home

Obama Won . . . Barely

I understand the notion that the nominee must have the freedom to choose a nominee he is comfortable but there is a certain reality that is just being ignored about this contest. Obama barely won. By any measure. Even by the flawed pledged delegate count, and including the Edwards delegates, Obama won 51.4% of the pledged delegates. Clinton won 47.7% of the pledged delegates. On the popular vote, by the BEST measure for Obama, he won by 0.4%. This was NOT a landslide.

As Jay Cost writes:

Obama has won the Democratic nomination not because his voting coalition is larger than Clinton's. As best we can tell, they are of equal size. Instead, Obama has won because his coalition is more efficient at producing delegates than Clinton's coalition.

Now I know I will be lectured about the rules again, and how Obama could have had a bigger popular vote (I am still waiting for one example of something Obama did not do because of his delegate strategy that cost him popular votes) and the usual litany of reasons why this means nothing. I just do not believe that. This was the closest nomination contest in modern history.

And this has significance for November. People seem to want to pretend it does not matter. they have declared the race over since well, some since Iowa. So to them, this was a blowout. And when they are not telling us it was a blowout, they then like to compare this race to Ronald Reagan versus Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter versus Ted Kennedy in 1980 and Walter Mondale versus Gary Hart in 1984. Let's look at those three races to see of the comparison holds up.

Here is Wikipedia's description of that race:

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, as well as plurality in popular vote, he did not have enough to secure the nomination, and as the convention opened both candidates were seen as having a chance to win.

Gerald Ford, a sitting President, won the most votes and the most delegates by 52.6%-47.4%, and yet the race went to the Convention. There is no doubt that Reagan ran incredibly closely to Ford. this is a comparable race to the current. It went to the Convention. Ford eschewed putting Reagan on his ticket. He lost to Jimmy Carter in November in a close race.

Would picking Reagan have helped him? In my view, almost certainly. Reagan's adherents were incredibly committed to him and it seems hard to imagine that it would not have helped him.

Take for example the state of Texas. Carter beat Ford in Texas by 130,000 votes out of 4 million cast. Take away Texas from Carter and he is down to 271 electoral votes. Carter swept the South against Ford. Would Reagan have made a difference in Mississippi? Or how about Southern Ohio? Carter won Ohio by 0.3%. You think Reagan might have helped Ford in Southern Ohio?

There is a lesson there. Ford despised Reagan for challenging him and he let his personal feelings get in the way of what he needed to be thinking about - maximizing his chances of winning.

As for Carter-Kennedy, the comparison is absurd. Kennedy made a spectacle of himself by going to the Convention 600 delegates behind and having lost the popular vote decisively. Now nothing would have saved Carter from defeat that year but having a divided party did not help.

Now how about Walter Mondale-Gary Hart? It actually was not that close delegate wise, especially since Mondale had every super delegate locked up long before the race started. Interestingly, even then the delegate selection process was incredibly flawed. Was the Party divided? I guess on one level but Hart did not inspire passion and once Mondale chose a woman, any controversy was mooted. Of course the campaign got blitzed by Reagan, losing 49 states so there was nothing to be done anyway.

Now which of these three races most resembles this year? 1976 I would say. That was a Democratic year too. But it ended up close.

What's my point? My point is this - you think about winning first. And foremost. You take every advantage offered. You avoid every potential negative you can.

Barack Obama has a problem, imo, in that he did not win a mandate sized victory in the Democratic nomination. He defeated a woman with millions of supporters committed to her and in key states. If there is a reasonable argument ELECTORALLY not to pick her, then do not. But "Michelle does not want it" is not a reason. "Breaks the change narrative" is not a good reason in my opinion if you are going to pick some run of the mill pol.

Now pick a Brian Schweitzer and you can see the argument and the actual follow through. Pick Sebelius or Evan Bayh, then you are just saying you did not want Hillary Clinton. And that is a problem. For Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< NY Times: Hillary to Drop Out Friday | Hillary Event to Be Held Saturday in D.C. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't see how this works out! (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    It's no secret I don't want her propping him up, cleaning up after him or in any way subordinating herself to him.

    But the things that he and his supporters have said about her, write a 527 ad against the dems. He cannot go with change and choose her. He has hung the Iraq war around her neck, he has denigrated the name Clinton. How will that not be used against him?

    I'm not lifting a finger to help him. I'm asking these questions, in the hopes of she realizing their is nothing to be gained by standing with him. She'll only be making dems like you feel better about choosing a losing candidate - in the hope that the one who should have been the nominee will carry him over the GE line as others carried him over the Primary line. Do you see a pattern here?

    He will lose the GE, whether she is with him or not. I prefer not.

    It was weird to see today (5.00 / 9) (#129)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    Novak's column in the Chicago Sun Times saying the McCain camp sees Obama as the weaker candidate and then to notice a little box above the column with national poll numbers.  It showed Obama over McCain by just 6 electoral votes, but Hillary over McCain by 30--on the day the headlines are that Obama is the winner of the primary. What is wrong with this picture?  I believe we just got sucker punched.

    Parent
    I'm convinced we got sucker punched (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by gandy007 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:52:29 PM EST
    Not sure how this analogy holds up, but it does somehow for me.

    If it look like a xuck, it sounds like a xuck, and it acts like it's a xuck, it probably is one.

    Especially if it throws a big xucking egg in your face.

    Parent

    In addition (5.00 / 7) (#177)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    Gallup's national overnight polling shows Clinton STILL AHEAD of McCain while Obama trails slightly.

    They nominated the weaker candidate because they didn't want the Clinton's to win.  No fact to be clearer to me.

    Parent

    EIther that or (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:38 PM EST
    ratf*cked by the GOP.  Not that Rove and company would ever game a Democratic Primary system.  Like, say, by getting the Dems to disenfranchise Florida?  Or swamping red state caucuses?

    Nah, they'd never do that.

    Parent

    I think you should try to keep in mind... (3.33 / 3) (#23)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM EST
    ...that many Democrats don't think they've got a losing candidate on their hands.  Many of them are excited, and don't particularly feel the need to assuage any buyer's remorse you assume they have.

    Parent
    Yes, that's the whole problem (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    Perhaps they don't think they have (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    a losing candidate as you say, however, for more experienced voters, they will be looking for a vp who brings experience and knowledge to him. He wants to shine and does not want anyone who will "dull" his glow(?)!

    Parent
    I think that's right... (none / 0) (#102)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:19:36 PM EST
    ...although I worry about implicitly conceding the "experience" argument to McCain.  But that being said, if it's experience that's really important in the VP choice, there are significantly more experienced choices than Clinton.

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:44:17 PM EST
    and Hillary would have been the nominee if our Democratic Party were more democratic!

    The Party leadership continues to  cut off their own noses.    Pelosi/Reid/Dean decisions are baffling and not helpful.

    This election should have been a no brainer for Dems.   The FL/MI decision was a fiasco.   The pushing for Hillary to get out has flamed the anger.   One bad decision after another.

    And, Jimmy Carter could not get himself reelected,and could have helped by not further inflaming Hillary supporters.


    I'm Enjoying This Immensely (5.00 / 15) (#17)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:42 PM EST
    Most fun I've had in ages.  

    As I've said, I have no idea if Clinton wants the VP slot, but Obama isn't going to get an unfettered choice here I don't care how much Keith Olbermann screams.  Clinton has signaled she's going to do what is necessary to unify the party, which is to announce she's suspending her campaign.  She did that after talking to some of her biggest and most influential supporters (e.g. Charlie Rangel).  After this discussion, several of them just happened to make themselves available to reporters and just happened to say they thought Obama should offer the Clinton the VP slot.  Coincidence?  My guess is that they told her they would support whatever she wanted if she would suspend.  Why wouldn't they?  And I do think she wants to be asked.  It would make up for an awful lot of the smearing.

    Plus, it is very smart politics.  As you pointed out earlier today, BTD, all anyone is going to talk about is "will he or won't he."   Obama isn't going to be able to make this go away.  He isn't in a strong enough political position.  They can leak crap to MSNBC about how terrible Bill is, but that just makes him look divisive when Clinton has agreed to do what needs to be done.  

    If Clinton wants to be VP, she may very well get it.  Whether Obama wants it or not.

    But even if she doesn't, getting asked is a good thing.  Pressuring Obama is a good thing.  After all, if he really doesn't want her on the ticket, then what's he going to offer her instead?  If she wants it, perhaps he could change her mind by offering something else?  All those Senators and Congressman and party leaders anxious to suck up to him, surely they could put their heads together to come up with something that would make her happy and help make her voters happy.

    On this issue, Clinton is in the driver's seat.  If Obama and his supporters don't like it, then they should've made sure he won by a larger margin.  Otherwise, their complaining is only going to make Obama look weaker when he realizes the political reality and be weaker against McCain as they continue to anger Clinton supporters.

    They can either decide that they want Obama to be President, in which case they will try to make Clinton and her supporters happy.  Or they can decide that President McCain has a nice ring to it.

    I know, it sucks to win and still not get your way on everything.  Particularly when you're a child, as so many of Obama's most ardent and public supporters seem to be.  But you have to grow up sometime.

    The difference is (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:52:33 PM EST
    they didn't win, they tied.  Then the DNC broke the tie by favoring the weaker candidate.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:06:49 PM EST
    But the DNC is allowed to pick the weaker candidate.  Hell, they almost always pick the weaker candidate.  The only reason Bill Clinton was able to sneak in is that none of the Big Dems had the courage to take on George "90% Approval" Bush.  If they had thought Bush was beatable, these same hacks would've foisted another Dukakis or Kerry on us.  They didn't and so their guys sat out.

    In any event the race is over.  For now.  The summer is long.  Obama will either get stronger or he won't.  Hillary isn't going anywhere until August.  Suspending doesn't mean she's out of it.  It means Obama is the presumptive nominee.  But the reason they're pounding the drums for Unity is because he's limping and his hold is tenuous.  This year the "presumptive" part has never been so needed.  So sit back and relax and let's see what the summer brings.  This campaign has been unpredictable so far, whose to say that's going to change now.  

    Parent

    I expect to be called a racist, (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:21 PM EST
    but Obama is an affirmative action candidate, pushed across the finish line by the likes of Donna Brazile. Without the penalization of FL and MI by the DNC, we'd be celebrating HRC's win.

    Parent
    BDB (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:10 PM EST
    You are one sharp political animal.

    Parent
    Years Of Federal Service (5.00 / 11) (#154)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:42:48 PM EST
    I used to shepherd things though Departments and the inter-agency process for political appointees, throw in chairing some international meetings and dealing with Congress and it adds up.  I spent years outmaneuvering my own Department's folks as well as other Departments to get some policies through, some good, some meh.  One of the great myths is that there is only one federal government.

    How sharp a political animal I am, we shall see.

    I do know this, if X needs you - no matter who X is or who you are - then you are the one with the power.  Unless, of course, X can order you to do something and has some mechanism to follow through and make you do it (like the ability to fire you).  If that's not the case, then X is screwed because X has no way to enforce his will upon you.

    That's Obama's problem.  He won, but that only means Hillary will not be the nominee.  She doesn't work for him or anyone else in the Democratic Party.  She works for the people of NY.  As long as they're okay with her, there's not a lot anyone else can do.  That's not going to change even if Obama is elected President.  In fact, Hillary could cause him every bit as many problems in the Senate, if not more, as he could cause her from the WH.  Nobody knows this better than the Clintons.  Congressional Democrats made their lives hell.  

    Parent

    Obama's Arrogance (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    will prevent him from sharing the spotlight with any high profile candidate, let alone Hillary Clinton.

    To be honest, I'm not sure this was ever about anything other than Obama; not replacing Bush, not defeating the Republican nominee, not even about putting a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Since he entered politics, it's been about Obama and only Obama.

    From what the evidence has shown us so far, the concept of altruism is foreign to Obama!

    Parent

    Even More of a Reason for Her to Push (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:12 PM EST
    The more he doesn't want her, the more motivation he's got to offer her something else.  Something good.

    Or, if she's a petty person, the more fun it will be if she can box him in and give him no choice.  

    Parent

    Well said BDB (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    I'm on the fence as far as Hillary - VP goes, but you've made some good points.  

    Parent
    I Figure She's Earned (5.00 / 10) (#158)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    the right to get for herself whatever she wants.  I can make arguments why the VP would be good for her and bad for her.  But she's been in the Senate and she's been in the WH, she knows the benefits of being a Senator and a VP.   So I'll support whatever she wants to do.

    Doesn't mean it will win me back to the Democratic Party, although  Obama and the party paying her real respect, as opposed to just mouthing it, is an absolute threshold for me to even consider voting for him in November.

    Although I'm never voting for McCain.

    Parent

    excellent analysis, I agree, basically a tied race (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    and what will probably be a close race in the general no matter which candidate we have. If either had any brains, whoever was the nominee would jump at the chance of getting the other.

    That's why I think Hillary is making a play for the VP slot. I think Hillary would be much better off not doing that and staying as a senator, but I think she's too much of a party loyalist. Funny enough, I feel certain Obama can't win without her and I really want her to run in 2012, but I actually think she would pass that up to ensure a victory now, even as only a VP. I'm sure Obama supporters will think I'm crazy for thinking that.

    Interestingly, I feel confident that if the tables were reversed and Hillary narrowly beat Obama in delegates, the press would be saying it's quite reasonable and historical that Obama not release delegates and only technically suspend until the convention. I think we may just have a double standard here. No, really. :-) I think that's a combination of sexism and Clinton hate.

    As an aside, and to separate from my emotions on what I want in this race for a moment, damn, this has been the best presidential primary race I've every seen in my lifetime. Simply brilliant politics. Even if I haven't liked some of it. Still brilliant.

    She would have chosen him in heartbeat (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    No question.

    Parent
    She essentially said so in March (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    She was doing that to try and get votes. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:59:48 PM EST
    Vote for me and you'll get both of us. And guess what, it was a da## good strategy and I thought "good for her" at the time.  That's what a pol's job is during a campaign -  get votes.

    Obama should take a lesson from her on this, imo.

    Parent

    She would have (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    and I would have supported him as VP.

    I can't understand the Obama people who are against at Unity Ticket.  Do they want to lose nobly?  

    Parent

    No, they think they can pull it off (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:15 PM EST
    The mistake their passion for him for general approval.  Deep = wide, to them.

    And they make a very basic data interpretation error.  Because he came out of (relative) nowhere and had a steep trajectory in popularity, once he gets 'free' of Clinton, the upward trajectory will resume its skyrocketing course.

    We (or many of us) see his flatlining in March and decline since then as due to his own actions and background, lack of fitness for the Presidency, what have you.  We do not see imagine much that he could do to halt the decline, and certainly not resume the ascendency.  But they really believe that but for Hillary Clinton, there never would have been a flatline.

    Parent

    I agree with this, BTD (none / 0) (#50)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:45 PM EST
    I would think nothing of it (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:52 PM EST
    if only the caucuses weren't under such dark clouds of suspicion for being gamed.

    Had he won everything he did, and those reports had never surfaced, this would be fine.

    What also bothers me so much about this is if just 10 Supers had become concerned about Rezko today and withdrawn their support from Obama, he would be below the magic number again. I firmly believe he was pre-mature in his announcement, that he's gaming again.


    premature and gaming (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by noholib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    Yes, what bothers me so much is that essentially we've had two candidates battle it out neck and neck in the primaries and caucuses.  The "gaming" is the premature announcement strategy that Senator Obama has been pursuing since early on (early February if I'm not mistaken): to announce that the "pledged delegate metric" is the only one that counts, and that anything else would be illegitimate stealing.  GWB did essentially the same thing in Florida in 2000, creating a reality by fiat before the deed was done.  
    Imagine a different scenario today, if everyone said: OK, Act 1 is over, the primaries and caucuses.  One candidate is slightly ahead in pledged delegates. Now it's time for Act 2, when the "super-delegates" get to perform their job, that is, exercise independent judgment about the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and make a decision about who's stronger for the general election.  
    Alas, it was decided much earlier on that the super-delegates would not, could not, should not, perform that function, but rather that they should simply ratify what had already occurred in Act 1.
    And as noted, Senator Obama did win Act 1 only barely.  But that was enough this time with the current game and gaming.
    And since I've been too sad and numb to comment on other threads since yesterday, I'll take this opportunity to say a heartfelt thank you !! to TalkLeft for the past few months.  
    Also, I trust Senator Clinton to make a good decision and to continue to serve the public in a significant and exemplary way.  But I am just so very sad that we will not be calling Hillary Rodham Clinton Madam President this time around.

    Parent
    You Are Right, MMW (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by nclblows on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    He will lose the GE, whether she is with him or not. I prefer not.

    I agree.  Totally.  

    I think we should actually develop a new party, really.  The Democrats have not been very Democratic, and we are going to lose the general election because of their stupidity and their misogyny.

    HRC will be much more useful as a senator.   Most VPs are never heard or seen.  Cheney was only allowed to do things as a VP because Bush was too stupid or too lazy or both.  You think Obama would let her take hold of anything and show him up with it?  No Way.

    RBC did cook it on Saturday: (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:58:03 PM EST
    if MI was included, Clinton won: Clinton +286,687 or with est. for caucuses - Clinton +176,465 - if all the uncomitted went to Obama, and no more it would have still been Clinton +48,519

    So those 4 measly MI delegates did rig this! They were trying to reduce the moral victory of her pop vote! Not gain her 4 delegates.

    Interesting analogy (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:01:15 PM EST
    Reagan did, in fact, represent a wing of the party, one that some people didn't want to acknowledge the existence of.

    Reagan was never taken seriously as a candidate by the media, but he had enough voters on his side that he got the last laugh.

    A winning electoral coalition is a precious thing, not to be squandered lightly.

    It would be a complete 180 for Obama to pick her (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:03:26 PM EST
    as VP. He spent this whole primary season (except for now when he is trying to make nice) arguing that Hillary is the status-quo, that she can't be trusted, that she is a Washington insider, that she takes money from special interests, that she doesn't represent change, and so on and so on (even though they are similar on every single issue). And it seems to me that many of his supporters and people in his campaign (and maybe his wife) actually believe that. I think that this is the main reason why he won't pick Hillary- His most gullible supporters would be confused and disillusioned if he did.

    No, he doesn't want her because she'd be (1.00 / 12) (#94)
    by caseynm on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
    a freaking ALBATROSS on the ticket.  Remember Vince Foster?  Remember Whitewater?  Remember Travelgate? Remember Monica?  Remember everything from the late '90s?...REMEMBER??

    As much as all of you folks on this site trash Obama, you forget that he never brought ONE of these issues up, EVEN one!!!  Do you think the Republicans wouldn't?  If you DO you are significantly more of a neophyte than you accuse Obama of being.  You don't think Hillary will bring every single milligram of Bill's baggage with her?  If so, you are totally deluded.  The difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama didn't roll in the pig slop like she did.

    If you want more Alito/Roberts, go ahead, abstain or vote for McCain.  But please know, I will hold every one of you who does personally responsible for the fascist world our kids will inherit because you were so myopic as to not see past your prejudices.

    Parent

    Remember 18 million votes? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    And I'm an Obama supporter.  I just want to WIN, no I want to CRUSH the repubs this November.  ANd with his votes and her votes, well, yes we can.

    Parent
    I remeber winning (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    two Presidential elections.

    Perhaps you forgot.

    Parent

    caseynm proves my point (5.00 / 7) (#139)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    Since Obama spent most of the whole primary season arguing that Hillary is the status-quo and that she can't be trusted, many of his supporters (like caseynm) and people in his campaign (and maybe his wife) actually believe that. So if he did pick Hillary, his most gullible supporters (like caseynm) would be confused and their heads would explode.

    Parent
    Jesus Christ (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:49 PM EST
    Bill Clinton proved in the 90s that not enough people cared about that crap for it to swing an election.

    And really, Vince Foster? That story is a JOKE to everyone who would ever even consider voting for a Democrat.

    Parent

    caseym apparently (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:27 PM EST
    thinks Hillary as VP is possible.
    And it is upsetting him.  Oh well.

    Parent
    Troll (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by denise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    This is what I hate the most about Obama supporters.

    I remember the 90s - do you? Whitewater? Travelgate? Vincent Foster?

    VICIOUS LYING RELENTLESS ATTACKS ON THE CLINTONS AND OUR DEMOCRACY BY RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS TRYING TO DEPOSE THE ELECTED PRESIDENT. A COUP D'ETAT THAT THEY NEARLY GOT AWAY WITH.

    You disgust me.

    Parent

    i thought your post was a joke (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    but since it isn't, and on the off chance that your stupid post won't get deleted, i'll ask you some questions.

    do you honestly think that bringing up vince foster would have helped obama?

    which would be a more effective strategy for Obama against Clinton: attacking her character by constantly implying she can't be trusted or attacking her by bringing up overblown scandals and conspiracy theories?

    and finally which is worse: attacking her character by constantly implying she can't be trusted or attacking her by bringing up overblown scandals and conspiracy theories?


    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#121)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    I remember that his campaign never brought any of the Clinton scandals up, other than the Lincoln Bedroom, Whitewater, Hillary's futures trading...

    Parent
    He didn't (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:47:28 PM EST
    bring any of that up because everyone would have laughed in his face if he had - other than the crazed wing of the O Team, that is.  And really, I don't give a hard sh!t whether you hold me personally responsible for anything.

    Parent
    I heard of those (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
    issues via Axelrod.

    In addition, those issues were played in the press over, and over, and over, and over again in the 90's.  Do you ever wonder why the media's trashing of Hillary didin't simply fold her campaign?

    It was because those phony scandals were all over the media in the 90's and NEVER AMOUNTED TO ANYTHING.  The public was trained to ignore Clinton scandals.  And they kept their training through this election cycle.

    So, please, if all you have is right wing talking points, and untruths, give it a rest.  I suspect you're very young and your parents were Republicans when the Clintons were in office. Am I right?

    Parent

    That convinced me, (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by gandy007 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:15:05 PM EST
    out of sheer fear.

    The fact that caseynm is going to hold me personally responsible for the defeat Of Obama, strikes terror in my heart.

    On the good side, I will die a martyr.  At least I'm taking the bullet for Hillary.  Otherwise she would be held totally to blame for the fiasco.

    I can live or die with that.  I guess I'm still not going to vote for the Anointed One.

    Parent

    I choose to abstain and will abstain (none / 0) (#123)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:28:00 PM EST
    I'm writing in "uncommitted" (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by badger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    That's the same as voting for Obama, isn't it?

    Parent
    As for me BTD, listening to your (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:07:16 PM EST
    reasonings all the time I've come here has been an amazing process. I don't always agree with you, but your argument above is the most logical, adhesive, and sensible argument for this ticket. Unfortunately, Obama does not think like you for all the reasons that have been stated 1000 times!Perhaps you would make a better president than Obama! Third party, BTD?

    Do not underestimate Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    I know this is a popular sport here but he is a good politician, an incredible speaker and clearly his political organization was utterly superior to Clinton's.

    Time to give some credit there.

    Parent

    I don't... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    I don't if the MSM stays behind him.  For some reason, I'm not counting on the Russerts and Matthews tender mercies, and anyone who does is taking a gamble.  He will not be Gore-d for sure, they're not that stupid, but they have Clinton animus more than they have Obama love.

    Except for Olbermann and Maddow obviously.  

    Jackson

    Parent

    In November we are all (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:17:52 PM EST
    going to be counting on this.

    His is the ship that is sailing and his is the ship that will take us into safe port.  Or not.

    May the wind be at his back, for all of our sakes.

    Parent

    Here ya go again,imo he is (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    not a good speaker. A good speaker connects with his audience. He's so busy concentrating on his prompter, he never looks at his cheering crowds. When he talks off the cuff, he is slow and says uhhhhhhhh alot and then not much comes out. His political organization learned how to use caucuses better than Hillary, but to what end when those of us who voted that way knew it was underhanded. Listen again, the words are empty. Why did he send out copies of his speech last night prior to giving it....ego perhaps??

    Parent
    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST
    I agree and disagree, I didn't watch last night because I was just too p*ssed, but he does give a good, formal speech (as does Hilary, she has grown in this election) like in 2004 at the DNC.

    But you are right that he is not nearly as good "off the cuff" and he did not shine in that last debate with Hilary.  In formal address, he's pretty damn good, but he needs to work on his less formal style.  At least IMHO.

    Remember, Gore destroyed Bush in that first debate, but lost because of "sighing" and "arrogance" that the media focused on.  Obama can be truly arrogant at times, so he has to be very, very careful about his likability in comparison to McCain, who despite being a regressive tool, is a very likeable guy with a great biograghy to run on.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Obama a mediocre speaker at best, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by gandy007 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:30 PM EST
    I would bet he has never tried a significant case in his life or probably even an insignificant one.

    He is shifty eyed. In my estimation he can't look anyone in the eye, and that would be death. A jury would eat his lunch and come back for seconds.

    On the other hand, Hillary is by any measure a much more natural and skilled speaker.  

    Only one minor flaw in my view. Although Hillary actually got much better, I thought her hand gestures early on were terrible.  Looked like she was doing moot court.

    As much as I love and respect her, it killed me to see it. I so much wanted to get somebody in authority and tell them so.

    Parent

    In Any Case (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    He is as good an advocate of democratic values as anyone. The fact that he is talented enough to inspire a lot of people, not necessarily you or me, makes him very influential and a good person to have on our side.

    With Obama and Hillary running the country we will have super solid leadership in the executive branch. I think things are looking pretty good for November.

    Parent

    What values? Inspire people... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    to do what?

    I just read a biography about Obama by a Chicago Tribune reporter, David Mendell.  I have questions.  The book frames the questions.  You got some answers?

    Parent

    Utterly superior? (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:27:00 PM EST
    Or just barely.

    It's absolutely moronic to compare the two campaigns in this media environment.

    I can run a campaign with a bunch of pre-schoolers if the media adopts every single one of my frames and narratives.

    Couldn't you?

    Parent

    Media aside... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:33 PM EST
    I'll give his campaign its due for its coherent and disciplined messaging, its astroturfing, its fundraising, and its top-down control and access to the candidate.

    Of course, these are the very facets of his campaign that convinced me he's just another politician willing to do or say anything to get elected, but there you have it.

    Parent

    Maybe up to February (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    he ran a better campaign.  Certainly he did so with caucuses.  But after that he outspent her by significant amounts and still lost the majority of primaries.  How is this stronger?  He did run out the clock by refusing to debate after his awful showing in the Pennsylvania debate so that was a good strategy for him too.  Have we ever had a nominee who lost so many of the last string of state primaries?  It does not bode well.

    Parent
    two probs. (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:53 PM EST
    well three.

    The media adopted his talking points to pound his opponents.

    The press sat on explosive video tapes of his pastor until they were certain Obama was going to win.

    He faded away after he "wrapped" it up in the 10-0 run way back when. Even when he was outspending her 5 to 1.

    Parent

    time to give credit (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:21:24 AM EST
    His voting record -- and I have studied it at least in the Senate -- has not convinced me that he is much of a politician.

    Nevertheless, the first thing that draws one into Obama is his speaking voice. It is very powerful and very magnetic. It draws the listener in. It is a voice that is filled with confidence in itself and encouragement toward others. His tone and his voice modulation and control are impressive and reveal training and discipline. Words like "change" that have been promised by thousands upon thousands of politicians down through history, soundenly sound as if they had some meaning. It is a voice that makes vague generalities sound like monumental pronouncements. He won't give us full universal health care, but he has a great voice. His economic policies are wrong for the working middle-class but his voice is certainly reassuring.

    I fully agree that his political strategy was cleverer and more effective than Clinton's.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 15) (#75)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:37 PM EST
    I'll say it again:  What kind of victory is it where the losers are energized and looking forward, and the winners are bitter and rehashing old fights?

    LOL, I was going to suggest some (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:10:45 PM EST
    anger management classes. Um, dude, like chill. Your guy stomped us in the ground. We got like no votes at all and you got all of them. There, does that make you feel better. Whew.

    Hmm, do you think the kool-aid is wearing off or something...

    Parent

    Hee! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    Especially since BTD was a (tepid) Obama supporter, and has been trying to get people to accept Obama would be the nominee for weeks if not longer.

    Rehashing old fights that didn't even happen -- think that's a sign of CDS?

    Parent

    They beat Clinton, but they didn't crush her. (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM EST
    I think THAT was a big part of the significance of her speech last night. It's why she was grinning at "what does Hillary want?"

    Parent
    Is Obama smarter than my 5th grader? (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by jerry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    Now my 10 year old daughter isn't in to politics and her mom is a McCainiac.

    They watched McCain and Obama and Clinton at AIPAC, and at dinner tonight my daughter thought that Obama should pick Clinton as VP if Obama wanted to win and for the same reasons the rest of us are saying it, because he has half the party and she has the other half.

    So the question for Obama et. al., is, is he smarter than a 5th grader?

    I am curious (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:09:28 PM EST
    Did you even read the title of my piece?

    Did you even understand what the post is about?

    You need to calm down and either start thinking or stop bothering reading this blog.

    We do thinking here, not cheerleading.

    You know there are place for the mindless stuff you are looking for. You can go to those sites.


    we need an acronym (none / 0) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    for these guys that seem to be coming down from the kool-aid and are all angry. Or maybe just adolescent is good enough. Let's all chill man.

    Parent
    Saving Face (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:14:06 PM EST
    I think Obama and Hillary are both giving their fans space to chill a bit before they announce a unity ticket.

     

    o/t about RFK (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    I know we are all still feeling pretty raw about the RFK nonsense from last week, but tonight is the 40th anniversary of that awful night in Los Angeles. I've been thinking about Bobby all day. He was my hero. I was 16 in 1968. He was my candidate. I would have walked across the country on hot coals to campaign for him. Let's take a few minutes out of this current political battle to remember a great American who fought for so many of the liberal ideals we still fight for today.

    Obama and Dems still have to earn my support (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    I'm open to considering whether to support individual and party, neither of which inspire confidence. They don't want nor need my support, so good luck to them.

    Downticket, I'll look at individuals. If TeamObama and Dem leadership continue behaving like jackwads, forget about any automatic support in that direction. Sending a message that resonates throughout the party, and clearing Dems of their Republican makeup would then be more important.

    Letting the Bush admin crap finish collapsing during the next four years, and having the Dems party away from being blamed for it might be best. I think Dems lost the White House today and I'll be surprised if they have much of a Congress.

    Dems haven't represented me for nearly a decade so having none for the next four years isn't a big adjustment.

    The only difference is that the apathy will now be official, and mutual.

    Smartest if he offers and she declines. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Llelldorin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:27:55 PM EST
    It'd probably be smartest all around if he offers her the VP spot publicly and she publicly declines. I can't imagine why she'd want it—she's much more powerful as a Senator—but she's earned the right to turn it down.

    If he publicly offers and she publicly refuses, it'll forestall the otherwise inevitable media circus that'd ensue when he names someone else. (The last thing we need is the media spending a happy month reducing internal Democratic party politics to a supposed catfight between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. You know that's what they're dying to do.)


    This is a nitpick, but... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    ...it's a pet peeve of mine when reading discussions of 1980. I'm not jumping on you, BTD; it's people like Rachel Maddow who piss me off with their selective discussion of history. The Republicans were far more profoundly divided in 1980 than the Democrats. Yeah, the Dem convention was contentious and the GOP one wasn't, but Reagan had to deal with a party split on the November ballot. One of his main primary-season rivals, John Anderson, chose to run as a third-party candidate and ended up getting 10% of the popular vote. In any other year, a situation like that would have been fatal to the split party. Carter didn't lose because of Kennedy, which people like Maddow seem to think; he lost because he was an incompetent, demoralizing President. Reagan had the albatross of Anderson around his neck, and he still managed to hand Carter his butt.

    Rant over.

    I've always thought (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by denise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
    a lot of why he lost is that the Democratic Party completely blew off the white working class through the 70s, just as they're doing now.

    Parent
    Why exactly are you here tonight? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by denise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    Is it your personal mission to lose Obama some more votes in November, or what?

    uuuhhhhhhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    sounds like someone other than BTD has a problem getting over Clinton.  Quite a little litany there, obsessed much?

    How's that GE going for you?  I've read several articles on Obama's GE strategy and I'm not even voting for him... how's it going for you?

    Obama has a GE strategy? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:38:55 PM EST
    I just have to answer (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    Why yes, yes he does.  He already has a team in FL.  The campaign is focusing not only on colleges but high schools aaaaannnnnnd they are combing through consumer marketing data. woohoo

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by phat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    I seem to remember a lot of people complaining about a 50 +1 strategy at one point in time.

    Tell me, isn't that what Obama just did? And isn't that his only option in November? Are people going to be upset about that?

    This is the closest race in modern history and it's the only way Obama could have won. I don't see how he can do anything different in November.

    Good History Lesson (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Deep Blue in TN on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    BTD. The problem Obama has is that the voter segments that supported Hillary are exactly those that the Democrats have been ostensibly trying to win back since Reagan got elected. And the problem is, except for Bill Clinton, the Dems keep nominating presidential condidates who connect very poorly with these voter segments. Right now Obama still seems disdainful of these voters, and don't even get me started on the attitude of his more fervent followers.

    Re Hillary as VP, it is important that Obama ask, it's the easiest thing he can do that would be clearly targeted at showing he gets it about these voters. However I also agree with Judge Hastings' remark quoted above that if he offers, she should not touch it with a 50-state poll. I don't see any first-rate politician having much fun as this guy's VP.

    For her I think she can just keep up her good work in the Senate, keep up all she has been doing to turn upstate NY blue, and help keep the NY Dems in line by occasionally threatening to come home and run for governor.

    Another reason is we really need those 60 votes in the Senate next year, and so for that reason I hope other than the Hillary ask, he does not pick any sitting senator, or even Dem governor. We need those people right where they are, particularly the ones who are doing a great job.

    I admit I'm still fuming, and I do feel disfranchised. Nevertheless, four more years of Bush-style policies simply are not an option from my POV. so I will be supporting Obama in the fall, and hoping that the Dem wind that's blowing is enough to carry him across the finish line.

    Thanks for reminding me. (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:42 PM EST
    If a sitting President can be taken to the Convention, then I don't see why it's unthinkable for Obama to go. It's really very close between the two yet it is talked about as though it is an affront to all Mankind.


    I reall don't care what's happens now (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:08:57 PM EST
    but what I do care is when my blood starts boiling when I read the blogs of Sullivan and Aravoisis echoing each other gloating at the loss of a woman. Yes I know it is politically incorrect to point towards their sexual orientation but it is hard not to ponder on the psychology of these two who day after day exhibit such naked and blatant misogyny with complete abundance knowing that no one will dare take them down.

    If anyone wants to "unrehabilitate" these two, especially the racist, war-mongering misogynist Sullivan count me in. I am all for taking him down and exposing him for what he truly is.

    I'm with you on Sullivan. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by AX10 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM EST
    Hannity is quite how should I say this...
    "normal" when you look at someone like Sullivan with his blind hate of Hillary.  At least Hannity attacked Hillary on her policies.  Sullivan has taken to ad hominem attacks on Hillary.  For him,
    it 's CDS.

    Parent
    hannity is a republican (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST
    he hates all democrats. He does not hide being fake sanctimony unlike Sullivan. Even now he tries to have it both way about the Iraq war.

    Parent
    I want her to be effective (4.88 / 9) (#11)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:44:04 PM EST
    in whatever role she plays.
    I want him to win.
    I want the media to stop talking about her as if she were dogsh*t.  
    I want to be able to listen to him without cringing.
    I want to be able to go to any progressive blog and feel at home.
    I want to thank TL so much for making the last few months bearable and often even pleasant.
    I want Bill Clinton to earn another fortune and spend it any damn way he pleases.
    I want the Democrats to deliver when they hold all the keys to the kingdom, just a few months from now.
    End the war.
    Fund embryonic stem cell research.
    Provide universal health care.
    Fix the earmark system.
    End dependence on oil.

    It's not that much to ask , is it?
    The two of them could get there.
     

    You got the wrong candidate... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by nclblows on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    End the war.
    Fund embryonic stem cell research.
    Provide universal health care.
    Fix the earmark system.
    End dependence on oil.

    It's not that much to ask , is it?

    That's Nader.  Not Obama....

    Parent

    If Nader Cared About Any of Those Things (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:28 PM EST
    I'd hear about him more often than every four years.  He's more interested in himself than building any kind of movement.

    I may vote third party this year, but it won't be for Nader.  

    Parent

    I think Clinton could (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    but, I don't know what shows Obama is capable. He's deep in the pockets of the oil companies.

    His new politics didn't stop him from earmarking at least $100,000 back to his friend, advisor and supporter, Father Pfleger.


    Parent

    Beautiful post! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:54:20 PM EST
    as well as succinct and on point.

    Parent
    There's not a being alive (4.88 / 9) (#35)
    by suisser on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    on this earth who could fix this one -
    I want to be able to listen to him without cringing.

    What he says, fails to say, how he says it, it's all a problem for me.

    Parent
    Here Is What I Think You Will Get (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    Reduced troops size in Iraq and increased troop size in Afghanistan.

    Expanded S-Chip program

    Possibility embryonic stem cell research

    Parent

    Also, what Cost is saying (4.87 / 8) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:37 PM EST
    is that essentially the delegate selection process was gerrymandered to favor a candidate like Obama. Those inner-city districts with a huge number of delegates (think PA-02) were almost as much help to him as his caucus wins.

    Under Repub "rules", ironically, (4.85 / 7) (#138)
    by Nike on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    Hilary would of course have won these primaries. I find it remarkable that the Democratic party has, as BTD's post earlier today reminded us, such a long history of being extremely heavy-handed in fixing the outcome of their primaries. Democrats, as least the party rulers, are not committed to democracy and clearly do not trust their own voters. These are the people who invented gerrymandering, after all.... It's too bad, because the party's success rate is not such that it gives the rest of us a high level of confidence that when they wrest decisions out of our hands that winning is in any substantial way a goal of theirs.

    Parent
    I actually whipped out my calculator (4.75 / 4) (#151)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    last night. If all of our states had winner-take-all primaries, Hillary would today have about 2200 delegates assuming she won the states she actually did. (give her all the TX, CA, PA, FL, NY, OH, NJ delegates, for example, and things get interesting)

    Parent
    I loved Huckabee's comment (4.75 / 4) (#159)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:11 PM EST
    Something like, "if he had been running with the Democrat's rules he'd still be competitive with McCain and if Hillary had been running with the Republican's rules, she'd have won already."

    Parent
    someone here posted this earlier (4.77 / 9) (#2)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    at the Confluence...

    Hmmm, now we know why the RBC did what the did. She had over 100 delegates from Florida and 73 from Michigan. If he got zero from Michigan and both states had been able to seat with full strength, she could have added over 86 delegates and he would have lost 59. Hmm, that brings her total to 1725 and Obama's to 1707.


    He was not going to walk away with 0 (3.75 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    from Michigan.

    Parent
    But he should have (4.77 / 9) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:55:49 PM EST
    he certainly deserved so.

    He won 0 in Michigan : Uncommitted is not named BO.
    That was the fair outcome b/c that is how he chose to play it in January.

    The RBC had no right to name Uncommitted. It just did it becuase. the RBC chose to giving Obama the edge (and worse). It had no reason to other than favoritism plain and simple. Nothing else.

    Parent

    Look up "uncommitted" in the dictionary. (4.87 / 8) (#137)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    And you will see his picture.

    Uncommitted is not named BO.

    Join the church/quit the church.
    Mentored by Wright/hardly knows the guy.
    Rev. Moss is a great young leader/won't say anything about Moss.
    Pfleger is a good role model and endorser/off the web site
    Talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions/won't
    Talk to Chavez without preconditions/won't
    The surge will fail/everyone knows the surge was going to work
    We're going to start pulling out of Iraq immediately once he takes office, and be completely out within under a year/ . . . ?

    How many months into the general until he flip flops on that one, too?

    Remember, he doesn't like to take a stand if it might cost him "political capital."

    Parent

    Pulling out of Iraq within a year... (4.80 / 5) (#165)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
    See how Samantha Power already torpedo'd his promises being made daily while she was being interviewed by the BBC.
    In an interview with the BBC's HARDtalk on March 6, Power stated that Barack Obama's pledge to "have all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months"[5] was a "best case scenario" that "he will revisit when he becomes president."

    Challenged by the host as to whether this contradicted Obama's campaign commitment, she responded, "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009.... He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president."

     She concluded by saying that "what we can take seriously is that he will try to get U.S. forces out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible."

    A common-sense statement.  The problem is Obama simplistically making his promise to his audiences as if he were selling oil at a carnival.  There's nothing wrong with saying you will start a careful withdrawal of troops, but saying over and over again he'd get us out "within a year" (as I heard him say) or "within 16 months" was just irresponsible.  Doing everything within his power, sure.

    Parent

    Actually he (4.75 / 4) (#153)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:42:23 PM EST
    flip floped 180 degrees already today at the AIPAC re. Iran;
    playing cowboy Bush didn't become him...
    And I am sure no-one believe him.. It was embarrassing that HRC had to vouch for him...

    Parent
    LOL daryl herbert (4.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:39:39 PM EST
    that was brilliant.  I loved your comment.  Maybe the Obama campaign has already mailed the Merriam-Webster with the suggestion ?...
     

    Parent
    Certainly the RBC (3.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    could have given Hillary exactly what she wanted, but even if that had happened everyone in the world knew that Obama had dibs on most of the uncommitted. At the end of the day, it just wasn't going to be enough. The supers made the choice.

    Parent
    I strongly disagree (4.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    the number of pledge delegates plus HRC wins in PR & SD could have open up the discussion ad given pause to people. Those
    Uncommitted could and should not have been named until August. So no, he could not count them at all.

    Parent
    He would have if (4.33 / 3) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST
    MI hadn't been under penalty and he made a strategic move to take his name off the ballot.

    Parent
    Well, that would have required (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    a sequence of events that didn't arise.

    Parent
    At best (4.75 / 8) (#5)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:33 PM EST
    his win is statistically insignificant.

    But I'm having a very hard time even seeing it as legitimate.

    His win is legitimate-- barely (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    It's his candidacy I have trouble with.  But there's nothing in teh Roolz that disqualifies a candidate who wins by playing dirty, unfortunately.

    Look at it this way: It's going to be interesting. (cough)

    Parent

    His win isn't legitimate IMO (4.50 / 4) (#108)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    Two state delegations were cut in half and some of her delegates were given to him.

    Parent
    No state delegations were cut in half (none / 0) (#194)
    by Lesser Dane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:54 PM EST
    There was never a full-vote delegation from FL or MI.

    Similarly, Hillary had no delegates in those states before the RBC meeting, so no delegates were taken from her.

    Now, it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the RBC ruling (I do as well), but representing this as something being taken away from Hillary which was hers to begin with is disingenuous.

    Parent

    Dr. Molly....you got that right!! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:49:46 PM EST
    It's legitimate (4.50 / 8) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    but as Jay Cost says, we don't know if its a reflection of the will of the people.

    The same would have been true if the supers had nominated Hillary.

    Parent

    Yes, I guess I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:10 PM EST
    But it depends how you define 'legitimate'. I do not think its a true reflection of the will of the people.

    Parent
    It's legitimate (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:48:16 PM EST
    ....in your opinion....

    In my opinion, we had kangaroos on Saturday, terrified of doing anything but supporting Obama..

    It wasn't legitimate, IMHO.

    Parent

    What Teresa said (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by gandy007 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    Not only was it not legitimate, IMHO, it was in direct contradiction to the Holy Rules.

    1. Thou shall not transfer the delegates of one candidate to another, I would hope much less  to one not even on the ballot.

    2. The status of an uncommitted delegate shall have the same sacrosanct standing and entitled to the same rights and privileges as a committed delegate.

    So should sayeth the Lord Dean and Queen Donna.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by margph on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:57:32 PM EST
    Your saying it was legitimate, Andg, doesn't make it so.  It was conjured up by a DNC that wanted what it wanted.

    Parent
    MI & FL (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by denise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    Not legitimate IMO. No way.

    Parent
    Florida should not have been penalized (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:31:52 PM EST
    because they were on record as trying to move the date back, to the extent they submitted an amendment to do that but the Republican legislature voted it down.

    The DNC did not want Florida's delegation to count.

      They should have counted in full, since Obama had TV ads there and held a press conference against the rules for both.

      By sticking with "the rules" he would have been subjected to losing ALL delegates from Florida, but no one else would be so crass as to even suggest that.

      Furthermore, the ONLY minimally-fair Michigan solution would have been all Uncommitted to Obama (at most) even though some would have been for Edwards, Biden, and Richardson also.  

      In NO way should a DNC with any integrity left (obviously none) go against a state-certified vote count for the popular vote figure, which is why CNN gave emphasis last night to the two scenarios which do not illegally give "Uncommitted" vote to a candidate who took his name off the ballot as a strategic measure to win in Iowa.

      Because they took delegates from Clinton that she had earned in order to gift Obama for removing his name from the ballot entirely, I will NOT support the DNC or Obama and they're lucky that most of us will support the lower ticket.
    If we do, at this point, from all my reading of Obama writers.

      Why would I want to belong to such a party that plays tricks against any semblance of democracy?  And they gambled with having Michigan and Florida voters (even if polls show Hillary could have won Florida from McCain).

      The more any Obama supporters want us to forget all this and act as if it doesn't matter or that Clinton and/or her supporters don't matter except to cast a vote for Obama and them, many of us may even stay home or worse, cast a vote for McCain (as many have announced).

      Unifying will be very tricky with the mindsets of Obama and his supporters, pre-win and post-win (the unofficial one).

      I don't say this lightly.  

    Parent

    I don't think it's legitimate (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    For how FL and MI was played.

    Parent
    How about not counting (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Lesser Dane on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST
    votes cast in elections that did not count at the time they were held, and were not used directly to allocate delegates?

    Parent
    Exactly. (4.50 / 2) (#99)
    by Llelldorin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:18:37 PM EST
    His win is legitimate. So would hers have been. They're both reflections of the will of about half the people, plus or minus a handful. That's why the party's stuck. If either win were beyond question, there'd be nothing to this.

    The question is what Clinton wants to do now. She could ask for a cabinet position, or for no interference from President Obama in passing her version of universal health care, if she wants to stay in the Senate. (Remember, when the president isn't a tin-plated jackass like Bush, the Senate is not inferior to the Presidency. If a Democratic Senate passes any version of UHC, Obama's hardly going to veto!)


    Parent

    Great Post (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:06 PM EST
    I would only quibble with one point.  I think that there's a difference between picking for the VP spot somebody who doesn't obviously represent "change" and picking somebody who strongly represents "not change".  Clinton, whatever her potential strengths as a VP, very much represents the partisan politics of the 90s in most peoples' minds.  Sebelius and Bayh may not represent change as such, but they also wouldn't undermine his change argument in peoples' minds the way Clinton would.

    And really, this is just about the public's perceptions.  Sebelius may not represent "change" to most people, but she also doesn't represent partisan politics to most people the way Clinton does.

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:44 PM EST
    Pedestrisan pols is politics as usual.

    Having seen Sebelius and Bayh, they are textbook run of the mill candidates.

    Schweitzer, Webb or even a Clark would be something different.

    Personally, I think he has boxed himself in on this  - it is Clinton or someone like that.

    Parent

    Don't extrapolate from your own experience. (3.00 / 0) (#38)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    The fact is, Bayh and Sebelius (and whoever else) are largely unknown quantities to most voters.  If they are introduced to voters as "agents of change" or whatever, then that will go a long way toward shaping how they are perceived.

    Obviously, their own political histories will be relevant, as well, but Hillary Clinton is already defined by her political history.

    Parent

    From whose experience should I judge? (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    I have seen them. Thye are are prject run of the mill pols. Have you not seen them?

    I think Richardson is a buffoon and I am positive he would be perceived a such as a VP candidate.

    I do not really underatand your comment.

    If you think just because someone is unknown they will not be seen as a pol, then you are introducing a new concept in politics.

    Parent

    If Obama is thinking of someone like that (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    he's going to go with Daschle ::spit::. (Hopefully last night made that impossible).

    Parent
    Yet it seemed to work for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:09:25 PM EST
    He was unknown, he and the party put himself out there as the agent of change and millions believe it.

    Obama may be an exception to the rule, I admit.  Or at least compared to Sebelius and Bayh.

    Picking Sebelius, without Clinton's ok (and maybe with) would be a disaster.  There is no woman alive he can put on the ticket that wouldn't be seen as flipping off her supporters.

    Parent

    Right.. (none / 0) (#110)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM EST
    Obama has done a fairly impressive job of defining himself as the "candidate of change" without it really being clear what that title consists in.  It's not obvious why he couldn't do something similar with his VP choice, as long as he wasn't taking on somebody with too much partisan baggage.

    Parent
    unknown, therefore not a pol? (4.50 / 2) (#178)
    by noholib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:28 PM EST
    well, is that entirely a new concept?
    Haven't we just seen that: an unknown who was able to claim that he is a squeaky-clean non-pol?  wasn't that the rationale for his running now despite his inexperience, because he doesn't have too much baggage yet? or at least that's how it would be and was perceived?

    Parent
    Nope, not entirely new at all. (none / 0) (#182)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    I don't think just anybody could pull it off as successfully as Obama has, but certaintly lots of people could pull it off better than Clinton could.

    Parent
    I think my point's fairly striaght-forward. (none / 0) (#56)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    We follow politics closely.  We know who people are, how they act, etc.  But isn't one of the first rule of politics "Don't assume everybody's experiences are the same as your own"?

    I may think X about Bayh, but millions of Americans don't think about him at all.  It's a mistake to assume that my beliefs about X will somehow be transferred totally intact to people who are introduced to him for the first time as Obama's VP.

    But really, I thought I said all of this fairly clearly in the comment above.  Clinton is already defined in the minds of the vast majority of voters by her very partisan political history.  Other possible candidates are not so defined, and would therefore have some room to define themselves as they enter the national stage.  I'm not sure why we're pretending this isn't a difference between Clinton and some of the other possibilities.

    Parent

    Do you expect a transformation? (4.83 / 6) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    I have seen them and it is my view that when more people see them they will reach the same judgment as I have reached.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#117)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    Obviously there's an element of speculation inherent to this discussion.

    At the same time, though, as it relates to this discussion, the worst case scenario with not-Clinton is that they end up being defined as "politics as usual" and undercut some of Obama's self-stylings.  But, of course, that's just to say they might end up having the same disadvantage Clinton is virtually guaranteed to have.

    Parent

    See, you miss the point entirely (4.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:33:18 PM EST
    The worst case scenario is a bunch of pissed voters not voting or going for McCain.

    Because of who was NOT picked.

    Parent

    Well, that's a different topic. (none / 0) (#170)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:52:44 PM EST
    There's a reason I qualified my previous comments with "as it relates to this discussion" and "whatever her other strengths".  Our discussion, you'll recall, is about how various VP choices do or do not undermine the way Obama has defined himself as post-partisan.

    But really, this is precisely my concern.  A lot of people feel very strongly about making Clinton the VP, and I think they often lose sight of why there might be disadvantages to that move.  I think you need to be more careful to distinguish between those strengths and weaknesses.

    One very possible weakness is Clinton's partisan baggage.  If discussion of that possibility slips so easily back into "Well, lots of people will be pissed if Clinton isn't on the ticket", then that discussion hasn't really engaged the potential weakness.

    Parent

    And as "unknowns" they are open to (none / 0) (#64)
    by Rhouse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    Republican "framing"  attacks.  They would be able to say anything (the Repubs.) and the VP choice would not only have to introduce themselves to the nation, but also have to defend against the attack onslaught.

    Parent
    This is really quite flawed (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:57:55 PM EST
    First off, Bayh and Sebelius and Vilsack are deadly dull, mediocre, pallid politicians who would bring zero exitement to the ticket.  Yech.

    Secondly, you are entirely wrong about Hillary being  "defined by her political history."  If she was, she wouldn't have won 17 million votes.  She has struck very strong chords with millions of people who thought they didn't think much of her when this all started and completely changed their minds.  She has turned into a brilliant campaigner and a true champion of the little guy.  Obama, whatever virtues people see in him, is not and cannot be a champion of the little guy.

    Parent

    A primary is a partisan election... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    ...by definition.  A partisan history can be an asset in a primary and a weakness in a general election.  This is particularly true if you're supposed to be running with somebody who is ostensibly post-partisan.

    Parent
    gyr....doesn't make any difference who they (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:05:34 PM EST
    pick...obama is going to lose the GE.  And obama is not exactly Mr. Excitement.  He has lost his luster.

    Parent
    He may not appeal to you, but (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    I don't think that he has lost his luster or excitement, judging from his speech last night.  

    Parent
    what about judging from the last 10 primaries (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
    Not to burst your buble, (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by gandy007 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:46:33 AM EST
    but like many things, how one views his speech is a matter of perspective.

    You thought his speech was exhilarating and inspiring.

    I would venture to say that a great many here, including myself; found it uninspiring, scripted, and to boot, insincere. That's a shocker.

    It was obvious he was blindsided by the non concession.  Clearly the speech was intended as a response to that and he couldn't very well pivot.
    That because his ego had compelled him to send a preview to the media.

    It was certain to me that he had intended to say, "I am (now) the nominee" at the beginning of his speech.  He is barely able to ad lib well enough to switch it to, "I will be the nominee."

    Even then the brain dead media was not swift enough to catch the difference or pretended not to.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:54:00 PM EST
    if Hillary had such high negatives as we were told for years and years by the MSM and is the "status quo" candidate, just how did she get those 18 million votes?  

    Parent
    Again, primaries are partisan... (none / 0) (#186)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    ...as I said above.  But really, the point here is deeper than that.  It's perfectly possible that Obama could be a formidable candidate in the GE, and that Clinton could be a formidable candidate in the GE, and also that they would be less formidable together, as a team.  The whole is not always greater than the sum of its parts.

    Parent
    Obama supporters did seem to buy (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
    that Obama is an agent of change without really anything in his background that backs up that claim.

    Parent
    What about Warner or Vilsack? (none / 0) (#29)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    Mentioned this downthread.  Want HRC. Think that is best.  But love Schweitzer, Warner, Vilsack. I'd live with those three, not that they're asking.

    Parent
    no no no to Warner, we need him in VA n/t (none / 0) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM EST
    I don't want to take him from you. Really (none / 0) (#43)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    I don't.  But what if the country needs him more in the VP spot?  

    Parent
    then we'd have a repub there (none / 0) (#59)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    and that would be horrible. We need insurance against Leiberman. We need a blue VA. And will don't want Gilmore in the senate.

    Parent
    I'm with you on the (none / 0) (#67)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    insurance against Lieberman.  This fall I hope we get 5+ on that issue.  

    And re Warner, it isn't my choice -- and I haven't heard much talk about him so it is likely you'll get your blue VA.

    Parent

    scorbs (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by scorbs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    He didn't win.  Period.  His pledged delegate count did not get near the magic number.  And SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE, NOT HIM.

    I really will avoid reading your arrogant posts from now on; you are very irritating.

    Jeralyn is worth reading; that's it.

    YOU ARE WRONG (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by scorbs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
    Caucus states are impossible to certify and they are NOT democratic, and you cannot count phantom voters because Clinton has as many imaginary votes as Obama.

    And last but NOT LEAST is how suppressed her votes were anyway; with all the constant hype the last two  months that Obama won and it was pointless to go out and vote for Clinton.

    People on blogs were reporting that when they called voters in primary states in support of Clinton, that they were told Obama callers were calling and saying, "don't go vote, it's all over."

    YOU KNOW HER VOTES WERE SUPPRESSED SO WHY ARE YOU SUGGESTING HIS WIN IS FAIR????

    Also his pledged votes are about 100 ahead of hers, all based on unfair caucuses.  And to say that what the RBC was fair to 2.3 million voters who went out and voted is delusional and undemocratic.

    YES, THIS WAS STOLEN.

    I think this is the last time i come to TalkLeft.

    Hillary will reject VP nod if asked (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kraftysue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:45:56 PM EST
    Heard reports tonight that Bill Clinton will not allow himself to be "vetted" which would be necessary for Hillary to be the VP. He would have to disclose all of his income, his donors to the libarary, foreign contacts and income, etc. Plus all their White House records and correspondence would have to be open to the Obama camp vetting committee.  This is part of the process and not everyone is willing to be so open (remembering Ferraro withdrawing her name due to husband's contacts.

    Important thoughts (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    And yes, I think this is a lot like 1976. Except in this case, it's almost as if Reagan had won. . .

    (BTW, you can bet your rear end that Mississippi and Texas, heck, the whole south, would have been easier with Reagan on the ticket.)

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    It was a different time

    Parent
    Presumably 1980 (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    was different also.

    As Reagan swept much of the South.

    Parent

    I agree, many of my republican relatives (none / 0) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    at the time thought Reagan was the biggest joke of all time. They even thought that in 1980 and many did not vote for him then (yep, Anderson). Of course in '84 they all did.

    Parent
    Someonme voted for him (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:59:54 PM EST
    He almost beat a sitting President in 1976 and then won a landslide in 1980.

    I am really amazed that some fols do not understand how you win elections on the margins. If Reagan could have gotten 100,00 more people of his to come out in texas in 76, Ford wins.

    Let me make it easier, LBJ won Texas for JFK. They were not voting for JFK, they came out for LBJ.

    Parent

    Let one thing be said for LBJ: (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:05:33 PM EST
    He knew how to win Texas, even if it didn't want him to. :D

    Parent
    from anecdotal experience only (none / 0) (#70)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:07:02 PM EST
    I'm not saying the margin wouldn't have made the difference in '76 around the country, I think in fact it would have. I should have changed my subject line I guess. I was relaying that many people that I knew looked at him with great suspicion when he first ran.

    Parent
    Inapt comparison (none / 0) (#105)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:21:17 PM EST
    It's a question of opportunity costs. Was there any conceivable advantage to Ford going with Dole over Reagan? I doubt it, so picking Reagan strictly dominated picking Dole.

    Not necessarily so this time. Bringing in Clinton as VP gains some votes and loses others (it's, um, not as if Clinton hatred and misogyny would vanish in the GE or if she's the running-mate). Does she help more, on balance, than Webb or Clark?  Rendell has issues and evidently doesn't want it, but just hypothetically, he would lock down PA; Strickland could be a huge boost in OH (issues there too). My point is, it's very far from clear that she's the optimal choice.  

    Parent

    This is not good thinking (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    Ronald Reagan was considered, hell was, far right.

    What Ford sold himself was that Reagan was too "polarizing," too "divisive" and that he need to capture the "middle."

    He thought Reagan's voters would come to him as the lesser of two evils.

    Politics does not CHANGE as much as people think it does.

    For example, I suggest people read Bill Clinton's speeches from 1992.

    He invented a phrase "change agent." Sound familiar?

     

    Parent

    that is a good parallel (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    the winning candidate thinking the other is too divisive, polarizing, and the others followers would have no choice but to vote for him. Sounds very familiar indeed. Hello, is anyone listening. Crickets.

    Well, if not, I predict a very similar result. And further, a very similar result in four years with that other candidate running again.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:45 PM EST
    You think there were no moderate Republicans that had a problem with the conservative wing of the party?  In 1976?

    Parent
    How about Independents? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
    I dunno (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:31:07 PM EST
    I guess we're writing a new version of history where picking Reagan had no downside.

    By the way, did you ever see my crazy VP diary?  Heh.

    Parent

    My point was the opposite (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    Reagan was painted as having MORE downside than upside because Ford did not want to believe he had many many committed supporters.

    Sound familiar?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    I am agreeing with your point, sillyhead.

    Parent
    It wasn't a vacuum (none / 0) (#162)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:12 PM EST
    Again, what disadvantage did Reagan have relative to Dole? Dole was incredibly hawkish on Vietnam, spent the early 70s building up such a far-right reputation that the Rockefeller Republicans bolted when Nixon tried to make him chairman of the RNC, and was an awful, wooden candidate.

    Reagan wasn't the Platonic ideal of a VP choice for Ford, but strictly dominated Dole. I don't see how the same is true for Clinton vs. Webb/Clark/maybe a few others.

    Parent

    I lived for 30 years (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:09:00 PM EST
    in a classic Reagan Democrat neighborhood, blue-collar white ethnic folks.  They all voted for Reagan precisely because they thought he was a joke.  These folks were so deeply alienated from politics and government, they thought it was a riot to have a ditzy movie actor as president.  They ridiculed him at every opportunity.  They thought he was a joke on the country-- which deserved it.

    Possible my little corner was deeply deranged and unique in their cynicism, but I've always wondered whether there wasn't more of that in Reagan's popularity among the otherwise voiceless than we ever knew.


    Parent

    I Don't Know (none / 0) (#28)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:49:20 PM EST
    I think you can make an argument that Hillary is the Ronald Reagan of the party in terms of shifting power bases in the party.  It's counterintuitive, but I think, to the extent the 1976 analogy holds, it might be right.

    Parent
    Could be. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:04:43 PM EST
    I could easily see her storming to the White House, bringing a massive mandate for change with her, in 2012.  Perhaps she will be the one to bring a new wave of progressive change, fusing old style New Deal democracy with the third way sensibilities of the DLC.  Obama sure isn't going to bring anything new to the table - and I don't think he'll even be asked to sit down in November.  I am hopeful that HRC will be back and better and ever in the next cycle.  I hope for divided government in the meantime.

    Parent
    Divided government (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    is the best alternative for this cycle.  There is no upside for Obama/Reid/Pelosi in charge.  None at all.


    Parent
    Yes! Agree with everything you said. (none / 0) (#22)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:18 PM EST
    I certainly hope that HRC is picked as VP, or at least seriously considered.  

    Have to agree though about Brian Schweitzer. Long before any candidate declared they were running my hopes were Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, or Tom Vilsack.  So, I guess if my hopes are dashed regarding the unity ticket I'd hope it be one of the three I originally wanted to be the Dem nominee.

    If it's not a landline, it means he has (none / 0) (#32)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    lots of political capital.  He can use it to tell all the Hillary supporters "to get over it, and if they don't like him, they can certainly vote for McCain".

    He will need approx 60-65 million votes (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    to win in November. Maybe he will reach that number, but I don't see that happening. General electorate isn't the same as a dem. primary

    Parent
    or caucus, heh n/t (none / 0) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:40:04 PM EST
    True (none / 0) (#155)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    But I could be wrong if this is a historic turnout for the GE which it will be. The winning candidate may need as many as 65-70 million

    Parent
    If it's not a landslide... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Prabhata on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    Not Schweitzer, plz. (none / 0) (#49)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    He'd be a fabulous VP candidate and could definitely deliver MT (only 3 EVs though) and help a great deal in the West. He'd neutralize a good chunk of McCain's maverick persona, cause Brian's the real thing, not media spin. But he's cruising to reelection as our gov this fall, and we don't have a strong Dem to replace him. He'll be term limited out in 2012 anyway; I hope they consider him them.

    The VP nod for Hillary seems like a no-brainer, something I hate for her as much as I see the necessity for the ticket. I'd donate and work hard for any ticket she's on and so would most of my family, which is not the case for a non-Hillary ticket.

    video for 1976 - knowing me, knowing you (none / 0) (#97)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    Couldn't resist after all this talk of 1976. Here's the ABBA video Knowing me, knowing you. Somehow I thought this was appropriate for the potential unity match up.

    oops, it's about breaking up LOL (none / 0) (#104)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:20:17 PM EST
    Didn't realize that until I just listened to it. Now that's kind of extra funny. OK, to make up for that, here's James Brown (with a spiffy mustache) with Sex Machine. Also from '76.

    Parent
    Ford/Reagan (none / 0) (#124)
    by Decal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    Could Ford have named Reagan as his VP?  I seem to recall each candidate already naming their VP choice before the convention.  Ford's was Bob Dole and Reagan's was somebody named Schweiker (?).  

    As I recall (none / 0) (#141)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    Ford got some last minute southern floor support (Mississippi or South Carolina) because Reagan named Richard Schweiker, who was too liberal for them. He failed to thread the needle in 1976.

    Parent
    That's not correct (none / 0) (#142)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    In fact, Reagan tried to force Ford to commit to a VP pick at the convention, as a strategic move, but failed.

    Parent
    I'm Open to Clinton as Vp (none / 0) (#164)
    by mattt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:53 PM EST
    but I'm not persuaded that the very close primary means he must pick her.  If anything, the close vote (I'd call the PV a statistical tie) might indicate against picking the runner-up.  With Clinton still disputing the result on Tuesday night, and appearing as though she was trying to leverage her support into a VP offer, it looked as though she were campaigning to be co-President rather than willing to accept VP.

    Hillary strikes me as disciplined and dedicated and I'm sure she could adapt herself to the role of VP - especially if, as part of their deal, President Obama gave Vice President Clinton a leadership role on particular issues - like healthcare - where her expertise and commitment are focused.

    But I'm not sure how well the idea of a co-Presidency would sit with the electorate.  Generally people seem to like to focus on a single figure and expect a clear chain of command.  Having Bill in the wings would complicate matters further.  An ex-President as VP's spouse - especially a strong VP - would be a very new phenomenon, and one wonders if he could help himself from "freelancing" now and then.

    Like I said I'm open to the idea.  I expect Obama will make no choice (and Hillary no decision) immediately, but will let everybody cool off a bit.  Take a few weeks to shift from primary mode to GE mode, and the landscape may look much different in terms of what Hillary could bring to the ticket - and in terms of whether she really wants the job or would really rather be a leader in the Democratic senate or fill a role in an Obama cabinet with more executive responsiblity.

    with all the whining about Tuesday night... (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    ...I'm tempted to coin a new phrase:

    You won. Get over it.

    Parent

    Obama Did Not Win The Popular Vote (none / 0) (#184)
    by flashman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:59 PM EST
    That's already been proved on this bolg.  Please stop making that outrageously fallacious claim.

    I guess it depends on what your definition of ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by dwmorris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:57 PM EST
    "won" is.

    The Obama jugernaut (including their unofficial surrogates embedded in the MSM) was allowed to define the terms of victory and ... surprise, surprise, surprise ... they won!

    WHO REALLY WON (none / 0) (#197)
    by chopper on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:41 PM EST

    Hillary Clinton 17,673,329 (50.45%)

    Barack Obama 17,355,652 (49.55%)

    DO WE GO WITH LEGITIMATE VOTES AND DEMOCRACY, OR WITH

    CORRUPT CAUCUSES AND DISPROPORTIONATE DELEGATES ?

    PELOSI SAYS GO WITH THE WILL OF PEOPLE.

    THAT SOUNDS LIKE GO WITH THE PEOPLE'S VOTES, DOESN'T IT?