT want the movement that has brought Barack Obama to this point to succeed. Period.It is an immoral, destructive, mysogynistic force of the lowest sort.

    Parent
    And at AIPAC this morning (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    It seems like (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Obama is still walking back the infamous "no preconditions" debate answer, it seems.

    Tell me, do you follow places like the orange site closely enough to know if Obama gets grief over the occasional pro-Israel pander, the way other Democrats do?  I'm not a fan of the blogosphere's position on Israel as a general matter, but I still appreciate any sign that progressives are willing to hold Obama's feet to the fire on something.

    Parent

    OFB Blogs Hold Obama's Feet To The Fire (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    LOL Don't see that happening. So far, they have abandoned every issue and every position other than Hillary is evil to support  Obama.

    Parent
    Obama does no wrong anywhere (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    Rush has an official Obama critic, who (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    is an African American male.  Today he was talking about how Obama's speech play in the AA neighborhoods. Sd., who does he think he is, Moses?  

    Parent
    I was struck by how similar (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    Obama's and Wright's delivery are.

    The electrified crowd might look a tad suspect if some clever GOP editor splices together the footage. If Obama goes too far into the megachurch presentation he's going to have a mighty problem. Crowd hysteria is fine but it'll freakout a slice of the electorate.

    Parent

    It is interesting, as Obama can (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    vary his delivery depending on the crowd and state he's in.  Much more call and response in states with larger % of African Americans.  

    Parent
    Just as interesting (none / 0) (#169)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    as when HRC picks up and loses her twang depending on her audience.
    They all speak to their audiences.  They're politicians.

    Parent
    I thought Obama's support was a curious (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    mish mash of pro palestinian posters there and the pro Israeli A/P censors who goad the pro pals into saying something ban worthy. (Dkos A/P subculture)

    he brought that oddball troupe together at least.

    Parent

    That really is a uniter. (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:21:53 PM EST
    Only because he thought she was conceding (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    No, he certainly knew she (none / 0) (#74)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    made a concession speech this morning.  Yet he made many of those same comments during his AIPAC speech.

    Also, I' sure that Obama's advisors watched HRCs speech.  They, and he, knew that she didn't make a concession.  Teleprompter or not, he could have ignored some of those pre-written comments, the audience wouldn't have know what he left out -- but he didn't.  He included the comments about HRC and repeated them this morning.

    Parent

    Yes, but we remember what came before. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    Without some apology for what his campaign did, there can be no reconciliation.

    Parent
    Clinton and Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    Are and always have been absolute pros. One of the hallmarks of a professional politician is knowing how to handle winning and losing.

    Our party is not going to split. Quite the contrary. It's going to FLATTEN the opposition in November.

    Obama does not know how to handle losing... (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    ...sorry, but a cell-phone message in lieu of an actual concession speech... and then big-footing on Clinton's coverage every time she wins?  That's not knowing how to lose gracefully.

    Beleive me, a whole LOT of the stuff that only Clinton supporters "noticed" during the past few months are going to come back to haunt Obama....

    Parent

    Um... (1.00 / 6) (#116)
    by EddieInCA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    ...Hillary didn't even congratulate Obama last night. She congratulated "his campaign" not Obama, a point that was referred to all night long by even Clinton supporters.

    It's fascinating how much events are truly viewed through personal prisms.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So, we are grateful, and it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished.


    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    If it's negative about HRC, it must be true!

    These bots just kill me. Teh Google seems to be beyond their simple skills.

    Parent

    Well, you know (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    "It's fascinating how much events are truly viewed through personal prisms."

    Parent
    Some Obama supporters (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    have selective hearing.

    Parent
    You're So Much Nicer Than Me (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    I've decided a lot of them simply lie.

    Parent
    Um... (1.00 / 4) (#164)
    by EddieInCA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    You proved my point.  She's congratulating him for a well run campaign, NOT FOR WINNING THE NUMBER OF DELEGATES NEEDED TO BECOME THE NOMINEE.

    Thanks for making my point for me.

    Bush called to congratulate Obama on getting to the number needed to be the nominee. McCain called to congratulate Obama on being the presumptive nominee. Edwards called to congratulate Obama on being the presumptive nominee.

    Clinton congratulated him for running a good campaign.

    Thanks again for proving my point.

    Parent

    That is not at all what you said. (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    ...Hillary didn't even congratulate Obama last night. She congratulated "his campaign" not Obama, a point that was referred to all night long by even Clinton supporters.

    What you said was completely false.

    Now, if you are so upset that she didn't congratulate Obama for winning the nomination, the reality is that she has no obligation to concede at this point. She is in a unique position of power right now and she is trying to decide what to do with it. Any candidate would do the same in her shoes.

    Obama has been trying to get her to drop out since Iowa, so if I were he, I would adjust his expectations.

    Parent

    Why are some Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    continuing to whine today?!  Does nothing make them happy?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    I am glad I was able to prove the point you apparently wish you had made.

    Parent
    Bush called! Woohoo, that's it then ! This race (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    is over because Mr. 21% said so!  Mission Accomplished!  

    IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL AUGUST.  

    Parent

    Good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    From your lips... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Tom Hilton on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    ...to the ears of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  

    And I'm not as certain as you, but I am optimistic.  Whatever anyone thinks about Obama himself, he does have an incredible political operation going...while McCain is still struggling for donations.  

    Parent

    Not if the 30% of the democrats polled that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    said they would vote McCain over obama....that will help him tremendously.  And, if obama IS the nominee, the repubs will be lining up to shower money on McCain.

    Parent
    Hey I didn't realize that this link would.... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    ...take me to TPM. I almost had a panic attack.

    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by MonaL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    And then I started reading and got a little irritated with BTD for making me read the swill in the comments.

    TPM, Atrios, Ezra, Big Orange are off my list of places to visit for a long time to come.

    And what's with the Greg's surprise that she's finally offered Obama an olive branch, but then snarking at the end with the operative work "will"?

    The commenters are the same old folks sounding the same way they did a few months ago. They're still bashing her and calling him brilliant.  Unity? I don't see how.

    Parent

    DNC Not Quite Ready to Declare Obama the Winner (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by dazedreamer52 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    The DNC Statement released a press release today regarding the end of the primary. It should be noted that in this statement the DNC does not explicitly declare Obama as the winner. Anyone have any ideas of why not?

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    Doesn't it happen, like, at the convention?

    Parent
    Because of Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by mantis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    She has not conceded, and they are not willing to officially call him the presumptive nominee until she does (for now, anyway).  This was an extremely close primary with two very strong candidates, both with enormous support among voters.  To declare him the winner before Clinton publicly acknowledges it would be insulting, to her and her supporters.  That's my guess, anyway.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    isn't that exactly what the party last night was all about???

    Parent
    The party was Obama's campaign, (none / 0) (#39)
    by mantis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    not the party leaders.  Of course the campaign is going to celebrate.  Do you think Clinton's campaign wouldn't have?

    Parent
    Because his presumptive status is on such (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    shakey ground, maybe.

    Anyone in the past who has been able to declare themselves the winner did so by getting all the delegates from the Pledged Delegate counts. The nomination wasn't decided by the very unstable superdelegates, who can change their minds whenever they want to right up to the moment they vote.

    The DNC has been instrumental in helping the Obama campaign game this primary. They are losing members in big numbers every day.


    Parent

    Huh? (3.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mantis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    Anyone in the past who has been able to declare themselves the winner did so by getting all the delegates from the Pledged Delegate counts.

    When was the primary election where a candidate got all the pledged delegates?

    Parent

    Hm (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    Most recently, 2004.  Before that, 2000.  I could go on.

    Parent
    In 2000 and 2004 (3.00 / 1) (#104)
    by neoliberal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    The eventual nominee's opponents all dropped out, thus giving their delegates away. When Hillary concedes, the same will happen.

    Parent
    Not all the PD's- (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    Enough for the magic number w'out SuperD's. I think that's all our primaries since SuperD's were instituted.

    Parent
    Good for her (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST


    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    I think it is important that the supporters of both candidates recognize that we are no longer each other's enemies.

    We never were IMO (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by vj on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    At least, I never felt that way.  

    Parent
    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#147)
    by MonaL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    have always seemed to have more of an open heart to Obama than the other way around.  I never thought of badly of Obama himself, as his supporters think of Hillary and Bill.  I do think his hope/change rhetoric was bs from the get go, and that he was a great orator (with teleprompter help), but I really didn't see him as effective in getting legislation that we want/need passed.  He's going to be an effective politician/president someday, just not yet.  

    Parent
    Whatever obama is saying (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    is bare minimum.  Perhaps he's still waiting for Clinton to be fully vetted.

    Candy Crowley (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    was talking at length last evening about everything Obama needs to learn about Hillary before she could be vetted for a spot on the ticket.  I confess that I was surprised to learn that Obama had failed to put together an opposition research program over the last 16 months, but better late than never, huh?

    Parent
    I find it absolutely (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    remarkable that she hasn't been vetted to a level never seen before. As public as her life has been could there be a Vince Foster moment that hasn't be used and abused? I doubt it.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    even ifthat wasn't a slap in the face of the Clinton wing, its fair to say a vetting process now isn't going to bring about the unity some are yearning for.

    Ok now let's really rip her to shreds.

    Parent

    Now that the big surge of feeling seems to have (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    passed, maybe we can go back to a comment I posted the other day, re:  Let's all back off the respective brinks and go forward together.

    If you took even a minute to watch McCain last night (I stopped for about one minute on his speech, then moved on lest I lose my dinner), you saw and heard the stakes.

    He stood there in Kenner, Louisiana telling people they had a right to expect their government to come through for them in a natural disaster, all the while conveniently forgetting that, when the real disaster happened to Kenner, he was hanging out on a California tarmac with Bushie, raising funds and goofing off.

    Do you need any more of an object lesson than that as to why we need to go forward, together, to win the general election?

    You think the big surge of feeling has..... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    ....passed already?

    Parent
    Surge of feelings has passed? Nope. You're (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    wrong again.  Don't ever tell me I need to get on your unity bandwagon.

    Parent
    you're making the assumption, (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    of course, that the Media in the GE will hold John McCain accountable.  They won't.  And no amount of drum beating and belly-aching from the Obama Campaign or the Dems is going to change one iota of favorable coverage or convenient overlooking of facts for McCain.

    A scandal on McCain that Axelrod dredges up and plants?  Snore.  The latest Obama-gaffe?  Wall-to-wall 24/7 coverage and "surprise" that this is the "best" the Dems could come up with to run against the Republicans when it should have been a cake-walk.

    If they could destroy Gore over his wearing earth tones and Kerry over being a war hero (remember the purple band-aids they wore at the Convention that the media thought was cute?), just imagine for one moment what Barack has in store for him.

    If he thought the last debate was bad -- you know, the one he complained about for days afterwards? --, he has absolutely, positively no clue whatsoever what's in store for him.  

    The media will absolutely destroy him -- and, by extension, Dean, Brazile and the Dem Party's horrific choice this Election Season to "choose" this guy despite the Electoral Facts staring them in the face -- by the time they're through.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    I always thought the media was biased towards Obama, because they knew they would then switch to being pro-McCaine. Besides, McCaine is always very charming to journalists, and they are often charming back, that's his style.

    I found this article in the New Statesman (British left)
    http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/06/obama-vote-clinton-usa-mccain

    I find him to be possibly the best British journalist in Britain and he's pro-Hillary

    Parent

    Fascinating - thanks for posting! (none / 0) (#195)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    I wish our press were so honest with us about the positives and negatives of all three candidates.

    The author did keep confusing 2000 with 2002, though. ;-)

    Parent

    Oh come on (none / 0) (#212)
    by MonaL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    after GWB and the last republican-led Congress, you can't scare me so easily anymore.

    McCain is not Bush, no matter how many times it's repeated.  Hillary is not evil either.

    Parent

    I think what is becoming readily apparent is that (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by demps on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, even as they have faltered on occasion, have proved themselves to possess a grace and facility that belies the inanity of their less generous supporters.

    I wouldn't be too sure of that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    "Friend of Israel" bit. What he says is so often at odds with what he does. I found this interesting...some of the post is a bit over the top, but much of it bears looking into.
    Some may recall his recent Michigan campaign stops, where he shook hands with economically insecure auto workers. A few may recall his offensive sexism toward a woman reporter, brushing her question off with a 'Later, Sweetie." The reporter was actually more frustrated by his lack of response to this vital question than by his insult: "What will you do for the auto workers, Senator?"  No answer ever came. Instead Obama left the auto plant, pressed by his heavy schedule.

    Yet, he found time on his Michigan jaunt for a pre-arranged meeting with Imam Hassan Qazwinin, leader of a Mosque notorious for its successful fundraising efforts (right here on US soil) on behalf of Hezbollah. A researcher in this area notes that Qazwinin is quite tight with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallal....snip
    High on the US terrorist watch list, Fadlallal is notorious for, among other things, demanding the cold blooded execution of 300 US Marines along with civilians.

    Ayers, and the foundation he and Obama were on the board of, also promotes some very interesting things which I cannot for the life of me see as pro-Isreal. What Obama says and what he actually does are so often at polar opposites that I won't believe it until I see it.

    Spreading rightwing lies (none / 0) (#34)
    by mantis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    is not the way to get a Democrat elected to the White House.  Hassan Al-Qazwini is a very influential Muslim-American leader.  He has met with Presidents Clinton and Bush on several occasions, has met with the State Department and Defense Department, and delivered the opening prayer for the 108th Congress.  

    Think about what you link to and believe on the internet.

    Parent

    Are you saying the meeting and (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    fundraising never happened? Or that Fadlallal is not on the watch list?? I did say the post was over the top, but it's not a right wing site. And I did say that the things mentioned in the post bear investigation. I am not going to take Barack Obama at his word because in my experience he is a liar. So, I am going to check out each and every little thing he claims. My guess is that many of them will prove false, based on his record so far.

    Parent
    get used to the (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    "republican" thing.  we are going to be getting that a lot.

    Parent
    I think this campaign can be named (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    The Projection Election.

    Sung to the tune of 'The Rainbow Connection'

    Why are there so many
    lies about Clinton
    And Nobody seems to caaaare...

    Parent

    Love your song! lol (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Yet you didn't check this (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by mantis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    ridiculous guilt by association allegation out, you just forwarded it on.  You sound more like a Republican to me.

    Parent
    get used to it. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    Obama very much a target for this stuff because he's so exotic.

    Parent
    Exotic? (none / 0) (#176)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    Is that a polite way of saying he's not American enough?
    Sad to see right-wing propaganda, innuendo and lies spread on a Democratic blog.

    Parent
    Give me a break (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    Obama is obviously more vulnerable to GOP attacks on his loyalty, patriotism, etc. because of his name, his unusual background, and all of that.  I have no doubt he would freely acknowledge that if you asked him.

    This PC police routine is getting really old, really fast, and I encourage you to cut it out.

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#201)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    referencing an article that makes it seem as if he met with some crazy Muslim cleric (while omitting mention that the same cleric has met with the President), reinforcing Republican memes about being too "exotic" or different to be one of us thereby disqualifying him to be POTUS?  
    Suffice it to say that I do have a problem with that.

    Parent
    Well, guess what (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    the person you accused of spreading "right-wing propaganda, innuendo and lies" didn't do any of that stuff, other than using the entirely valid word "exotic."

    You really need to back off.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#210)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    This is how mad it's going to be when you talk about reality. Kerry was an exotic for many Americans because he came from Mass. Dukakis qualified on that count--and he had a Greek family name added to that regional identity.

    Not American enough?  I'm not American enough myself of course. But Obama is certainly an exotic political persona.  it's works for him and against him as we have seen in the primary season.

    Parent

    It's part of his charm (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    and part of his drawback.

    I'd be pretty damned exotic too.

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#181)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    Oversensitive much?

    Or do you not think a person of mixed race, with the name Barack Hussein Obama, is exotic to most Americans?

    Wowie.

    Parent

    It's just another way of saying: (none / 0) (#191)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    "He may not look and act that way now, but "he will be a good friend of Israel." (and, "If I were the president, I will MAKE HIM . . "

    Parent
    Obama and Clinton saying the right things? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are sayng the right things. Now if EVERYONE ELSE can get the message, we can get this right.

    I once heard Senator Russ Feingold at a Bernie Sanders campaign rally. SOmeone asked him about justice for Palestinians and Feingold replied, "Israel is our ally." Followed by an applause. Then Feingold said, "And Palestine is our ally too." I think I heard a dozen or so people clap. That's par for the course and that's unfortunate.

    This isn't all about Israel. The Mideast crisis is about both countries and until we start treating and discussing Palestine's needs/interests as equal as Israel's, then hopefully we'll move in a better direction. Obama and Clinton need to make this Palestine's issue just as much as Israel's... but to do so would be political suicide and IMO, that's a shame.

    There is no Palestinian.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    equivalent to AIPAC.  

    A domestic lobby for a foreign government rubs me the wrong way.

    Parent

    It's not a foreign lobby (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM EST
    AIPAC is consistently somewhere to the right of the actual position of the Israeli government.  They do not get marching orders from Tel Aviv.

    Parent
    While that's technically true... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST

    ... that still means Obama and/Clinton should advocate and support Palestine, their needs and their interests, just as much as they support Israel's. Lip service would even be great but the minute they start talking about supporting Palestine, watch how they retract their statements. This happens all the time.

    FYI: There may be no Palestinian component similar to AIPAC but that doesn't mean they can't do work with similar Palestinian groups advocating for the same things. There are several of them out there.

    Parent

    To be clear.... (4.50 / 2) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    I'm with you ct...the way our govt. is so ridiculously one-sided in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is appalling.  To even question this anti-peace policy is political suicide, as you said.

    Maybe if Palestine had a rich, powerful lobby chirping in our crooked leaders ear as much as AIPAC things would be different.

    Parent

    Dude! I'm so with you. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    Have you checked out J Street? They are trying to be the liberal version of AIPAC.

    I am slowly looking into them myself. They seem like they have some good ideas.

    Parent

    TY madam.... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    I'll check it out.

    Parent
    Code (none / 0) (#51)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    Yeah. It would make me feel better if the show of Unity were on a different topic besides Israel. The reflexive orthodoxy among US politicians adhering to a very right-wing approach to 'support for Israel' is not something I'm particularly happy to see reinforced at this moment.

    Parent
    It will be interesting to see how (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    Obama does now that he doesn't have Clinton to "me, too" all the time.

    That may be part of the Clinton strategy, for all I know, to let him hang out there in the cold political wind without her as a shield and see what that does to his support and his numbers.

    I think she'll say nice things about him, but they may be more along the lines of, "You're so smart, I know you can do this on your own."  If she throws in a "bless your heart" or two, we'll know.

    Forgive My Cynicism (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    But after hearing Obama say Hillary's RFK statements were no big thing, while his advisors continued to push the story, and hearing him say that issues like her misstatement on Bosnia should not be part of the campaign and then having his campaign hold a conference call days later to trash her over it, the fact that Obama himself is saying the right things is meaningless.

    So far today, one of his advisors has said that they aren't going to do anything special to woo Clinton voters and one of his Super Delegates has said that it would be a huge mistake for her to be on the ticket.  Now, I might not attribute these to Obama if he hadn't already shown a pattern of saying nice things about Clinton while his campaign engaged in an organized smear campaign.  When Obama calls off his dogs and acts in ways that are consistent with his words, then I'll listen.  Until then, I'm just another one of those cynics ruining politics that Obama is always complaining about.

    I am stunned (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    that people are surprised at Hillary Clinton being gracious to Obama.

    Did they really believe all the Obama propaganda?

    Meanwhile, just yesterday Obama's campaign stated she was not yet properly vetted, which is why she wasn't his "automatic" pick for VP.

    He says a few words in a speech and now all that disappears, eh?

    I guess my Kool-Aid isn't strong enough this morning.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    No one said it disappears.  That's the premise of the post.  Among the people Obama needs to get on board with his gracious comments are the members of his own campaign.

    Parent
    It will never happen. (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    How can anyone think it will? Because it "has" to?

    They've already said they are not going to reach out to her voters. That means, no VP offer. No concession that the Clinton wing is worth anything in the Democratic Party.

    Nothing but words.

    Sorry, but maybe I am just unable to ignore the factual evidence before my very eyes, especially when it's reinforced every single day.

    Like I said, I don't envy BTD and Jeralyn this summer.

    Parent

    here's the rub: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by pluege on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    after all the time, money expenditure, media exposure, etc., if I were an Obama supporter and I wanted to convince people to support my candidate, I have no idea what I would say to them.

    Sure I'll vote for Obama, but I'll really be voting against mccain.

    I think there's a different gang (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    running the show now.  I'd conclude (from the votes that have come in)that Obama's base is the left of the party and the moderates are not comfortable with him anymore.  It is a similar feeling to the battles Between Kinnock and Militant in the 1980s in the UK.  Only Kinnock loses this time.

    You are forgetting the ideology of the base that Obama came with.

    Parent

    Salo... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    Did you read the Bowers Manifesto?

    Just because people are anti-Iraq does NOT mean they are far lefties. Don't most Americans, liberal, conservative and in between, want out of there at this point?

    His base is really libertarians, Democratic elitists, and former Republicans, for the most part.

    Sorry but I'm a far leftie, and Obama has always been my least favorite of the Democratic field because he was too far right for my tastes.

    Parent

    I didn't call them Militant (none / 0) (#194)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    I was just looking for a close comparison in the sort of structural battle you might expect to see.
    It's hard to call anything left wing here in the US. The nearest you get is something like Ayers, but he was just a boutique clown.

    It's just that the demands of the AA vote are going to prove to be quite radical--more radical than people may have expected. The demands of the youth/professor vote will be quite odd too.

    Parent

    if i were obama, i would begin with the reasons (none / 0) (#162)
    by cy street on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    for using whole milk in a latte and why skim milk works better for cappuccino foam.  dense foam provides sweetness and makes sugar optional.

    for those hooked on drip coffee, i would recommend doubles to start the transition to bolder, more acidic beans.

    he should stress the social benefits of sitting while drinking your morning cup and why decaf after noon is best for a good night sleep.

    Parent

    Not feeling the Unity? Not alone. (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Yesterday I felt absolutely ok about Obama being the Democratic nominee. Sure, I have lots of sore feelings about this race as do 18 million others, but I am all happy, ready to vote for Barack in November and actually gleeful that I can relax with my pony out of the race for the entire summer and enjoy my time without all the teeth gnashing of recent months.

    Then today I visit Huffpo and the Orange Julius and they're still drinking the Clinton hatorade smoothies- calling her crazy, laying the chance of an Obama loss at her feet, insulting her supporters and Bill, etc.  I also made the mistake of watching a MSNBC segment on what went wrong with Hillary's campaign which of course ignored their culpability and Obama cheerleading and took Bill's comments out of context and so on.

    I've never really disliked Barack Obama - hell, I voted for him in 2004. Hillary was and still is the best for the job. But his supporters online and on tv WILL LOSE THIS FOR HIM.

    But his supporters online and on tv WILL LOSE THIS (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    I posted this topic at another site.  That it is the Obamabots that will send HRC supporters running to McCain.

    THEY divided this party.  THEY are so filled with hate.  THEY are incapable of unity.

    Parent

    "laying the chance . . . (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
      . . of an Obama loss at her feet"

    laying the groundwork.  they may be obnoxious.  they are not stupid.  they know as well as we do what his chances are and its going to be allllll Hillarys fault.

    Parent

    Good comment (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Wrong thread. But I like the comment so I will leave it up. One time exception though.

    Money, Money, Money (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    One of the things the Obama camp wants to do is tap into Hillary's fund-raisers. Well, that's not going to happen until there's a face-to-face and Hillary makes sure her portion of the electoral pie will have their issues supported. There's quite a few loop holes that have to be addressed before she's going to hand over her share..what a smart girl.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24955831/

    For Obama and supporters it's all about making her look bad, pushing her out, it's always been a part of their strategy, and this is hers...

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    I am pretty sure Obama supporters are not allowed to go on about "Hillbots" and the like at this site.

    As for what goes on at other sites, obviously no one can control that.

    I'm not the comment police, I'm just letting you know what Jeralyn has said, friend.

    The two are not exchangeable (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    How come you guys can't see that?  It's not just a matter of having two items, one more colorful than the other.  It's that one is bigger, better, riper than the other one.  
    You are asking us to pick the not-so-good thing when the much better thing is still out there.  
    It's like saying, "Take this stripped down version of a laptop because we're making the MacBook Pro off limits."
    I've heard from several of my colleagues who are mad as hell today about how this played out.  They still can't believe that we're stuck with an untested, inexperienced, less than one full term senator as our nominee.  We are all waiting for the deus ex machina because none of us can imagine voting for him.  


    MacBook Air vs MacBook Pro ;) (none / 0) (#216)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    I don't have the Air for a reason, lol!~

    Parent
    I Sincerely Hope Obama Doesn't Go There (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    I don't think I could stand a discussion on which candidate has said, done, and condoned MORE sexist things.  Because I don't think McCain would simply take that, I suspect he'd dish it right back.  The fact that there are things to dish back at Obama on this should depress all liberals.

    Having said that, I'm not voting for McCain.  He does not reflect my values and from now on I'm only voting for candidates who reflect my values.  Obama doesn't meet that standard right now either.  Maybe he will by November, maybe he won't.  But I'm not voting for McCain.

    I just turned on Air America (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by eric on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:39 PM EST
    over lunch and heard Ed Schultz literally screaming about how Hillary had given a speech to AIPAC today as if nothing had happened.  He sounded crazed.  How dare she!!!

    Now, I read this and I see that she even made this nice comment about Obama.

    What is wrong with people like Ed Schultz?  Have they lost their minds?  It is what we were talking about earlier - these people have to STOP THE ATTACKS.  Screaming about Clinton is seriously costing Obama support.

    (BTW, Ed Schultz, another former Republican...)

    "read the entire post " (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    yeah
    thats gonna happen

    Her fingers were crossed behind her back when (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    she said this.

    Hillary Rosen (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    knows on which side the bread is buttered.  Not surprising she would write this.  Gotta pay the bills, you know.

    However, the voters are not indebted to Obama and owe him nothing.

    Doublespeak Translation..... (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    "Obama will conitinue to arm Israel to the teeth, to hell with the Palestinians and with peace".

    You can't get elected any other way, unfortunately.  I don't know if Obama was ever sincere with his "change" and "new politics" rhetoric...but even if he was, by the time you get to the oval office you've sold your soul so many times that there is no soul left to guide you.

    Clinton has a lot of class. (1.66 / 3) (#2)
    by barryluda on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    The rest have a lot of class too, unfortunately it's all LOW class.

    If Obama thinks he can take Hillary supporters for (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    a ride.. think twice:

    via taylormarsh:

    Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC's convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.


    Parent
    Right. The problem with Obama is that (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    he never treated Hillary or her supporters with respect during the campaign; therefore, he has zero credibility now when he tries to "sweetie" them.


    Parent
    Never trust the RNC or the MN GOP either (none / 0) (#184)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    Gov. Pawlenty urges disgruntled Clinton supporters to consider an alternative, Sen. McCain

    Now this sh*t ticks me off.....mind your own business., Guv. You couldn't even deliver your own state's Republicans for McCain. And you've never won a state-wide race by more than a small plurality.

    Time to play the bridge card!

    Parent

    That sounds final (none / 0) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    This is a pretty definitive statement, moreso than any press release or media declaration.

    My only explanation for this is she is thinking of Obama either as President, or as VP under her. Any other explanation wouldn't make sense, would it? Why would it matter if he's a friend to Israel if he isn't in a position of power?

    Agh. My head runneth over.

    easy there Blogtopus....keep thinking (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    C-O-N-V-E-N-T-I-O-N!!

    Parent
    Denver Denver Denver (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    Denver Denver Denver

    It isn't over till the pretty lady says it is.

    Parent

    That's the spirit!! :) (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    Take the Unity ball and run with it! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    It's gonna be a competition to see who can out schmooze the other - or it should be.

    We shall see.

    Hillary Rosen is upset with Clinton (none / 0) (#40)
    by ajain on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    She has a piece up on Huffington. I think her arguments are justifiable. I think there is that sense among long time Hillary backers who are more Democrats than Hillary partisans that she made a mistake yesterday.

    Lets see what happens, but surely she could have done things differently and still can. We will find out. AIPAC was a start, but I watched her speech and it was not a concession. She did not call him the nominee, even though she did defend him. We have to see what happens from here. But political leverage has a short half-life.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    if you surrender it then it has a shelf life of zero.

    There's a new standard for concessions and unconditional surrender that seems to have just been invented this year.  People's political memories are awfully short.

    Parent

    Amazing Isn't It? (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    I can't remember a second place finisher ever walking away with nothing.  And there's never been a second place finisher as close as Hillary, which means she should - and my guess is will - get more than most.  But instead of acknowledging this reality, she's expected to walk away happy that she wasn't forced to commit ritual suicide.

    I'd be angry, but the people insisting on this are ridiculous and powerless jokes.  They can't even stop Bush from torturing people.  But suddenly if Hillary doesn't do exactly wha they want RIGHT NOW, she's in very big trouble.  What's she supposed to fear?  The wrath of Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi?  Oooooh, scary.

    Parent

    As I recall (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson took his 400 delegates to the convention in 1988 and made a bid for the Vice-Presidential spot.  He didn't get it, but I hardly recall some massive freak-out over his actions.

    Hillary obviously knows the score.  She is not under the illusion that hundreds of superdelegates will switch tomorrow and hand her the nomination.  People need to calm down.

    Parent

    Perhaps the Difference Is (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Obama has a very tenuous hold on the nomination. Heck, many of those Super Delegates who put him over the top yesterday only would commit "privately" to the AP.  Not that the media or the Obama campaign would push lies or anything.  And not that the Democratic Party would make some huge push for unity very quickly to ensure nobody checks the math.  Because as we know THE MATH never lies.

    You always get a win if your opponent quits.  

    I'm not advocating for Hillary to take a big fight to the convention, although I'm cool with it if that's what she wants to do (I don't think it is), but she'd be a fool to simply close up shop because the media and Obama told her it's over.  I'm sure she's doing what she said she'd do, make her own calls to Super Delegates, they're probably putting together their own delegate count, reaching out and talking to those who already support her, and thinking about what she really wants out of all of this.

    There's nothing wrong with that.  Obama would do the same thing if he were in her shoes.  

    Parent

    Long time between now and August. Just sayin'. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    That And (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    She's Hillary Clinton.  You can hardly declare the Clinton wing of the party dead if they won't go away.  

    And, of course, she's a woman.  Which isn't the only reason, but that has been a subtext of the Obama won and Hillary must quit that's been going on since February.  WWTSBQ?  When I suspect had she been a man she would've been praised for being so tough and Obama would've been asked why he couldn't beat her.  

    Parent

    A Democrat (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    immediately goes out and undermines the poltiical power of a democrat she claims to support?  Shocking.

    Other than, you know, we do it all the time to each other when we're negotiating with Republicans.

    Clinton is in negotiation mode with the party and I can't say I'm shocked some Democrats won't have the stomach for that.  They don't have the stomach to force Republicans to filibuster S-CHIP expansion.  

    Having said that, the smart ones will stick with her.  Whatever she wants she's likely to get and, in the end, that will benefit her supporters, especially Super Delegates because she'll owe them.  As for the rest, they are the reason why Bush laughs at Congress even with his 21% approval rating.

    At some point the Democrats became scared to death of politics.  Perhaps it's because most of them suck at it.  Whatever the reason, it's killing the party.

    Parent

    people like Rosen (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    ...live and breathe as if the party apparatchniks were oxygen itself -- and the sole source of it.

    And ya know what?  In the last three months, Hillary Clinton learned that there is a source of pure, clean, oxygen-rich air among the American people....and on Satuday she learned just how fetid the party's own atmosphere is.

    This is why The Village first hated Bill Clinton, and now hates Hillary Clinton --- her strength comes not from the party elite, but from the people.  She is not beholden to the elite, but to the people.

    And that is why they have tried time and again to destroy her.  But it never works, because the elites don't understand 'the people'.

    Parent

    The Air Out There Is Freeing, Isn't It? (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    I can't speak for Hillary but after making my decision to re-register unaffiliated, I feel so much lighter, freer.

    These idiots are not my problem anymore.  I don't have to vote for their candidates or give them money simply out of loyalty.

    Sure, most of the folks I vote for in November will have a (D) after their names, but if one doesn't measure up, I no longer have any obligation to worry about Nancy Pelosi's majority margins.  

    Saturday was the biggest gift the Democratic Party could give me - my freedom.  Because after realizing how deep the corruption and stupidity went, I no longer owe them anything.  They are better than Republicans, but only marginally and not enough for me to spend every waking breath worrying about it.  

    Instead, I'm going to fight for issues I care about.  I hope Hillary does the same.  She could be quite the Senate operative if she is truly free from worrying about pleasing the party or getting elected President.  Unlike me, I expect her to stay a democrat, but I don't think she's going to be the same politician she was.  How could she be?

    Parent

    I haven't heard from one Democrat supporter (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    that is a fan of Hillary that she made a mistake yesterday.  Quite the contrary.  Where do you get your information?  Or do you just make stuff up out of whole cloth?  That's what it seems to me.  And your comment about political leverage is a joke.  Hillary has more leverage than anyone right now and will for a long time to come, nominee or not.  

    Parent
    Here it is - Ed Rendell (none / 0) (#97)
    by ajain on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    Blunt as always, Pennsylvania's Governor tells NY1 News:

    There's no bargaining. You don't bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you're Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don't bargain.

    Rendell was also refreshingly direct on the difficulty Bill Clinton would pose.

    "The Obama campaign would have to make strict rules, you know, about what President Clinton could and could not do during the campaign... For example, the Obama campaign would have to control his schedule; where he would go into, what states," Rendell told Dominic Carter.

    "You know, normally politicians don't want to be outshone. Well you know you've got Bill Clinton lurking in the background. But Hillary Clinton, a very charismatic figure for many Americans -- generally a lot of
    politicians don't like to put somebody like that on the ticket," said Rendell. "You know rule one for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president, right? It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to"



    Parent
    I think that is the opposite (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    of your point.

    FYI- re-read.  Rendell did not say there is no bargaining.  The writer did.

    Rendell is quite complimentary of Clinton, seems to me he thinks she does have some power, if he's talking about her as VP....

    "You know, normally politicians don't want to be outshone. Well you know you've got Bill Clinton lurking in the background. But Hillary Clinton, a very charismatic figure for many Americans -- generally a lot of
    politicians don't like to put somebody like that on the ticket," said Rendell. "You know rule one for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president, right? It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to"

    Doesn't seem like Rendell thinks this is over to me.

    Parent

    Who Was It Here That Predicted (none / 0) (#193)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    Rendell would be among the first to stab her in the back?  Good call.

    Parent
    Democrats and Unconditional Surrender (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    This rush of so many democrats to insist that Hillary unconditionally surrender explains a lot about the past eight years.  

    Parent
    Unless of course (none / 0) (#202)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    Rendell didn't actually say that.  The post is unclear.

    My point about Dems and unconditional surrender, however, stands whether it applies to this particular Democrat or not.

    Parent

    It's all in the timing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic here, but I think what we're seeing is a very carefully choreographed bit of political theater, jointly constructed by Clinton and Obama.

    They both know that the number one goal, by far, is to win in November, and that means cooling down the animosity between their most fervent supporters.  That will take a little time, while Obama says many nice things about Clinton, and Clinton doesn't immediately concede.  

    As for the VP slot, I think the decision has been made already about whether Clinton will get The Offer.  I think the two most likely scenarios are:

    [1] He offers it publicly, she declines it publicly and then promises to work tirelessly to get him elected.

    [2] They make a big show out of having a one-on-one meeting and emerging from behind closed doors with a deeper mutual respect, yadda yadda yadda, he offers her the job with a promise of a major policy agenda, and she accepts.  By "major" I mean large enough that the news magazines will run cover photos of them with headlines like, "America's first co-presidents?"

    I'm not sure which I think it the most likely, or even which will be a stronger ticket in the GE.

    Parent

    I do not think (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    that Obama, under any circumstances, would ever accept any arrangement that didn't make clear he is the boss.  I'm not even sure I could blame him for that.

    Besides, Hillary has already served two terms as co-President.

    Parent

    Hillary Rosen May Be A Democrat, But I Am An (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Richjo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    American first and foremost. I will most likely vote for Obama, but I do not owe him my vote. Both he and the Democratic party owe me and the American people far better than they have given us so far.

    Hillary had no reason to concede last night. Obama should not have attempted to orchestrate the superdelegates to come out for him until at least a day after all the results of the primary were completed and the superdelegates had a chance to thoughtfully anaylze the whole race. It is clear the party insiders had decided that Obama was going to be the nominee for some time now, and nothing that the voters did was going to sway them at all. West Virginia didn't matter, Kentucky didn't matter, Puerto Rico didn't matter, South Dakota didn't matter. The electoral math didn't matter. I would have had no problem with the supers thoughtfully considering the race and deciding Obama is the better nominee, but that is not what happened here. The party insiders decided it was not politically feasible for them to alienate Obama's supporters or risk the media's reaction if they voted for Hillary which our friends in the press would have reported as tantamount to stealng the nomination. Speaking practically, I don't think they made the wrong decision, but they owed Hillary the respect to allow her to finish out the primaries without having to concede, to be allowed to make her case to the superdelegates right along side Obama being able to do the same, and then rendering a decision. Obama should never have planned to declare victory last night, he should have allowed Clinton and her supporters one more moment. Last night should have been about allowing the Clinton wing of the party time and room to conclude the process without having Obama and his supporters dance on their graves before the body was even cold. He gave a great speech last night, but it should not have been given last night, and for God's sake he needs to get his people to keep their silly and petty feelings to themselves. If you want unity when you win you have to show more concern for those who have lost who you now need to bring back into the fold, then you do for celebrating your moment. Even on American Idol the person voted off gets to be the focus of that show. Obama and his crew have lots of time to celebrate, they didn't need last night.

    Parent

    Out schmoozing (none / 0) (#61)
    by Oceandweller on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    and that is my final post for today
    promise jeralyn and I am gone for 24h
    sorry guys I type only with the right hand and it does not help, and will have to for the next 2months
    so no capital letters either
    I dont think there can be out-schmoozing when americans who plan to be their party nominee in the GE speak in front of foreign diplomats
    dont forget that BHOHRC is are going hopefully to be on the sme ticket
    foreign countries dont want to be left in the dark they need to adapt their forthcoming diplomacy on solid grounds the democrats and the republicans cant tell them it's going to be Hillary when it is Obama or the contrary
    as it is we do need to build up bridges very severely damaged bridges with  alot of countries  still seething over Iraq and the mismanagement of Afghanistan
    Bush is a lame duck, they are patient, they are not going to be taken for granted
    it is oh so nice to be speaking of allies , but we cant speak of allies and show them we are not able ourselves to speak united
    when it comes to Iran; as said Obama we need to get in touch and really in touchwith our european allies , we cant be as vague as Condi Rice who is a lovely lady but who has not obtained one shift of diplomacy by her own achievements, if the USA not Bush ae getting better credits, it s because those countries have altered their own not us achieving success and it but takes those countries shifting again and we lose what was an unexpected gain
    If HRC says BHO is going to be a good friend of Israel; all the chanceries are expecting him to be Pres/Veep or Secretary nothing less
    we have had our 15mn of dramaqueens now it is business time
    Most of you live in the US for me who is living abroard since those last 30ys , I know it is time for grownups to take charge
    we need and the need is urgent and cant and will not wait for Denver
    we need an officialpermanent definitive nominee his/her veep otherwise and hear me
    we are heading to the very same perilous times of the Carter presidency when sorry guys we were irrelevant

    hate to quibble... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    but the right thing to say would be: aipac does not represent the best interests of the united states, and it does not represent the best interests of israel, and i care about the best interests of the united states, and i care about the best interests of israel. so, i refuse to pander to aipac. i will not be speaking to aipac.

    of course, there's not a national political figure who has the guts to be so honest.

    So one is not allowed to comment unless (none / 0) (#99)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    one supports Obama? Is that the new policy?


    If so, I deeply regret the donation I gave to TL. (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    I've been here blasting.... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    the democratic party as a whole for a long time.

    As long as you abide by site rules, I believe Jeralyn welcomes disagreement.

    I don't support Obama and I still feel welcome by the hostess....if not by some commenters:)

    Parent

    Neither is Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    But so what.

    For one, the chelsea comment was a long time ago.

    Second, the comment to his wife is between them.

    Thrid, the "how can we beat the bword" remark was met with a sort of polite but uncomfortable chuckle which MAC follwed up with "i have much respect for her"

    John McCain has shown more respect to HRC (so have is supporters, btw) than Obama has.

    Father Pfleger?  MCCAIN denounced that more than Obama did.

    Funny (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    None of your comments addressed the legislative issues.  Like fair pay and productive rights.  I think his comment after the fair pay act was actually the most offensive because it was so condescending and naive.  Women need "training"????  Excuse me I think that's why I went to college, now I'll take my equal pay check, thanks.

    Barack Obama co-signed the fair-pay act.

    Say what you want about personality politics but legislative results is what we need.

    Finally, I can't believe you are defending him callin his wife the c-word.  No one should ever defend it, I don't care who says it to whom.

    Parent

    We saw that in 1998 (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    what are you talking about?

    Parent
    Those of us who will voting for McCain (none / 0) (#158)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee will be voting against Obama- not for McCain.  If you want us to vote "for" Obama instead of against him, your spiel needs to be focused differently. We already know that McCain is not who we want in office. We just "don't want Obama" more. Got it?

    I just heard (none / 0) (#160)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    Obama send out his 3 person VP hunting team. One is Carolyn Kennedy.

    LOL. Who are the other two? Ted? Michelle? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    First Smart Thing Pelosi Has Said (none / 0) (#209)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    this entire campaign.  We'll see if it lasts.

    Of course, it's still going to be met by many with too little, too late.  Which is true, but I guess she has to start somewhere.

    Ugh... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    ...could she be more condescending? It'll go down in the history books for sure, but perhaps not for the reasons Pelosi mentioned.

    I'm "saluting" her right back, heh.

    this Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#218)
    by VicAjax on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST

    thinks HRC would make a fantastic VP candidate.  i also found little to quibble with in her speech last night, unlike many people (both HRC and BHO supporters).

    there really wasn't a need for her to officially concede last night, and she ran a really close race to the end, so she's entirely justified in taking her time.

    there you have it.  a "reasonable" response from an "Obamabot."

    obama (none / 0) (#219)
    by sancot5 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:16 PM EST
    obama scares me he has to many weird friends  and birds of a feather flock together.  how do we no he is not one of those sleepers we hear about .  how can we vote for such a person we do not no that can only give speeches that no one really understands anyway.