home

Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:17:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Last night Hillary Clinton said:

"You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? . . . I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

Today, Politico reports:

. . . Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

Makes sense to me. Why worry about 18 million voters? So it turns out the Obama campaign has some not too smart people on his campaign too. Expect a swift rebuke from Axelrod over this.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Morning Edition | Weds. Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them? | 309 comments (309 topical)
    Don't (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:49 AM EST
    expect a rebuke from Axelrod on this. He's made the same statement himself about Obama not needing these voters. And we all know Brazille has said the same thing.

    Exactly (5.00 / 12) (#25)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM EST
    Besides, why should those around Obama be any smarter then he is? He thinks the Hillary voters are all bitter people who cling to their guns, religion & antipathy towards people different from himself. He said it himself. Axlerod said he didn't need the white working class, and Donna Brazile told the "base" to stay home. Frankly, I think it is less hypocritical of Obama to pretend he cares now.

    Parent
    Too little too late. I will never vote for him. (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:16 AM EST
     

    Parent
    What about the college vote? (none / 0) (#211)
    by henry2008 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    I am wondering of the college students/young vote will come out for him in the fall?

    Parent
    This is setting up to be (none / 0) (#340)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    a defeat of historic proportions.

    If he's relying on the youth vote, and rejecting the rest of us?? WTF is he smoking?

    Parent

    At least not till this attitude exists (none / 0) (#226)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    Clinton's unwillingness to recognize Obama as the victor only increased the need for Obama to act like a president and not like a doormat. And denying her a vice presidential slot may be a way of doing that


    Parent
    Time will come (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    when he has to come to her, BEGGING for her help.  For now, she DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.  Not a word, not an interview.  And neither her supporters--not even in November.

    Parent
    Time will come (5.00 / 2) (#266)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    when he has to come to her, BEGGING for her help.  For now, she DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.  Not a word, not an interview.  And neither her supporters--not even in November.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#292)
    by Brookhaven on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    Barack needs Hillary much more than Hillary needs Barack.  That's pretty obvious.

    Parent
    He needed four of her votes to get there (5.00 / 2) (#295)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    It's really a catch 22; he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Axelrod may be the astroturfing organizer who got him there , but Obama has yet to show us any political savvy on his own, other than gaming elections.

    Clinton is cornering him into addressing her base; it's smart. The Founder of BET is lobbying the Black Caucus for the VEEP spot for her. And we can see factions within the party again defaming her and trying to push her out; it will not go down well with her constituents.  

    Parent

    maybe but... (1.25 / 4) (#329)
    by vrusimov on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    he was smart and savvy enough to slam the idiocy of her proposed gas moratorium, which shows just how clueless she is on our foreign oil dependence...she is going to smash OPEC? now that was funny, i laughed the whole day...Obama may be in the stands be she's not even in the ballpark on matters of oil...

    Parent
    Those that blog do not equal the average voter (none / 0) (#268)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    This notion that he would court those that hate him right now doesn't make sense.  Of 17 million voters on either side, only a fraction have these kind of feelings.   Most will come, because like most of us, we thought they were both good candidates.  He now needs to spend his time working on his message vs. mcain.  
    P.S.- I really hope you do vote for him, we need all the votes we can get.

    Parent
    He needed to construct (5.00 / 3) (#293)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    his big tent during the primary.  Instead he threw whole groups under the bus.  Those people didn't have to read blogs to realize that.

    May be a little late to repair the damage done, I'm afraid.


    Parent

    under the bus... (none / 0) (#332)
    by vrusimov on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    some would argue that she threw the little states under the bus and it contributed handily to her eventual loss...

    Parent
    have (5.00 / 1) (#294)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    you seen the exit polls? The average voters have already said, the majority anyway, that they won't vote for Obama or will sit home.

    Parent
    He's done a lot of damage (5.00 / 2) (#301)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    and these same people who don't blog watch Fox News and a lot of their associates are conservative.  And a chunk of those votes were pre-Wright, pre-freaky catholic church.

    so the ones on the blogs are pretty much political junkies, but the average joe and jane hear things.  they are not as low info as axelrod wants to pretend they are.

    Parent

    MCain's message Right Change, not Wrong Change (5.00 / 3) (#310)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    McCain is going to run as the anti-Bush; he's running on RIGHT CHANGE, not WRONG CHANGE. I guarantee you there are many moderate Dems who will cross over. While McCain wanted to work with Obama on a bill, Obama abandoned it to join forces with a Dem sponsored bill. That's partisan politics in Washington, the old style partisan politics Obama says he doesn't play. Being that the Republican brand couldn't be much worse, McCain is neck and neck. Impressive.
    Obama and supporters are taking a lot for granted and I think the arrogance (he and his campaign have shown) will ultimately be his doom...

    Parent
    Wrong. My mother, sister and husband do not (5.00 / 2) (#346)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    blog.  They will never vote for him.  

    What is this "we need all the votes we can get" stuff?  Who is we?  Obama supporters?  Sorry Charlie, I put country ahead of party.

    Parent

    Why would these people (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    be so shortsighted to even bring this up?  It's not like he won by a huge majority here.  Makes you wonder what the people who didn't bother voting in the primaries are going to do in November.  He's far from a shoo-in.

    Obama will not get the sympathy vote.  That's for sure.

    Parent

    Bush the third? (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM EST
    His attitude is no different than Bush in 2004. After Ohio, he claimed the "mandate" of the people. I guess life can be any reality you want if you live in a glass bubble. I really expect and hope for more from a leader. There's more to governing than spin.

    Parent
    Add it's not 18 Million it 's many many more (5.00 / 7) (#240)
    by Salt on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    That believe Hillary not Obama won this primary based on the real Will of the voters who spoke.  And I can assure you when I move candidates, like many other strong women I take with me many voters so the math needs a multiplier.  And stop with the silly demeaning analysis that were hurt, boo hoo. I'm not, nor am I a victim, nor wanting Hill on an Obama ticket and could care less if the Obama wing of your Party respects me in the morning I do not respect them.  I am however truly disgusted with the Dem Party and my view of the Primary as a scam with faux rules fake delegate distribution, a fraud. And had I known, how delegates are distributed I would not have bothered spending my money or my energy on this race, that's shame on me as a member of the electorate.  I can wait until 2012 no problem, my current priority now is to work to end Pols discretionary spending of our tax revenues and curtail non discretionary legislation and mandates now used to buy supporters versus pols needing to work hard and govern to win their voters and that's where my vote will go this round.

    While my political philosophy may continue to lean Left, or I believe it dose, I know after looking closely at the Dem Party, the Dem Leadership, the Dem Rulz the Dem Rulz Committee, the Diversity make up in the Dem Leadership, I'm not a Dem.


    Parent

    At least he filed (none / 0) (#338)
    by mg7505 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    his tax returns so we know how much he's being paid.

    I'm looking forward to the rants from Obamabots when desperation sets in close to November and they see their guy can't win. Of course it will be IACF IACF ad nauseum, but at least I'll be able to laugh about it then.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#339)
    by vrusimov on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    interesting conspiracy theory my friend...you should peddle this to information clearing house or something...they might actually pay you for it...this is the most ridiculous assertion i've heard since the presidential threshold test...keep up the good work though...

    Parent
    Much easier to sway Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:22:30 AM EST
    ... with your message of change.

    www.lobbydelegates.com (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by janedw420 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    please let them know there is still time...

    Parent
    why should the self-proclaimed (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:23:22 AM EST
    nominee worry about actual voters, he hasn't so far?

    frankly, i'll wait for the movie in august.

    Not Sure Why You Think They Will Receive A (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:23:36 AM EST
    from Axelrod. IIRC he was on TV stating that the Obama Party doesn't need to rely on the working class to win. We don't need them has been a common theme throughout the primary and reinforced by Brazile and other Obama surrogates (declared and undeclared).

    I think they all said a lot when (none / 0) (#14)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    trying to influence superdelegates.  They want those votes and I'm sure they will work for them.

    Parent
    I'm Not Sure That Obama Will Spend Much (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    working to get these voters. IMO he will delegate most of wooing of the non-Obama base to Edwards and Clinton. Also, I don't think Obama will be able to woo them.  He is visibly uncomfortable around small town and rural voters and looks like he would rather be anywhere else but in their environment. He IMO has absolutely no understanding or empathy for these folks and it shows.

    Parent
    He needs both halves of (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    the Democratic Party to win.

    Clinton and/or Edwards can help, but people vote for the top of the ticket.  It would be a mistake for him to assume they can deliver voters to him.

    His coalition was barely enough to win the nomination, and might not have done so if there were primaries instead of caucuses in some states.

    Barack Obama has to do it.  Clinton cannot really deliver all those votes.  She can help, yes, but people will make their choice on Obama and McCain.

    One thing, I think the stadium/big crowd/rock star thing hurts him.  Voters over 35 with kids are not looking for that kind of a leader.  

    His speech last night seemed angry.  He looked tired.  He needs to smile more.

    I want him to win.  I sure don't want McCain.

    I think he can win.  His campaign has to see the strengths and weaknesses.  It will take work.  That's why the statement that BTD quotes is so stupid.  Why say that?

    I also think Clinton will do a lot to unify the party.  And I am not sure she wants VP, notwithstanding all the media hype.

    Parent

    I Agree That Obama Has To Do The Heavy (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    lifting if he is to win over large portions of the American public. What his campaign fails to realize is that some if not much of the reluctance to vote for Obama has more to do with Obama then it does with Hillary. Also, I think that Obama's campaign has the Democratic disease of thinking that 1) there is no way they can lose and 2) voters will just naturally fall in line and unite behind Obama.

    You see this in every statement from Obama's campaign and from the Dem leadership. They are operating once again under the premise that the voters will finally "GET IT." The fall back position that women voters will naturally vote Democratic because of Roe v Wade is not substantiated by past history. Roe was at risk in 04 and Bush won white women by 55% to 44% and that was without the party politicians dismissing and insulting women.  

    Parent

    Yes. They have to fight for (none / 0) (#308)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    every vote.

    Parent
    Tom (1.00 / 1) (#330)
    by talex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    you were so wrong about Edwards over at dKos and you are more wrong about Obama now.

    Parent
    you noticed that, too, MO Blue? (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    He is visibly uncomfortable around small town and rural voters and looks like he would rather be anywhere else but in their environment. He IMO has absolutely no understanding or empathy for these folks and it shows.

    I've noticed the same thing--picked up the same, tense vibe from him in working class environments. I suppose most of his ardent supporters would be awkward in them, too. (Goodness, are these people racist yahoos! Will they shoot me if I say the wrong thing?) It's similar to the obvious discomfort that some middle class whites exhibit in all-African American environments. It's either "please don't hate me; really, I'm cool!" or "you folks are scary; nice to see ya; gotta run!"

    He needs to work on that.  

    Parent

    Academics sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    are uncomfortable around working people.  he does not to work on that, but I think he can.

    Parent
    Sure he can (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    He just won't.

    Parent
    Excuse me, but academics are hard-working (5.00 / 1) (#353)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    union members, in case we missed something here.  I think you mean elite professionals, but even that isn't right, is it, since many professionals are also hard-working.

    But just because my fellow University teachers take enough bashing as it is, please don't stereotype us, especially lumping Obama's arrogance and hubris in as a characteristic of our group.

    Some of us have also worked in mines & steel mills, driven taxi and worked on farms, while also members of academia . . .

    Parent

    Whoops. (none / 0) (#177)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    "He does need to work on that" is what I meant.

    Parent
    excuse me? (none / 0) (#230)
    by blcc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    Are you suggesting that the Obama camp was trying to sway superdelegates by insisting they would not be pursuing Clinton's voters?  Or are you suggesting the anonymous senior adviser cited in the article was lying?

    Either way, where's your evidence that Obama will be working for Clinton's voters?  Because I'm going to put forth the suggestion that he start by making nicey-nice.  

    It's on HIM.  Not her.

    Parent

    Typical hubris. (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by alexei on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:23:39 AM EST
    Along with the Reid, Pelosi and Dean.  So, I guess this is the change we have been promised.  Ignore and vilify 18 million Americans, disenfranchise voters and steal votes.  Looks like the Republican Party to me and I always thought Nader was wrong.

    Same here re Nader...,. (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    The Democratic Party shocked me with the FL/MI deciion to disenfranchise voters.   It's no longer the party that I have loved for a lifetime.

    The arrogance and the disrepect of people from the Obama machine is beyond my understanding.   Seems to me that they are cutting off their noses.

    Looks like I will bevoting for Hillary in 2008.

    Parent

    "Not Bush" (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by Mike H on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:53:00 AM EST
    I think that Obama and his people truly believe that all he needs to do to win the generals is wander around not being a Republican, not being Bush.

    That somehow all the traditional Democrats they've disrespected will indeed "fall in line" simply because they've been told to.

    That will likely fail.  Indeed, it will likely fail hard once the media turns on Obama, which they will start to do relatively soon.

    He's gotten SUCH a free ride to this point, it's not even funny.  If I'm wrong, so be it, but I don't see him withstanding the combined GOP and media-driven assault on him that will happen.  He may have to struggle just to get as many states as Kerry did.

    Parent

    It Really Does seem time (none / 0) (#334)
    by talex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    for a whole lot of us to migrate to a Third Party and strengthen it and thereby making our voices respected and heard.

    This was the year when the Democratic Party jumped the shark in so many ways.

    Parent

    Yes, I saw that also and think it is (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    key.  Respect for Clinton voters and supporters.

    you can't fake respect (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST


    Parent
    well (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    you might be able to.  but being called low, brow low information, low education, low income, HillaryBilly hick racists and THEN being told you are respected doesnt help the process along.

    Parent
    Even if Axelrod does rebuke this, (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Esme on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    it's all words. There has been not a single action on the part of the Obama campaign to indicate that they care about Clinton voters. On the contrary, we have been laughed at, smeared as racist, and through under the bus.

    Everyone tells us that we aren't a part of the "new democratic party". Let's see how that works out, shall we?

    That would do it for me. But if the primary (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:01 AM EST
    campaign is any guide, I wouldn't expect any wooing to be policy-based.

    Parent
    Apologies -- the comment above was meant (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    as a reply to the comment further up suggesting that Obama adopt Hillary's health care proposal.

    I would really reevaluate him if he took that step.  But like I said, he doesn't seem to have the appetite for policy.

    Parent

    Obama is too arrogant to go that route (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by TomLincoln on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    I just do not think he has it in him to say "her universal health care planb is superior to the one I pushed."

    He will see if she can bring her voters along. If she can't he will always let others do the persuading.

    Since I do not believe he is capable of dealing with the problems facing our country, that simply will not be resolved with "just words," I would never support him for president.

    I liked McCain's line that the Dem. leadership gave Obama the nomination. Whether Obama likes it or not, what happened at that RBC meeting last Saturday gives affirmative action a bad name.

    I truly expect Donna Brazille to think of herself as so important that she will not declare until Al Gore does.

    Parent

    Got gut feeling that a major gaffe is in the wind. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    On the Obama side.

    If anything happens or comes out I pray (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    it is before the convention.

    But, then, the Republicans are good at this dirty tricks timing stuff.

    Parent

    Obama is a walking major gaffe... (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    seriously, get him away from a teleprompter for 10 minutes, and you've got a gaffe.

    So the issue isn't whether there will be a gaffe from the Obama campaign -- its how it will be reported.

    And given the way the media works (the campaigns drive the coverage) I expect to see the next few months becoming gaffe-apalooza.  The media decided that Obama was the nominee in February, so paid little attention when the Clinton campaign emphasized Obama's gaffes.  

    But when the McCain puts out an email pointing out an Obama gaffe, it WILL get covered.

    Parent

    When Obama said repeatedly that he did not (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM EST
    want to re-fight the battles of the 1990s, apparently he also meant he wants to forget the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s.

    Obama needs to start wooing and soothing, pronto.

    suspect he knows many of them (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:06 AM EST
    will never vote for him.
    we had major weather last night so the only speech I saw was McCains.  listening to the heads this morning you would think we were talking about american idol.  
    heres a question for Obamans, if you really think giving a very professional speech is the most important part of being elected president, how do you explain W?
    I thought McCain was good last night.  he knows he cant compete with Obama in oratory and he didnt really try.  but he had things to say that people will respond to.
    my favorite line was the one about how he doesnt think he is the person anointed to save the country in its hour of need but was the person who was saved by his country.
    lets see how (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    the old guy does in November, hum?

    Parent
    Likely better than most expect (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Mike H on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:11 AM EST
    I think the Democratic leadership that conspired to aid Obama are going to be dumbfounded by how well McCain does against Obama.

    Should this travesty continue and Obama truly is anointed in August, we will be seeing a McCain inauguration in January, barring a complete McCain meltdown.  A Dem unity ticket might help thwart that scenario, but I honestly don't see that happening.  

    Indeed, I think Obama would be petrified of being upstaged by Clinton as his running mate, since she is still so clearly the better, more experienced, more capable candidate.

    Parent

    I completely agree, however (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    so far this cycle I have been consistently and spectacularly wrong at every opportunity so the smart money would be to bet on the opposite of whatever I say.

    Parent
    Better then slaps in the face (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:40:11 AM EST
    that Obama has given us.

    Parent
    if McCain (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:36 AM EST
    picks a formidable, credible woman as VP Obama might as well go home and watch tv for the next few months.


    Parent
    Senator McCain does not speak with... (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by NotThatStupid on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM EST
    ... the same facility that Senator Obama does, true.

    But, despite the clumsiness of his speech, I feel he is sincere about what he says - something I do not feel when I listen to Senator Obama.

    Besides, if all we wanted in a President was a speechmaker, shouldn't we be getting our candidates from Toastmasters?

    Parent

    really (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    again two words.  George Bush.
    also, McCain may not be a great speechifier but he is very good in debates.  he will eat Obama alive in a debate.


    Parent
    McCain spin (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    A bit of MSM spin for McCain that I thought I saw peeking out from under the covers last night:  No, he's not a great orator but it's because he's such a humble guy.  He truly believes in getting things done and does not mind sharing credit.

    Remember a few weeks back folks were saying the same sharing the credit thing about Ted Kennedy and everyone thought it was wonderful?

    I think it has potential to be effective against Obama if they run with it.  It's another thing that distances himself from Bush (goodness knows he doesn't have any humbleness problems) and highlights the eliteness criticism of Obama, which already has a fair amount of traction.

    Or I could be all wrong.  I'm not saying I believe it, and I'm still not voting for McCain, but it was interesting.

    Parent

    to be clear (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    I will not vote for McCain.  but I know many who will.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#267)
    by blcc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    As a matter of fact, I do.

    Obama should take notes.  I'm Indy now - my vote is up for grabs and if McCain comes courting?  Well let's just say it feels a lot better than the slapping around and name-calling the Obama camp has been dishing out.

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:01 AM EST
    I didnt see the whole thing, my satellite dish was going in and out, so I didnt see the so called pandering part.

    Parent
    practicing already for the general (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    with mccain put downs?

    Parent
    McCain better shake up... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    his advance team. They had a crowd of zombies that did not recognize his laugh lines. They cheered like Pavlov's dogs at the old standard Republican red meat lines. But they were befuddled by the change rhetoric. I think his smirks were to clue the crowd in when they did not get it.
    It was a well-written speech and the talking heads working from transcripts loved it but it crashed in person. McCain also has to learn that he is not a good enough orator to give a speech for the first time on national television. That speech will mature into a good stump speech for him, but he was squinting at the teleprompters when unfamiliar lines came up. Obama and Clinton can pull it off but McCain has to practice a little.

    Parent
    enjoyed McCain trying to pander to Hillary support (none / 0) (#354)
    by mm on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    Absolutely.

    Better than getting spit on by my former party's nominee.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:30:35 AM EST
    Obama is responsible for this not Clinton. Obama and his campaign have called us names not Clinton. Obama needs to take responsbility and quit blaming Clinton.

    Simple question: How is Obama responsible? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:46 AM EST


    Parent
    We can start (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    with pushing the RFK story.  That's a Big Lie, like the ones we've been hearing from Republicans for years, as opposed to the normal political ones.  It's repugnant and was for me the last straw. If I wanted to vote for someone who had Karl Rove's values, I'd vote GOP.

    Parent
    Funny, I saw it as the last straw (none / 0) (#74)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    for her chances as VP.  Not because she intended to make the insinuation, although it's obvious that her campaign considered this as a possibility, but because in the week a Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer it showed a remarkable lack of political empathy--the very thing I admired in Bill.

    Parent
    Simple Answers: He's running to be a Leader (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:05 AM EST
    In lieu of real accomplishment, he has presented his slick campaign as leadership cred. He should lead on this, you know, Like He Said.

    Parent
    simple answer (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:08 AM EST
    I don not now and will not differentiate between Obama and his band of rabid supporters who spew venom on the pro Obama blogs.

    I could have if Obama ever came out and denounced them.  I could have if the DNC ever came out and denounced them.  I could have if the dem leadership ever came out and denounced them.

    But, no one did.  So, I consider those blogging supporters to be totally representative of the Obama campaign.  period.

    Parent

    Simple answers, just some examples: (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    Running a campaign that labeled a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, a former Democratic President,two Democratic governors, an entire region of the country (Appalachia), and perhaps half of Democratic voters in the primary as "racists."

    And, for me especially, letting a homophobic preacher take over a campaign event in South Carolina, after being warned, and then refusing to criticize the preacher's words, or apologize.  

    Really, South Carolina says it all:  paint Bill Clinton as a racist, and throw gays under the bus, to solidify Obama's votes in the African American community.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    As the leader of his campaign, he sets the tempo and he decides what happens within it. He knows and approves of their actions or he would have reigned them in. His campaign has been very choreographed from the start.

    Parent
    Simlle question (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    Who is responsible for persuading these voters to vote for Obama? Myself, I think that would be Barack Obama.

    Parent
    Not Obama (5.00 / 2) (#272)
    by chattedort on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:51:23 AM EST
    In fact, it was not Obama who was responsible, it was once again the media that chose him. My main reason for not voting for Obama is the media. Our fight is with the media. They made Obama just like they made Bush. They destroyed Clinton just like they destroyed Gore. If we continue to allow them that power, we are no longer a democracy. My vote is certainly a repudiation of Obama, but most important is the repudiation of the media.

    Parent
    obama is responsible. (5.00 / 1) (#323)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    he opened pandora's box. he supported his surrogates bashing the clintons. he gave hillary the bird during a speech, so i don't buy that spin ever.

    Parent
    Here's how Obama is responsible (5.00 / 8) (#147)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    When Obama brushed off his shoulders and shoes, visually portraying Hillary Clinton as dirt (or worse,) he lost any chance of getting my vote.  It wasn't a supporter nor the media.  It was Obama himself.  

    Parent
    Obama chose to run a divisive campaign based (5.00 / 8) (#283)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    on demographics. A campaign that encouraged and exploited generational, racial, gender, class and regional resentments, misunderstandings, fears, and prejudices. A campaign in which he personally told black Americans that the Clintons had "bamboozled and hoodwinked" them and his surrogates told them that Hillary Clinton was a racist "who never cried for Katrina." A campaign that told young Americans that older Americans were standing in their way and had to be destroyed and defeated, that told young women that older feminist and activist were angry people responsible for the ugliness of the Rovian era of politics, that told men that Clinton was like "everyone's first wife" a "monster" who "would do anything, say anything" to win election, a campaign that told elite Democrats that working class Americans, the party's traditional base, were "bitter" racists whose votes the party no longer wanted or needed, a campaign that explained hispanic support for Clinton solely as racist (and encouraged, while never admitting to, the racism and racial resentment of working class African Americans toward hispanics) etc., etc. A campaign that further, in order to attract Republican and Indpendent votes, catered to Clinton hatred and told those Clinton haters and former Bush voters that Bill Clinton's administration was no better than the Bush administration and equally responsible for the problems we face today.

    These tactics won him the nomination, barely. But they also won him a mess for the general election -- a divided party, millions of voters who feel trashed and betrayed. Plus, he is running as the respresentative of a party that he himself has trashed. He can't even make an argument for returning the Democrats to power based on their good performance last time around -- because he has done everything he could to destroy the reputation of the only successful Democratic administration in half a century.

    Sorry, but that is not a mess that Clinton -- or anyone other than Obama -- can do anything about.

    Parent

    HRC Didn't Push Me Anywhere (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    It's crap like this that has pushed me.  Every time I expected Senator Obama to reach out to voters like me he and his supporters have kicked me in the teeth.  At a certain point you don't really expect anything else.  

    For the record, I started 2007 hoping Barack Obama would get in the race and fully expecting to support him over everyone else.  

    I know Obama takes responsibility for anything and his supporters never hold him accountable for anything.  But that doesn't make this not his fault or his problem.

    Should Read Obama NEVER takes responsibility (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:09 AM EST


    Parent
    The line of thought (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    is perfectly consistent with how he's been all along.

    That is the reason for the scary coathanger article in the NY Times, etc. We'll come around because we HAVE to come around because of the scary Roe specter.

    LOL!  Where have I heard that before....didn't work so well for Kerry now, did it.  And the Democrats were less divided then.

    Run on that, Obama, please run on that!  

    I am still of reproductive age. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:44:39 AM EST
    I don't give a rat's behind about Roe versus Wade. I am old enough and comfortable enough where an unplanned pregnancy does not phase me.

    When my daughter is old enough, part of "the talk" will be that I will support her if she ever decides to take that option. I will fly her to a safe place and pay for a safe procedure.

    It has always been my experience that low-income women are less likely to choose an abortion than those with career and higher tax brackets. Therefore those likely to need those services already supported him, ratherthan the candidate who has a history of fighting for their rights. So I'm with you and in the rest of the club that says fight for your own rights.

    Besides, the court is already stacked against most progressive ideas. The justices most likely to retire or die are progressives, not conservatives.

    Parent

    Rape and incest victims most at risk (none / 0) (#145)
    by janedw420 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Exactly. Sandra Day O'Connor (none / 0) (#302)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    (a REAGAN appointee) was key to keeping Roe intact during her tenure.

    Nothing but fear mongering by Obama.  

    Parent

    Specifics. please? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:32:32 AM EST
    My current inclination in the GE is not to vote on the Presidential ballot. I won't vote for Republicans and I won't vote for Obama. My antipathy for him is rooted in my observations of his campaign's conduct and my research into him. It's not based on anything Hillary has said or done. I think the nastiest thing she's said about him is that his Commander-in-Chief experience was ranked by hers and McCain's.
    it appears you misunderstood the comment (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:50:11 AM EST
    Hillary's "nastiest" remark was Obama lacked experience to be CinC.
    Very true - and many Dems will vote for Experience rather than an Experiment.


    Parent
    Oh come on.... (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    the "white americans" remark came two weeks ago.  You and the Obama camp had her labeled as a racist by the time you got to South Carolina.

    the "as far as I know" remark.  Indeed, how clever of Hillary to make sure Steve Kroft asked her that same question THREE times so she could sneak in that answer on the last go around.  Suppose Kroft had stopped after she answered the first two times with no equivocation at all.  Then her devious plot would never had worked.

    Now, you want the truth...  It is Obama supporters doing exactly what you did in your post...mischaracterize...  that has caused much of the division.

    Parent

    Hillary's FIRST answer to the question (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    of whether Obama was a Muslim was 'NO'!
    But dishonest Obamamites ignored it.


    Parent
    Obama actually IS inexperienced and uncredentialed (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:00 AM EST
    Perhaps you can alleviate your anger and confusion (that you claimed to be here to resolve in others) by following my earlier suggestion to read a few days' threads and topic information.

    Parent
    Obama had been on the national political scene (5.00 / 4) (#276)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    for only a little more than a year when he began planning his run for the presidency. The simple fact is that he IS less experienced. Not only less experienced than Clinton and McCain, but less experienced than ANYONE he ran against in the primary and less experienced than anyone who would be considered a "credible" pick for VP on his own ticket.

    Comparing experience and records is what is REQUIRED of candidates running for elections. Comparing experience and records is what is REQUIRED of voters making informed decisions in elections. There is nothing "nasty" about pointing out your opponents lack of experience or highlighting what you believe is your greater experience and record of accomplishment. One would hope most campaigns would stick to these kind of basics rather than running off into the low weeds with character attacks, accusations of racism, etc., like those the Obama campaign used against the Clintons.

    By the way, did it anger you and did you think it was "nasty" when the Obama campaign mocked and devalued Clinton's experience as a first lady and long record as an activist for health care, education, the disabled, legal resources for the poor, etc.?  

    Parent

    Hurting the Democratic party? (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM EST
    How old are you?

    Why exactly are you supporting Obama? Give me his strongest stance that you support.

    How has Hillary Clinton hurt the democratic party? By getting more votes? By having more concrete plans? By being more qualified? By fighting for women's rights? By fighting for equal rights?

    What has Obama done that he can point to and say, see what I have accomplished?

    It took the entire media, pundit class, and DNC to shove him over the finish line. What exactly has he accomplished?

    The true racism, is expecting so little from a black man.

    Why does my age matter? (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    How? By micro-targetting racism and intentionally dividing the party.

    Why am I supporting him? In addition to actually liking his policies on many issues (which, frankly, differ little from HRC's) including student loans, health care, trade and infrastructure, I find his dedication to getting us away from the era of polarization to be rather healthy.

    What has Obama done?  Created a movement, for starters.  

    You see him as being helped over the finish line, I see him as having defeated the party favorite, the inevitable opponent who came armed with all the contacts, name recognition and cash that she could ask for.

    Parent

    I love (5.00 / 11) (#88)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    the myth that he's a party outsider who defeated the inevitable candidate the best. I think we all know who was the choice of the Democratic establishment and it wasn't the one wearing the pantsuit.

    Parent
    And I love the myth that HRC is a populist (none / 0) (#107)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    outsider who just happens to have been born wealthy, gone to ivy-league schools, is a member of the DLC, and is married to an ex-president.

    I mean what?

    Parent

    You're showing your age again (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    HRC was not born wealthy. Worked har backside off for everything she has.

    BTW - Her husband was of humbler means than she was.

    Barack's grandmother was the VP of a bank. His step father was wealthy and he only attended private schools.

    See, you don't even know your candidate.

    Parent

    Showing my 35 years? How sexist of you (none / 0) (#202)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    to mention a woman's age . . . kidding.

    Funny, I thought HRC's father owned his own business and her mother could be a homemaker.  Where I grew up in Indiana, that's rich.

    And I'm very aware of Bill's history. I was, after all, not in a coma through the 90s.

    Yes, those food stamps show how rich he was . . . and I attended private schools too.  And I was born poor as a bird.

    Parent

    Who is the privileged candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#360)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    Obama.

    Fact: both his mother and father had post-graduate degrees.  HIllary's mother was a high school graduate. Her father did have an undergraduate degree.  His father worked in a mill.

    Obama was essentially reared by his grandparents.  Grandmother was a bank VP in Hawaii, not too shabby.  He attended the most elite prep school on the island.  Hillary graduated from public high school and was a National Merit Scholar.  While she was at Yale Law School, her family was eligible for government backed student loans.  So the family could not have been so wealthy.

    The summer between Obama's soph. year at Occidental and jr. year at Columbia, Obama had the money to travel the world:  CA to Indonesia, to Pakistan, on to India back to CA and then NYC.  Nice trip and very pricey, indeed.  Hillary talks of one college summer she spent in Alaska.  And, how was that financed?  She took a job cleaning fish in a fishery.  

    Now who is the privileged one??  

    Parent

    10 comments per 24 hours (none / 0) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    New commentors are limited to 10 comments per 24 hours.  You are at 14.

    Please read the rules.  No insulting the site, candidates, or the other posters.  Thanks.

    Parent

    Wellesley is not in the Ivy League (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    She went to an Ivy League law school.

    If we want to get pedantic about it.

    Parent

    Well, being pedantic about it (none / 0) (#205)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:18:23 AM EST
    does seem to be the way the two sides approach each other.

    Good luck BTD.

    Parent

    Wellesley is one of the (none / 0) (#220)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    Seven Sisters, which are the equivalent of the Ivy League schools for women. Bryn Mawr is also one of the Seven Sisters. If I had the time, I would look up the rest of them since I can't remember them off hand. But Wellesley is a very very good school. And Hillary Clinton gave the first ever commencement address by a student  at any college, which brought her to national attention, in 1969. That was when Obama was nine years old. Heh.

    Parent
    She was not born wealthy (none / 0) (#160)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    What a crock. She was brought up in a middle class household, second generation American on her father's side, attended public schools, went to Wellesley (which is not in the Ivy League, BTW) and Yale (which is). How horrible that she was so accomplished as a young woman and made something of herself. And of what possible relevance is the fact that the guy she married grew up to become President? That makes her not a populist?

    Can only poor people be populists? Were you leading the band speaking up about Sen. Edwards' haircuts? I'm sorry, but yours is a pathetic comment.

    Parent

    The party favorite? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:56 AM EST
    Hilarious.

    Go practice your whining.  You'll need to get much better at it when the repubs start in on Obama.

    It doesn't appear to me that people like you care about November anyway.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be here this morning spewing more divisive rhetoric.  Not too bright.

    Parent

    What you have written there is so much delusion (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by MMW on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    it is a wonder you haven't been committed.

    Racism is accepting so little from a black man. No resume. No accomplishments. Nothing done for you, his constituents or the AA community. No fixed stand on any issue.

    Teacher's unions overwhelmingly supported her, because she supported giving them the resources necessary to educate students across the board. He supports merit pay for teachers. Tax breaks for student loans do not make them more available.

    He has effectively squashed any healthcare reform by employing Republican Harry and Louise ads - the republicans will remind him - they have backbones and brass acorns.

    What is his position on trade and infrastructure?

    What is the movement for? For unity? Funny, but he can't even unify his party. Is it for votes? Slaves were 3/5 of a whole. The people of Florida and Michigan are 1/2 a person according to his party.

    Defeated the party favorite? yes, the favorite of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS. BUT he is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid - those are your leaders darling and they supported him). BTW - they're still the DO-NOTHING-CONGRESS.

    Ask him where his cash came from?

    Oh and let's not forget age - with age comes wisdom - you have shown very little.

    Parent

    I'm sure you missed a talking point (none / 0) (#141)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:02:09 AM EST
    somewhere in there.  This has indeed gone poorly, and I will blame HRC and you will blame BHO.

    I'm sorry it turned out this way, sorry I ventured to have this conversation, and I'm sorry if this election comes crashing down around us all.  I'm neither wise nor eloquent enough to say the right things, the good things, or the healing things.  I want this to be healed--the division between my mother and I is breaking my heart even as it reflect the fissures in our party.  But I don't know how.

    So I am sorry to you all.  Good luck.

    Parent

    um, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    if you're still talking about Tuzla and incapable of understanding why Hillary and her more populist platform (jobs+healthcare) are indeed, relative to the other candidates, populist, then yes, it's true you do not have the healing words.

    The division in the party is in part because one candidate was an adored celebrity, and the other maligned and hated for the past year.  Acknowledging that will help heal the party.

    Parent

    I've always admired HRC (none / 0) (#235)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    but never thought she was a viable GE candidate for exactly these reasons.  She's a polarizing figure, and a policy master.  I had always hoped she'd see her future as the most powerful person in the Senate.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    the Obama campaign's willingness to push that perception, to emphasize how polarizing she is, is one of the things about the Obama campaign that Hillary supporters see and dislike.  It's not like it's "just true" that Clinton is polarizing.  Obama's campaign has used that to their advantage and are complicit in the trashing of a Democrat.

    Parent
    sorry, out of posts for today. tty tomorrow. (none / 0) (#261)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM EST


    Parent
    If You Seriously Want This Healed, (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    you have absolutely no understanding on how to achieve that outcome. If there was an unity persuasion scale, your spiel in this thread would rate at a -5 or worse.

    Parent
    away from the era of polarization?! (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by mary kate on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    Obama's going to get us "away from the era of polarization"?  Now, how is he going to do that, exactly?  If he can't bring unity to his own party, how is he going to bring unity to the entire country?

    And anyway, this "era of polarization" theme is largely a GOP talking point, aimed at Democrats who still dare to stand up and fight for Democratic principles.  Hillary and her supporters already understand this.  Obama and his supporters will understand it soon enough, I guess.

    Parent

    He didn't defeat her.. (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    she ended up with more of the popular vote than he did. All he did was game the caucuses and get more delegates. Now when the Texas caucus shenanigans by the Obama supporters become news, like Obama supporters shutting out the Clinton supporters and cheating on the sign-in list, things will change. And then there is Michelle. Her mouth is one of his biggest liabilities, which is probably why we haven't seen her recently.

    The nomination isn't over yet. The delegates don't vote until August. If I were you, I would be careful about celebrating. It's going to be a long, hot summer for Obama. You had better pray he can take the heat. I don't think he can.

    Parent

    Micro-targeting racism (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
    Wtf is that?  Is that the new lingo all the cool kids are using?

    Your guy claims (for the bazillionth time) he's won the nomination and is focusing on the GE.  And you're still pushing the Clinton = racist trope?

    I don't know whether Obama can beat McCain, but I'm pretty sure he can't beat him by continuing to run against Clinton's alleged racism, micro or not.

    Parent

    It's Obama's version (none / 0) (#356)
    by Iris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    of the 'soft bigotry of low expectations.'

    Parent
    Axelrod Has Said Similar Things In the Past (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM EST
    So I wouldn't expect a rebuke from him.  Or anyone in the party leadership either.  This is how they've treated the Clinton wing of the party the entire election - taken them for granted and showed them no respect.  

    It takes a lot of arrogance on Obama's part to (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by carmel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    treat Hillary supporters like members of the "bitter ex-wives club". We were never married to him to begin with. Thanks for telling us our votes aren't wanted or needed. That's the funny thing with arrogant men, they tell you they don't need you, and expect you to stick around like a love lost puppy trying to win their love and affection. I'm way past that with Obama.

    We matter! (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    Also from the politico piece:

    "But the three speeches -- Clinton's, McCain's and Obama's -- showed off one of Obama's great advantages: While McCain was reasoned and detailed, while Clinton had a few good lines, Obama soared."

    Speaking for me only... I didn't watch Obama's speech.  I didn't even read the transcript that was posted here.

    I did however read a hell of a lot the past 6 mos.

    And am now catching up on pro-McCain literature and have heard all I want to ever hear from OB.

    In my opinion his "soaring" is highly overrated and I am taking kindly to "straight talk."

    Icarus (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    I think that the GOP is in a perfect position to hobble Obama on the one thing he has going for him.... his "soaring" speeches...

    all they need to do is point out the stylistic similarities between Wright (and Pfleger) and Obama.... point out that McCain speaks calmly about the problems facing this nation, while Obama riles up a crowd until he can say anything and get shouts and whoops of applause...just like Reverent Wright does.

    The GOP is way too good at political theatre for the tone and presentation of the McCain speech to have been a mistake.  

    ****
    BTW, I'm really proud of what Clinton did last night.  After a couple of months of Obama doing everything he could to draw attention away from her triumphs, Clinton got herself a little payback.   Last night was all about Hillary and what SHE'LL do...and coverage about Obama is all about HILLARY.  

    Parent

    I think you are right. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    That is how they will attack.

    I watched the speech.  I did not think Obama's speech soared.  It read better than it was delivered. He looked tired and angry.  I've seen much better from him.  But maybe I'm in an alternate universe?

    That said, I do support him and want him to win.  He needs to smile more when he wins.

    Parent

    Sorry if this is OT (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by dk on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:35:25 AM EST
    but I think it's relevant.  Ambinder has a post stating that Obama's senior staffers, and members of Obama's family (and let's face it, unless Obama's ~6 and 9 year old daughters are unbelievably precocious, I think there is only one person he could be referring to) hate the Clintons because of Lewinsky, and want nothing to do with either of them.  

    The CDS in Obama's inner circule is clearly driving them.  There is no way they will treat Hillary, and by extension Hillary's supporters, with the respect they should.

    well that may well be true. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    but to be quite honest with you just what do they like in this country. the blue collar backbone? the older generation, the women, the jewish citizens, the latinos, the small town folks. we are all under the bus here. it is good shade and three squares a day. but tell you what, we'll all be coming out to vote in november. see ya then.

    when i listen to michelle speak, for it is like hearing fingernails scratching across glass. she is pretty darn bitter and negative herself. what a bleak outlook! i can tell you this family dynamics means to me it is a shared value.

    Parent

    I guess Michelle doesn't trust her man? (none / 0) (#182)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:12:29 AM EST
    If having Bill around will be a bad influence.

    Parent
    oh man (none / 0) (#278)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    Bill and Barack on a boys night out.
    thats scary.

    Parent
    Samantha Power (none / 0) (#322)
    by Foxx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    Her comments "monster" "just look at her ergh" and much more area window on how the inner circle thinks and talks about Hillary.

    Parent
    Samantha Power (none / 0) (#324)
    by Foxx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    Her comments "monster" "just look at her ergh" and much more are a window on how the Obama inner circle thinks and talks about Hillary.

    Parent
    you realize it, I realize it - (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:05 AM EST
    >>>Obama needs all democratic votes.

    but Obama doesn't.
    And this isn't a new position from the Obama camp.

    heres a theory: (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:40:25 AM EST
    if they really believe they dont need half of the democratic party and unless they are completely unhinged there seems to me to be only one possibility.
    they are planning to go right.  starting today.
    its going to be fun watching all those lattes being spit up on keyboards and computer screens when he does.


    Parent
    They Won't Spit Up On Keyboards (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:17 AM EST
    They will find a way to rationalize his actions and before you know it it will be the greatest idea evah.

    Parent
    THAT (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    is my personal nightmare.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by hookfan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:20:18 AM EST
    How are they going to woo all those republicans? I'll bet it's not by maintaining clear "progressive" principles or policies. It will be fun to see how republican Obama can be.

    Parent
    The Only Thing I Find Amusing About This (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:35 AM EST
    whole thing is anticipating the debates between McCain and Obama. It could very well be a replay of the Republican debates where both candidate tried to outdo the other on how many times they could say Reagan during the alloted time period.  

    Parent
    That's what I look for in a President (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    throwing in the towel at the first sign of trouble, running away from challenges and never taking responsibility for missteps or failures.  

    Like never admitting the Tuzla mistake? (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Are (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    you upset because she did admit a mistake?

    Parent
    Just because (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    DailyKOS didn't report her apology for the Tuzla mistake doesn't mean it didn't happen.  

    Parent
    Blaming the victims (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    isn't going to help Obama. He needs to take accountability for the situation and act. However, I don't have high expectations for that. I think the entire Dem leadership has bought into the idea that it's going to be a Dem wave in the fall because of the mood in the country so they aren't feeling the need to woo or compromise. Unfortunately, by the time there's credible data to let us know where we are, I wonder if it will be too late to change anything.

    when will Obama supporters and pundits ever (5.00 / 12) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    understand that they MUST stop the Clinton bashing for the unity to begin?  They refuse to stop.

    On Saturday the DNC stole delegates from Clinton and begged for unity while they did it.

    On Sunday Obama supporters (not Obama himself) belittled her huge victory in Puerto Rico.  Clinton supporters don't and won't differentiate between Obama and his blogging supporters and supporters in the media.

    On Sunday the media were reporting that super delegates were going to give Clinton the respect she deserves and NOT put him over the top until Wed at the earliest.  That didn't happen.  PLease don't claim that Obama HAD to have his victory speech last night.  the media would have covered his victory speech anywhere and any OTHER day he would have planned it for.

    On Tuesday there were immediately false media reports that Clinton would concede.  Clinton supporters took this as an attempt to suppress the vote in SD.

    Then the reports in the media that Obama had WON the nomination basing it in unnamed, undeclared super delegates.

    Last night on CNN "KellyAnn" republican pundit continued to put out the false characterization of Bill Clinton's "fairytale" comment.  And still no one but Lanny Davis was willing to call them on it.  Everyone on that panel knew what she said was false and everyone should have smacked her down.  But, that is what this entire campaign has been like.  Obama supporters, the DNC, the entire dem party and supposedly unbiased media have always let the mischaracterizations go unchallenged.  But, now they want unity while they continue to spew their venom.  Good luck with that...

    exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:36 AM EST
    >>>>Obama supporters, the DNC, the entire dem party and supposedly unbiased media have always let the mischaracterizations go unchallenged.

    Good article yesterday...even the people in the Rainforest knew what Hillary meant by her Robert Kennedy remarks.

    A Campaign to Hate - WaPo - 6/3
    http://tinyurl.com/3tjs7e

    Obama has never once stood up against propaganda! Not once.
    Never has he had the character to say "that's not what Hillary meant."
    Even Jesse Jackson wasn't offended by Clinton's remarks about him winning 2 SC primaries but not the nomination. Clinton was treating Obama as a politician, not a Black man.
    But once again, Obama played the Race Card and with the media's assistance that remark became another opportunity for the Obama camp to cast the Clintons as racists.
    Scary!

    Parent

    Josey (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    Did you see this part of Cohen's article:

    racism still runs deep and that misogyny, although more imagined than real, is not yet a wholly spent force

    I was a little suprised that you quoted Cohen.  I see he hasn't changed.  He's always been and always will be a jacka*s.

    Parent

    Movement vs. the man (5.00 / 3) (#279)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
    Clinton supporters don't and won't differentiate between Obama and his blogging supporters and supporters in the media.

    This, I think, is where Obama's campaign is going to have trouble. Because Obama didn't present himself just as a candidate, but as a movement -- and it's extremely difficult now to walk that back and ask people to disregard the movement and look just at the candidate... not when so many people are looking askance at the movement as a whole.

    Parent

    Kelly Ann Conway just doing her job (none / 0) (#247)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    of keeping the Dems fractured. His supporters just go along because they love any criticism of the Clintons-no matter how it hurts their guy in the long run.

    Parent
    Obama is a joke and the media are willing to help. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Mlb1 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    Why is that two reports surface yesterday that Clinton was conceding.  I was in a meeting yesterday morning at 10AM, when I start recieving text messages that the AP reports Clinton is conceding the race, I casually turned to my business associate and told him it was ironic that this report surfaces as the polls are opening in SD and Montana.  Yesterday I found a link on TaylorMarsh to a new petition at Politically Drunk for Dems and Independents (which I have now changed my registration to)who will not support Obama.  The petition is an effort to send the DNC a message and consolidate the hundreds of such petitions circulating the web.  Check it out, sign it, spread the word, and if you have a blog link to it: A Special Message To Democrats Against Obama

    There is also several past posts exposing the extent to the inequality in our Primary System.

    ok clinton supporters, does it have to be (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:22 AM EST
    any plainer to us? no, it doesn't. take a good look and listen up. stern letters from pelosi and dean. woo woo, i am shaking like those letters mean anything. call them on it and they run. and obama won't spend time wooing clinton supporters. is there a surprise there? i mean months of disrepsect and insults. why change a winning hand. yeah right! i for one say, no problem senator obama! you do that! but be prepared for a massive loss of the democratic base. we have known for the last two years, they don't give a dang what we think. now they are saying by their actions, "yeah, that's right and you won't do anything about it as usual." PUMA

    And we are surprised? (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    I'm certainly not. I don't think Obama will ever try and woo Clinton supporters. They didn't have the perceived intelligent and hope hunger to vote for him, so why should he pander to them?   He hasn't needed us thus far and according to every single action he won't need us in November.

    So I say: Good luck Senators. There'll be 18 million of us sitting on our couches and seeing how easily you'll win without us.

    Believe all you want. (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    First, I completely disregard your CA "if the primary were held today" nonsense. She'd beat him into the ground there again.

    Oh and BELIEVE, HOPE and do all you can. Because I just de-registered as a Democrat yesterday. Mailed it out and everything. Somehow, I don't think I'm the only one.

    Parent

    I believe Field also polled Obama as winning (4.00 / 4) (#209)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    CA before Hillary beat him by 10. Again, it doesn't matter anyway now does it? Also, I'd venture you should check polls for NJ, PA, and OH.  

    And I registered as "unaffiliated." It feels great.  And Obama supporters should never EVER talk about honor and Hillary in the same breath.   You have all done nothing but completely DIS-honor and DIS-respect her at every turn.

    Parent

    Hillary isn't dead. I'm not grieving for her. (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:33:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Good Answer (none / 0) (#285)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    rooge. I expect the remarks portraying Clinton supporters as "grief-stricken" wasn't actually meant to sound so condescending, or maybe I'm giving too much credit.

    Parent
    Almost better than a dozen hilarious roses ... (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    and now I'm going to take my own advice and give you the space to grieve

    ROTFLMAO!

    No wait ... a quick serenade of D!ck in a Box first?

    Parent

    "Together, we can" (none / 0) (#352)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    was Deval Patrick's campaign slogan in Massachusetts. We're still trying to figure what he can do. I agree with you that most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama, but "most" could be as little as 51%.  Just sayin. . .

    Parent
    Ummm!? (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:41 AM EST
    There were polls the actual week of the primary that showed Obama up in CA. And up in MA. And up in NJ. And up in TX. And up in PA.

    What happened in each of those states? You're polls are meaningless.

    If you rewound this primary and did it again, with what people know now, Obama doesn't stand a chance. He has lost by over a half million votes since March.

    And Obama doesn't believe in Universal Health Care. That is one big sticking point between Clinton and him.

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:43:03 AM EST
    Many thanks HRC for not hurting the Democratic Party.  Worked out great, as you can see right here.

    How dare THAT WOMAN run for president and get in the way of my fearless leader. That makes Democrats MAD.

    Puh-lease!

    Actually, it's the polarization (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:43 AM EST
    which your anger is a symptom of, that I'm talking about.

    Parent
    I wonder if you (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:54:21 AM EST
    wrote this with a straight face.  I know I'm trying to keep from laughing.

    Parent
    now that the self righteousness (5.00 / 1) (#331)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    has set in I miss the arrogance.


    Parent
    Obama may not be "sitting by the phone (5.00 / 12) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:36 AM EST
    like a high school girl," but he sure knows about playing hard-to-get, doesn't he? - which pretty much puts this in the high school milieu, with Obama believing he is sitting on the cool kids' side of the cafeteria, virtually taunting the Clinton losers to come begging to be included in the ultra-cool world of Obama.  

    I think you can take all that lofty rhetorical praise for Clinton that was in last night's speech and file it in the big, fat, "Just Words" folder; I knew he was just paying lip service to her, and the proof is in the attitude that the last thing he's going to do is actually work to get the Clinton supporters over to his side - and it is "his" side, because it's all about him.

    Ugh and ick and gack.

    We've had almost 8 years of an immature, vindictive president - do we really need another one who's going to play stupid games for his own pleasure?  I think not, and I hope that Hillary is at home mulling whether she really wants to leave her supporters twisting in the wind because Barack doesn't give a tiny rat's a$$ about them.

    Man, Obama must be living in Backwards World if he thinks this is the kind of thing that will get Hillary to withdraw from the race and concede the nomination to him.

    Just listen to his supporters... (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:09 AM EST
    ...this morning, and you will be certain that the "praise" is nothing but phoney attempts to woo you.

    Expect to hear "they are so close on the issues"

    "mccain will overturn roe v wade"

    "100 years in Iraq"

    "3rd bush term"

    They wont really be "wooing" as much as fear mongering.

    Parent

    Your conclusion is accurate. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by befuddled on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:46:41 AM EST
    They aren't going to be wooable. However, your warrant is backwards; they aren't wooable because they have seen too much from the Obama side. Too many mornings, no respect.

    Because there was so much respect for (none / 0) (#84)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    us cultists?  I'm always astounded at this meme.

    Parent
    Glad that you saw this article (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    I put it up last night on an open thread and BOY did that get things going again at 2 in the morning!

    Obama is probably seeing some of the writing on the wall.  No amount of courting he can do would get me to vote for him anyway.

    I am looking at the Green Party now.  Cynthina McKinney is the frontrunner for their nominee.  She at least had the guts to stand up and fight for the progressive plank and try an end to the Iraq war.  Her scuffle on Capitol Hill was OTP, but again, well-behaved women rarely make history.

    Great point. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    Today I research.  

    Parent
    BTD, were you being sarcastic ... (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    about the Axelrod rebuke?

    I hope so.  Because that's not gonna happen.

    This is the now and forever (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    Obama strategy. What will it take for his non-insane supporters to realize this?

    Sorry BTD and Talk Left. I don't envy you attempting to defend Obama this summer.


    Parent

    And the independents and Republicans will flock (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by carmel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    to Obama because?...

    I Think Republicans Will Be Definitely Wooed (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    by replays of Obama's religious background and by his close associates.

    Parent
    And don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#251)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    his endorsement by Kerry, Kennedy and Moveon.

    Parent
    looking for who hurt the party? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM EST
    go look in a mirror!

    I think we might need to call the (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    Troll-O-Rooter Man for all the Blog-cloggers today...

    Obama Supporters Are Nothing (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    if not classy in victory.

    At least you can't say they aren't consistent, insulting Hillary and her supporters ALWAYS more important than celebrating Obama or pushing a liberal/progressive agenda.  They can talk about unity all they want but they neither value it nor understand how to get it.  

    Parent

    Obama, Dont Even Bother Trying to Woo me (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    Last night had to be the single most disgusting night of media coverage of this primary.

    Obama's speech, as usual, was a bunch of hot air, that was way overhyped and overcelebrated by his minions.  

    Hillary was incredible.  Her speech was all about her supporters and her beiefs.  

    To hear the Obamatrons this morning continuing to BASH HER just cements me in my conviction that I will never support him EVER.  They are furious that she didnt praise and worship Obama last night....gimme a break.

    Funny thing about the media, is they continue to diminish the notion that HRC supporters WILL vote for McCain over Obama...."oh I think that is exaggerated".

    ITS NOT.

    We don't have to vote for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by blcc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    We can always write-in Hillary.

    When the votes are counted and Obama/Dean/Pelosi et al realize how many votes the Dems COULD HAVE HAD, they'll learn who they need to please in 2012.

    Parent

    Obama - fighting for Clinton supporters? (5.00 / 8) (#111)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    The savagery with which Hillary Clinton was incessantly attacked by the media and the Obama campaign is one of the ugliest spectacles I have ever witnessed in a political campaign.

    It was misogyny, pure and simple.
    Hillary Clinton's clevage, her laugh, her clothing, all were subjects of seemingly endless discussion by bloggers and mainstream publications like the NYTimes.

    She was called a racist for mentioning the fact that it took action by Lyndon Johnson to implement some of the vision of Martin Luther King. This was tolerated and even fanned by the Obama campaign.

    Obama calling reporter Peggy Agar, "Sweetie" turned my stomach. Not only was it sexist,  it was arrogant and elitist. Who the hell does he think he is, talking to her that way? He made my flesh crawl. Video of the event is available on line if you think I am exaggerating.

    So I am not proud about the nomination of Obama.
    I am no more proud about his ethnicity than I am about the republicans nominating a seventy-one year old Baptist of Scotch-Irish descent.

    Obama emulates Wright's hatemongering (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    on the campaign trail by "brushing Hillary off" the bottom of his shoe and laughing along with the crowds - the way congregants do at Trinity.

    Obama's immature actions are similar to middle school students.
    I'm surprised he didn't put his hand up, in front his face, palm out - in a gesture of dismissing her.

    Parent

    No, it's fingers (none / 0) (#358)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    in your ears while you say "la-la-la".  I'm waiting for one of them to make a "L" with his fingers and out it up against his forehead and chant "Loser!  Loser!"

    Parent
    Means nothing... (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    He apologized...
    How could he have said it in the first place - and so easily?

    How do you feel about this scenario?:

    Clinton to African-American reporter:
    "I'll talk you later, boy."
    "Oops - I apologize."

    All is forgiven?
    Not bloody likely.

    This was a Macaca moment for Obama, but the media and the sexist world it inhabits let the Kaka slip off of His Teflonness.

    Parent

    Sweetie (5.00 / 3) (#238)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    He called her sweetie because he didn't know how to answer her question.
     It was about automotive plant workers. You know, not something "cool", just something where you have to be prepared on the local issues. It's the same as Hanford.
    If you don't already know about that, take a look at this video. It's how McCaine will nuke him on that one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L_z28xZcjc


    Parent

    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#347)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    A R congressman called Obama a "boy". He did apologise, and it was actually a good apology, as those things go.

    Doesn't matter. He's a racist.

    Obama can apologise all he want, he is a sexist.

    Parent

    Interesting thing ... (none / 0) (#361)
    by camellia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    "She was called a racist for mentioning the fact that it took action by Lyndon Johnson to implement some of the vision of Martin Luther King."     Did I dream it, or did I actually hear Donna Brazile acknowledge this last Saturday at the Democratic National Cabal meeting -- that LBJ was the one who actually signed the Civil Rights Act into law, and who implemented it?

    Parent
    All 18 million of us? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:23 AM EST
    I congratulate you
    on your strength of will.
    Your candidate shares it, I assume. ;)

    I made mistake last night (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    I peeked in and saw what Sullivan and Aravoisis had written on their blogs. Man are they stupid!! Seriously with supporters like this Obama will go headlong into the drain. What these blithering idiots do not understand that barring a mass scale wooing of the Hillary supporters they will not vote for Obama. Hillary's concession when it comes will be on her own terms and not dictated by party elders. As far as the popular vote goes, if you give all the uncommitted to Obama and also somehow calculate the caucus states (how's the possible god only knows) it is a statistical tie. As of right now as things stand Hillary Clinton owes nothing to the DNC (yeah Howard Dean's placations are too little and too late), she owes nothing to Nancy Pelosi (hell let her first run the congress properly without trying her hand at presidential campaigns), she owes nothing to the left wing of the Democratic party and she definitely does not owe anything to the "progressive" blogs (if Sullivan is now progressive then there's something seriously wrong in this world) or to the media. She is beholden to the 18 million odd people who support her and voted for her and they want her to decide what she wants to do at her own pace.

    The good news is ..she knows this! (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:47 AM EST


    Parent
    I know this isn't going to make me a lot of friend (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton was fine with disenfranchising Michigan and Florida late last year and even agreed that their votes weren't going to count. She didn't fight for them until she needed them.

    Sen. Clinton was the one who made a point of saying that the pledged delegates weren't bound by their pledge and could change at any time regardless of the votes of 'people'.

    She's no saint in any of this either. It's called politics.

    8 years ago Pres. Bush smeared Sen. McCain something awful in their primary battle but McCain knew enough to let it go for the sake of the party.

    It's not enough for Obama to lose and have Clinton in 2012. It's not just 4 years. Supreme Court Justices are for LIFE.

    Sen. Clinton lost. It sucks. It hurts. But it's done. On to November...

    supreme court judges? (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    I don't think that is going to work anymore.  If you all cared about that you would have supported Clinton.  

    Parent
    that's not true! (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:22:02 AM EST
    >>>Sen. Clinton was fine with disenfranchising Michigan and Florida late last year and even agreed that their votes weren't going to count. She didn't fight for them until she needed them.

    Hillary began fighting for them in early Jan. prior to FL & MI primaries by saying she would fight to count all the votes and seat their delegates.
    But you wouldn't know that bit of info by staying in the Obama bubble.


    Parent

    To post on topic: (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    I don't think Senator Obama will fight
    for Clinton supporter votes.
    Unlike the stock market, past performance IS an indication of future performance.
    Mister Obama has indicated repeatedly he does not need us, therefore he will not reach out for our support--except perhaps in a tepid manner.
    Just my opinion, of course.

    I made mistake last night (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:04:19 AM EST
    I peeked in and saw what Sullivan and Aravoisis had written on their blogs. Man are they stupid!! Seriously with supporters like this Obama will go headlong into the drain. What these blithering idiots do not understand that barring a mass scale wooing of the Hillary supporters they will not vote for Obama. Hillary's concession when it comes will be on her own terms and not dictated by party elders. As far as the popular vote goes, if you give all the uncommitted to Obama and also somehow calculate the caucus states (how's the possible god only knows) it is a statistical tie. As of right now as things stand Hillary Clinton owes nothing to the DNC (yeah Howard Dean's placations are too little and too late), she owes nothing to Nancy Pelosi (hell let her first run the congress properly without trying her hand at presidential campaigns), she owes nothing to the left wing of the Democratic party and she definitely does not owe anything to the "progressive" blogs (if Sullivan is now progressive then there's something seriously wrong in this world) or to the media. She is beholden to the 18 million odd people who support her and voted for her and they want her to decide what she wants to do at her own pace.

    For Some Reason (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    The Obama campaign, the party elite, the media, the Blogger Boiz and the Obama fan base are determined to make their guy completely unacceptable to half the Democratic Party.  It doesn't have to be that way, but they insist!  It's very, very odd.  You'd think they'd want to do everything they can to make him President.  

    Parent
    IMO, they seriously want to remake the party (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    and think that to do so requires fracturing it so they can build a new coalition, one that is more enlightened, more intellectual, higher class (for lack of a better word). I have more than a few friends who are Democrats but dislike the idea that there are hayseeds in Kentucky who are Democrats too. They'd just as soon be rid of them.

    The problem is that the hayseeds aren't going away. They're going to vote for someone, and I think it's unlikely that they'll vote for a candidate that they think spits on them.

    If the goal is to fracture and rebuild (and again, this is just IMO) I guess we will see in November who is right about the wisdom of that strategy.

    Parent

    Obama has to do the heavy lifting (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    I agree with much of what you say Hatch.  EXCEPT -Obama IS the one who has to show ME that he is interested in the concerns of the 17 million who like me, voted for Hillary.  In my opinion, Hillary is first and foremost, a DEMOCRAT.  And I have no doubt that she will do what is best for the party.  She will campaign hard for Obama, but come on - he has to sell his message.  It's his campaign.  

    I understand your points, but disagree on a few. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:05:48 AM EST
    Clinton can help unify the party, but Obama is the nominee and leader.  He knows it is up to him.  Leaders lead.  If he cannot unify the party, he will not win the election.  I think Obama can unify the party.

    I think Obama and Clinton have been gracious.  For the last few weeks, Clinton has toned down attacks/critiques.  Obama's statements lately have been good.  Clinton repreatedly has said she she would support the nominee, even if it is not here.  

    As for insularity here, it is no more insular than Daily Kos.  I find the atmosphere rather civil, I think due to moderation by Jeralyn and BTD.  

    One thing people get confused on.  Hillary Clinton does not "own" voters.  Many white and Latino working class voters, many rural voters, and many non-African American women tended to favor Clinton.  Obama will reach out to those voters as voters.  

    The picture that a few more extreme Talk Left commenters and readers have of Obama is not any more inaccurate than the picture a few extreme Daily Kos commenters and readers have of Hillary Clinton.

    Both pictures are flawed.  Both Clinton and Obama are decent people and care about America.  Both are good Democrats and truly care about woreking people, even if it does not appear like it to partisans of the other candidate.  

    I like Talk Left and have no doubt most here will support Obama because he's better than McCain, even if he is not their first choice and even if tehy don't like him a lot.  People supported John Kerry.        

    Here, here! (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by eustiscg on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:14:48 AM EST
    He's not going to woo anyone as a Hillary supporter.  He's going to woo them as Democrats and Independents who share her progressive ideals and who cannot afford to put McCain and his right-wing ideology in the White House for 4-8 years.

    His speech last night gave me hope.  He wasn't naming a particular role for Clinton, but he was committing himself to massive collaboration with her on the policies that she feels most passionately about.

    I personally feel that VP isn't the place for her to have the greatest impact.  It's a milque-toast job, and she doesn't need it to be viable as the next Democratic nominee.  Ted Kennedy's recent illness hit me hard; it drove home for me the fact that the old guard in the Senate is giving way.  I happen to think that Clinton could achieve far more as a leading voice in a Democrat-dominated Senate than she could from Number One Observatory Circle.

    Parent

    He needs to woo the wooable (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Not clear that there are many of those here.  

    That's a reasonable (none / 0) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    Assumption to make.


    Parent
    So the idea he ought to be reaching out (none / 0) (#218)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    to folks who would never support him anyway is rather silly

    He has better uses of his time and resources, such as wooing folks who do not spend all of their waking moments trashing him on sites like this (Jeralyn and BTD excepted)

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#229)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:59 AM EST
    It's why I think, likewise, it was a mistake for Clinton to go to yearlykos.

    In retrospect, you can see how that was a mistake now, can't you?

    Parent

    She made a lot of them (none / 0) (#237)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:15 AM EST


    Parent
    Do You Still Think Axelrod Will Rebuke, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    He's sent his astroturfers out in force today.

    Unity through brickbats, the Obama way.

    I watched Obama last night (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by eric on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    as someone who figured I might as well try to like him, and you know what?

    I did.  I was reasonably impressed.

    And then, I woke up this morning and started reading the blogs.  Almost instantly, I found myself being repulsed once again - not by Obama directly - but by his supporters.  Regardless of whether Politico is right about Obama's plans, his supporters have to stop it.  Stop gloating, stop calling Clinton stupid, stop talking about purging the party, stop talking about how this is a new Democratic party that they have taken over, etc.

    It is a very serious problem.  Their leader should send out some kind of decree telling them to stop.  The day to day interaction with these people is driving voters away.

    I have suggested this (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    no response.  Not even from tepid Obama supporters.


    Parent
    He cannot control the bloggers. (none / 0) (#228)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    Some don't care about issues, Democratic party values, or even Barack Obama.  They simply hate Hillary Clinton.

    Look to Obama, not some bozos on blogs.

    Parent

    He cannot control the bloggers. (none / 0) (#233)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    Some don't care about issues, Democratic party values, or even Barack Obama.  They simply hate Hillary Clinton.

    Look to Obama, not some bozos on blogs.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#275)
    by denise k on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    I have seen them police themselves when the word comes down from the top.  Look at the campaign's call not to protest at the R&B meeting.  And they didn't.  If Obama wanted to, he could call off the dogs.  He does not seem to want to.  And why should he?  They are doing his dirty work without his having to lift, or more importantly, without being seen to lift, a finger.

    Parent
    if Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#325)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    those "bozos on blogs" will be swept into power with him.  it is not an irrelevant fact.  and for those of us who have been maligned and insulted by them for months, its a problem.
    to tell you the truth I want to see how those bozos react to all that comes now, meaning veering to the right, before I decide if I will simply ignore Obama or actively work against him.
     

    Parent
    So Obama can throw all 18 million Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by carmel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    supporters under the bus, and attract Independents and Republicans with his message of arrogance, sexism, and his hate filled faith advisors to make up for the 18 million voters that don't matter?

    The refrain of "hurt feelings" is simply (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:13:51 AM EST
    a way of infantilizing Clinton supporters. First, it reduces anger over what they view as an unfair campaign and really, really unair media into some kind of childish peevishness. Second, and more importantly, it competely leaves out the fact that some Clinton supporters won't go to Obama in the general out of policy/ideology reasons. It isn't just "hurt feelings". It's legitimate differences on what they think a President should be and do. Somebody in the Obama camp please, please think of dealing with that.

    Well said (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    the terms are whiney, angry and childish.  What is astonishing, the youthful, contention that they will be discouraged if he did not win and just not participate was important, but Hillary's supporters are not.  It's the Brazille factor.  

    Parent
    I absolutely agree with this. (5.00 / 5) (#231)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    I am so tired of being patted on the head and told "Oh, sweetie, we're so sorry your candidate didn't win. We'll just give you a little space to get over it. You must be periodically down right now."

    Excuse me, but how insulting.

    I do not think Obama is a Democrat - at least not the FDR kind. That is why he doesn't get my vote.

    Nothing he can say will convince me otherwise. Should he actually be inaugurated, I expect no substantial change whatsoever. At the end of his first and only four years, our energy policy will be mostly the same, our troops will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our economy will still be in the toilet.

    Why in the world would I vote for that?

    Parent

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    has been saying for months, repeatedly, she will
    "campaign her heart out" for the Dem nominee".

    Have you not been listening?

    Sure I've been listening... (none / 0) (#256)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    ...and when the words are backed up with action, I'll be satisfied.

    Parent
    I wonder...do you have the same (5.00 / 5) (#281)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    standard for Obama?  He often talks a good story, but time and time again, his actions have been 180 degrees away from his words.  

    He says he wants universal health care, but has a plan that isn't and sends out GOP-style mailers that will do nothing but undermine the effort.  He says he was against the war from the beginning but has done nothing to try to end it - just voted to keep paying for it.  He says he's for a better energy policy, but he voted for Cheney's energy bill.  He says he's for reporductive choice, but comes "this" close to voting for Roberts, has been hawking abstinence programs, and lecturing people about the wrenching moral choice they don't understand.  

    Last night, he praised Clinton to the skies and today his advisers are acting as if Clinton's supporters are irrelevant - bit of a disconnect there, it seems.

    Did you just choose to ignore this clear evidence that his actions do not reflect his words, or did you not see it, or what?


    Parent

    Equal standards (none / 0) (#307)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    Again, my whole point is that we should be holding both candidates to the same standard.  Obama needs to be doing as much as he can to unify the party.  At the moment, his hands are a little tied since Clinton hasn't actually dropped out of the race yet.    The test for him will come when she has officially conceded.

    So yes, I hold both candidates to the same standard.  My sense from other comments is that many people here don't, and think the responsibility falls only on Obama's shoulders.

    My worry is people who feel that way also may not be receptive to Obama's attempts to unify the party (whatever they may be, assuming he makes them).  That's why Clinton's role is important.

    Parent

    Scary (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:44 AM EST
    I sincerely hope that the comment attributed to an Obama insider is wrong. I can't believe either Obama nor even his most ardent supporters are that naive. Even with party unity Gore and Kerry lost. To dismiss 18 million votes would be political suicide. Already his "western Strategy" has blown up. Obama, his supporters and the Democratic Party are going to need all they can get in November. McCain isn't going to be this easy push over that a lot of people think.

    Good point: (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    Even with party unity Gore and Kerry lost.

    Obama is toast unless he heals the rift.  He'll have no one to blame but himself.

    Parent

    Obama's dirty politics, for one? (5.00 / 2) (#277)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:53:45 AM EST
    Obama's misogyny, for two?
    Obama's sick pastor and ugly church, for three?
    Obama's elitism (John Kerry with a tan), for four?
    The list goes on.  None of them having anything to do with race.

    Please reconsider (none / 0) (#289)
    by Lupin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    I think calling Rev. Wright a "sick pastor" and his congregation an "ugly church" is beyond the pale.

    We all say things a bit rashly occasionally, and I think you should withdraw these comments.

    Parent

    I respect your opinion, but must as that (none / 0) (#313)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    you respect mine as well.   It is not at all beyond the pale to consider racist hate speech and misogyny "sick" and those who glory in it "ugly".  I'll wager that if the shoe were on the other foot (a white church behaving this way towards African-Americans) plenty of TUCC apologists would  use those very terms.    

    Parent
    This is a pretty damning statement (none / 0) (#335)
    by Lupin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    Rev. Wright is not a racist and his sermons are not hate speech, and the TUCC is not an "ugly" church. Other pastors have supported Rev. Wright.

    Your opinion (to which you are entitled indeed) is shared by the far right-wing, but I'm astonished to find it here on "TalkLeft".

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#314)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    you're hillarious!  

    So do you really believe that the US is responsible for inventing AIDS?  Wright does.

    I won't go farther, but I think "sick pastor" is a light term.

    Parent

    No I don't (none / 0) (#344)
    by Lupin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    No I don't believe that, but in light of the Tuskagee experiment, or the CIA bringing drugs into this country in the 80s, I don't find it surprising either.

    In any event, it is neither racist, nor sick; it's simply wrong. And it certainly is not hate speech.

    And further, his congregation, the TUCC, is not "ugly". They're good people, devout worshippers, who want a better world, and if some believe in some kind of conspiracy, so what?

    This is the type of appalling remarks one find regularly on right-wing sites, and I'm somewhat shocked to see them echoed on TalkLeft.

    Parent

    well, (none / 0) (#349)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    get back to me when the congregation of Trinity church apologizes to Clinton for their rowdy accpetance of the priest's performance.

    Get back to me whe the Obama bloggers apologize for their acceptance and rationalization of the priest's performance.

    I have seen way too many blog entries by Oabam supporters claimimg everything Rev Wright says is true and needs to be said.  The same with the guest Priest's comments.

    Too many blog posts where Obama supporters have used the excuse, well it's because it's Hillary and she deserves it...

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#282)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    Does anyone know exactly WHY Axelrod and his accomplice Brazile feel they can do without Clinton supporters?
    Are they going to mount an incredible video show for young Republicans? Are they going to target new and less tapped demographics (eg Haitians)?
    I have no idea, but they seem to have marketed something to the SDs, or was it just money?

    Obama achieved what he wanted (5.00 / 1) (#300)
    by pluege on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    Obama and his arrogant supporters already achieved what he/they set out to achieve: beat Hilliary Clinton and reduce the Clinton influence in teh democratic party. Whether or not Obama could build an effective campaign for the GE has never been high on their priority list:

    • the won in republican states - won't happen in the GE
    • they appealed to republicans - they won't vote for him in November
    • they appealed to the religious whack jobs - who won't vote dem in November
    • they relied on a huge turnout of very young voter - historically they will have other things to do on election day.  


    Parent
    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 1) (#357)
    by lambert on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    No.

    Politics is a pendulum (5.00 / 1) (#363)
    by TG on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    Remember the "permanent Republican majority" meme of a few years ago? Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and instead of deluded right-wingers thinking they can do whatever they want, we have deluded left-wingers thinking they can do whatever they want.  Not only do they think they can win the general election with a Northern liberal who makes George McGovern look conservative, they think they can do it without blue-collar whites, without Hispanics, without seniors, without white women, without Ohio or Florida or West Virginia...

    And of course it's possible that they can get 50% plus one vote... but you can be sure of this, the pendulum will be swinging back the other way after a couple of years of Obama presidency.

    Well, (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:22:13 AM EST
    maybe they see a path to the presidency building on Obama's natural constituencies.  To be honest, they have played the game pretty well to this point.

    Well, they lost each of the last (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    4 months of the game with the voters to Hillary, but they did win the establishment and obviously the media.  But I think Obama will woo Hillary's supporters if he's smart.  36 million voted for the two of them combined.  I think John Kerry received 43 million votes in the general.  Clearly, wooing those already engaged in the process means he doesn't need a whole lot more voters to win.

    Parent
    More cherry-picking to put Obama in the worst (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    light possible. No surprise. But as his aide pointed out "...in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

    He will work to reach out to them, but his net must be cast much wider. As hard as it may be to believe, this campaign is no longer about Hillary Clinton.

    If people who support Clinton would vote for McCain--a man who is anathema to all her principles--then chances are Barack can't do a lot for them, other than make her VP, which he absolutely should not do, imo.

    But I have to congratulate you on your strong support of the party's nominee. Well done.

    The nominee sucks.... (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    ....so why should I support him?

    The media picked him.

    The supergelegates were bribed.

    Parent

    obama reach out to clinton supporters? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    yeah well i won't hold my breath and i suggest you not do that either. and please don't take us for naive.

    Parent
    You don't get a vote on how I vote (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    Or judge me on my intent, or demand ahead of time that I defend my choice in that or other rights and franchise.

    If you want to compile a record of my actions and demand justification for those, in advance I'll issue a formal: meh, whatever.

    Parent

    McCain - anathema (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:05:36 AM EST
    Obama campaigned for Lieberman, votes to fund the war in Iraq, has no immediate plans to end the war, votes for the patriot act and its' renewal, opposes gay marriage because of his "religious beliefs", dismisses a woman reporter asking an intelligent question calling her, "sweetie", talks about invading Pakistan, bombing Iran...("surgical missile strikes", mind you)....

    Talk about anathema.

    Parent

    the problem, of course... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    is that by and large the constituency groups that favored Clinton are the same ones that McCain has the best shot of making inroads with.

    Latinos/Hispanics -- check.  
    Older voters -- check
    Women -- not as easy a sell, but the 'three daughters' line was key, and expect to hear a LOT more of that.

    McCain did FAR more last night to appeal to Clinton voters than Obama did.... and McCain knows that elections are won in the middle.  The reason that Clinton is so electable in November is that she spent the last eight years working to claim the middle -- and that may be what will cost her the nomination.

    But Obama can only talk about the middle -- his Wright/Ayres/Pfleger history -- and lack of a tanglible record -- will make it childs play for the GOP to cast Obama not merely out of the middle, but onto the fringes....

    EVERY social program that Obama has ever advocated will be called "reparations" by conservative gasbags, for example....

    Parent

    Cherry picking by you (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    And let me tell you, I am heartily sick of your insults. Here is the quote, clearly in answer to a question about wooing Clinton supporters:

    "I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger," Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

    Excuse me, the right answer is this - "of course we will fight like hell to persuade these voters that BArack Obama is the right candidate for them. He will fight for every one of their votes. Roger Simon's characterization is perfectly fair.

    Continuing:

    Another Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified, said that he was not worried that Clinton supporters would stay angry.

    "Look at how many switched today to Obama," he said. "Look at the Clinton supporters, look at Maxine Waters [the congresswoman from California who endorsed Hillary Clinton in late January but switched to Obama on Tuesday], who were passionate advocates for Hillary, but who switched to Obama."

    The right answer is "Barack Obama will work hard to win their votes." More?

    "At the end of the day," he went on, "Hillary supporters will look at John McCain and decide they are not going to vote for a man who will put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade."

    That is the very definition of taking their votes for granted.

    Your attack on me was false and you are suspended for the day because of it.

    DO NOT COMMENT FURTHER TODAY.

    Parent

    Hillary is not the point (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    You are right about that.  The point is that if he doesn't get core Dem voters, he needs more of those Republicans and Independents, and he is going to have to veer away from core Dem and progressive values to get them.  That is the point, and what many of us who do not support him have feared all along.

    Parent
    Please don't insult the site (none / 0) (#181)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    Jeralyn has said, and I think BTD repeated yesterday, the comments will be deleted.

    Why don't you shift to the GE and share info that might balance out an article, share other info, or get diary privledges.  

    Parent

    So... (1.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Driven Insane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    Obama is responsible for all the vitriol thrown by any of his supporters, so by extension Clinton is responsible for anyone who says that they'll vote for McCain over Obama.  Thus, it logically follows that Clinton is not a Democrat...

    My premise must have been wrong.

    What would such wooing look like? (none / 0) (#8)
    by joshyelon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    What would he do?  For instance, I suppose he could throw out his health care proposal and adopt hers.  But what else?

    Here is a start (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:28:08 AM EST
    Are you listening? Do you have a pen? Because this is a very complicated idea - first, do NOT SAY you are not going to spend time trying to persuade a group of voters to vote for you.

    Parent
    And we're responding that (1.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:53 AM EST
    we don't see how we can woo you, given the vitriol being directed towards Obama.  BTD, I know this is hard for you to imagine, but BHO supporters pretty much feel that HRC created a block of voters by micro-targetting racism and being generally poisonous.  It's hard for us to understand how we can bring you all back in when we see this kind of hate for the presumptive nominee.

    I'd appreciate it if you'd not delete my comment and respond like a big kid.  It would be . . . a start of a conversation.

    Parent

    Gee, BHO (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:26 AM EST
    supporters pretty much accept the media narrative.  What a surprise.  

    The Obama campaign can do better than what his advisor Nunn has done, by making abortion rights into their sole bargaining chip.  Many Clinton supporters (I believe) feel Obama has coasted to the nom on overwhelmingly good media coverage, which simultaneously has been a tide of sexism towards Hillary.  Acknowledging the sexism and being open to working with Hillary supporters would be a great unifying step by Obama.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, the advisor isn't (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    Anita Nunn, it's Dunn.  That's who I'm referring to when I write "Nunn."

    Parent
    that's the Obama and Obamedia spin (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    but Obama has played the Race Card magnificently - engaging in
    race-baiting, falsely accusing the Clintons of racism, and calling Democrats "racists" - while attending Trinity Church that promotes race-baiting and hatemongering.

    Parent
    this helps. not. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:55:26 AM EST


    Parent
    I Think You Should Definitely Stick With (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    that attitude. Be sure to continue to call Hillary's supporters racist, uneducated, low class hicks who should be purged from the party. Continue demonizing Hillary and her supporters. It is definitely a winning strategy for November.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:56:09 AM EST
    then Obama supporters are delusional.  The person using race to divide this party is Obama.  The racism all sprang from his campaign and is a big part of why people will not vote for him in November.
    He also used sexism.  He's toast.

    Parent
    How bout acting like a big kid (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    and not quoting media talking points about race?  

    Did you cry last night when it was announced like Chris Matthews?  

    Parent

    Just what the heck does (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    micro-targeting racism mean?  Is that anything like Michelle Obama telling black voters to wake up?  Or pretending that Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark pertained to Obama's race?  Or deliberating letting Hillary's remarks on the respective roles of MLK and LBJ in the civil rights movement be distorted by friends and supporters?  Is that what micro-targeting racism means?  Why don't you, instead of using phrases really devoid of any meaning give concrete examples?  That might be the start to a real conversation.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    But aside from stopping being stupid.  What's an example of starting being smart?

    Parent
    How about not saying idiotic things (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST
    like "he isn't going to spend a lot of time wooing Clinton supporters who may feel hurt." The use of "may" is especially condescending -- as if those supporters are just a bunch of hysterical, overly sensitive nut jobs who didn't see the states Hillary won, didn't see the popular vote she got, didn't see the debacle at the DNC on Saturday and didn't actually vote for Hillary despite the msm & the DNC saying the race was over 2 months ago.

    Parent
    On top of that (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    Hillary supporters don't feel hurt, we feel "spit on," and "pissed off".

    It's a whole different problem.  And arrogance and throwing out scary boogie men isn't going to solve the problem.  LOL, it will only harden the resolve.

    Actually, nothing will solve the problem for me.  I'm certain beyond a doubt that he doesn't get my vote.  I don't think I'm alone.  I suppose they know that and figure why bother?

    Parent

    many of us feel (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    that McCain would be a better president regardless of policy.

    Parent
    you are not alone... (none / 0) (#337)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    I'm tired of people saying I'm hurt that Clinton lost. Hurt is not the word I'd use at all. Disappointed yup no doubt about it. Using the word "hurt" is an attempt to belittle me and an unwillingness to acknowledge my reason's for supporting Senator Clinton as legitimate. It is offensive to say the very least.

    My support of Clinton is because of her strength, her experience, her stance on policies. I trust her, she has built a relationship with this voter. Obama has not.  I'll even acknowledge her mistakes in this campaign, but those mistakes still garnished her nearly 18 million votes! I deserve respect for my choice as a voter, that's America's covenant with its citizens. There has been no signal from the Obama camp that they even comprehend this basic tenet.

    This is my vote, it is my prayer. I'll be writing in her name.  Imagine that, a low information voter who can spell!

    Parent

    Not Obama's words. (2.25 / 4) (#29)
    by joshyelon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:32:37 AM EST
    Those aren't Obama's words.  They're not even the words of an Obama supporter.  Those are the words of Roger Simon, author for the "Politico."  He's a conservative whose primary objective is to damage the democratic party.

    The actual words of the Obama Supporter are quoted:

    "I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger," Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    its the republican part that is going to be interesting to watch.


    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:37:56 AM EST
    Simon's characterization is clearly fair. He quotes Anita Dunn on the record saying the same thing and he quoted some one else off the record from Obama's campaign said the same thing.

    Parent
    Why a low grade? (1.00 / 1) (#288)
    by lgm on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    This site is mostly a huge Clinton serving Obama hating echo chamber.  joshyelon's post is not anti Clinton, but it points out that the premise of this thread is wrong.  An Obama staffer did not say Obama was not going to reach out to Clinton supporters.  He said that Obama was going to reach out to all Americans, not just Democrats.  Sounds sensible to me.  

    Question: why did the most insightful post in this 200+ thread get the lowest rating?

    Parent

    Not necessarily in that order (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

    She didn't add "but not necessarily in that order", but I bet it will work out that way.

    Parent

    Cabinet positions (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:28 AM EST
    are a demotion over being a senator.  VP positions aren't going to help.

    We've been insulted over and over again by the arrogance that is still exhibiting itself in this article.  I think the lion's share of us won't come back and they know it.

    Parent

    Perhaps the Pfleuger video CNN's running on a loop (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:28 AM EST
    ... might provide a clue. A better explanation of why Obama has made a place with no apparent shortage of foul-mouthed, viciously bigoted clerics the house of worship for his family for two decades.

    Not unexpectedly, CNN's running the video in the connected story that Pfleuger's been advised to make himself scarce. The video should be at their site.

    Parent

    Obama still hasn't apologized has he? (5.00 / 10) (#92)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:50:06 AM EST
    Pfleger viciously smeared Clinton on misogynistic and racist grounds and yet McCain has defended her while Obama refused.

    Even if Obama desperately tries to woo Clinton voters it won't work overall because it'll be soon for what it is: too little, too late.  Who would trust him after everything he's pulled?  Acts of political necessity, especially when you have exploited misogynistic bigotry to knock out the first serious woman candidate, will fall flat.  In fact, I can see it as the start of narrative in which Obama is portrayed as fighting for only one thing: himself.

    When the chips are down will Obama fight for us?  No.

    Parent

    You got that right... (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    "Pfleger viciously smeared Clinton on misogynistic and racist grounds and yet McCain has defended her while Obama refused"
    ==

    Throughout this campaign, John McCain has shown more respect to HRC than Obama has.

    And even McCain SUPPORTERS that I have heard on the radio, blogs etc actually say they have grown to respect her tremendously.

    Yet another reason Obamanation is not for me...

    Parent

    Demoting her to Sec. of HSS (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:33 AM EST
    is so unbelievably condescending -- I suggest the Obama camp start to learn a little something about positions in the government and the difference between Senator from NY & Sec. of HSS before they continue to go around making this "healing offers."

    Parent
    Bless you heart, I'm sure you didn't (none / 0) (#312)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    mean it as an insult, but it is one. That is why I stressed that the Obama supporters who really do want to heal & unify the party (and I believe you are one of those) should try not to suggest things like Sec. of HSS because no Senator in his/her right mind would give up her seat in the Senate for that position.

    Parent
    why wouls she want to waste her time (none / 0) (#327)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    pushing through his non universal health care mess?

    Parent
    my goodness, you are brand new and (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    telling us what is what. why thanks, not! and oh yeah, it is so not worth it. well considering the attitude of the obama campaign, that just might be right. good luck and all!

    Parent
    that isn't my job. and frankly since the (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:50 AM EST
    answer is so obvious, i don't take your question seriously at all.

    Parent
    great to see you quoted (none / 0) (#19)
    by jpete on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:12 AM EST
    in the NYT, BTD.
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/dreams-deferred/?scp=1-b&sq=armando&st=nyt

    Of course, that was yesterday, and I've yet to say a decent word about the other side of the story today.

    But they refer to BTD as a Clinton supporter. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Esme on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:33:37 AM EST
    He's said numerous times that he is tepidly for Obama!

    How hard is it to report facts ?

    Parent

    I'm concentrating on the fact that a very (none / 0) (#204)
    by jpete on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    important message got into the public arena, and though no one appearance may have a huge impact, it's great to think that this blog is getting more and more into the national discourse.  

    BUT perhaps BTD should ask for a correction?

    Parent

    I'm glad BTD and this blog are getting more (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Esme on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    national attention too!

    I just think that its typical of media organizations to label anyone who is sympathetic to HRC as a Clinton supporter, as if no one else can see that she isn't a vile person.

    Parent

    of course, you are (none / 0) (#286)
    by jpete on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    right.  

    Parent
    Have to be in the tank for Obama (none / 0) (#219)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
    to count.

    "tepid" without rejecting Clinton doesn't cut it.

    Parent

    A real Obana supported (none / 0) (#291)
    by jpete on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    would have denounced her daily.  Hmmmmmm.  That might tell one something about Obama.

    Parent
    Is that the royal WE (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    or are you a part of the Obama campaign?

    I said Many of Us (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:39:22 AM EST
    BTD, are you incapable of having this conversation rationally?  I speak for "many of us" who are nervous about what we saw on Saturday.  "inadequate black man" comes to mind.  My own mother, a big HRC supporter, turning to a convenient racism to explain her dislike of Obama.  Things like that make us nervous, and beg the question, HOW?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:00 AM EST
    I thought my question was pretty rational. Your subject line reads:

    "Frankly, we don't expect many to be woo-able."

    Who is "we" seems a good question to me. You see, I am not discussing Obama supporters in this post. I am discussing Obama and his campaign.

    Perhaps you wrote carelessly.

    Parent

    Yes, as in the we who I speak to (none / 0) (#158)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    you know, SO, friends, that kind of thing.

    And I have indeed wrote carelessly here.  I was hoping to come here today to find some blossoming of unity like I've seen on other blogs, but instead I see more recriminations, more finger-pointing, more war.  I'm sorry I interrupted your blog, and hope that you can find something in Obama, and the Democratic Party as it evolves, you can believe in.

    So my sincerest apologies BTD, I only wanted to start a conversation, and did so poorly.

    Parent

    You did indeed (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    I believe what I read in the Politico article describes a flawed political strategy and a political gaffe from the Obama campaign.

    I wrote I expect Axelrod to rebuke the people involved in that article. I suggest you to try and address my post if you want to engage me rationally.

    Parent

    Anger (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:01:34 AM EST
    Perhaps instead of judging all of the Clinton supporters you should try to figure out why so many people, not just that crazy awful lady on the video, are so very, very angry with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.  

    Here are some helpful links that might help explain why:

    here

    here

    here

    here

    and

    here

    I don't expect you to agree with what's said, but I think it should be pretty clear that some us see this election entirely differently than Obama folks and it has little to do with Clinton.  Indeed, all of the folks I linked started out as Edwards supporters.

    Parent

    If I were you I would start (none / 0) (#146)
    by Media Browski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    by not using blogs as my basis for reaction.  Hum.

    Parent
    I wonder if (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by sister of ye on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:07:50 AM EST
    you've ever voted for a black candidate in your life. I have chosen among black candidates for 35 years. And I've learned that, as with every other racial/ethnic group, there are good candidates and bad candidates.

    Barack Obama is an unqualified presidential candidate who happens to be labeled black because he inherited some of his dad's physical characteristics, include a somewhat dusky skin tone.

    I have no guilt about calling him an inadequate candidate. If you want to read that as a racist statement, I can't stop you.

    Parent

    Of course... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Driven Insane on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:37:49 AM EST
    A large majority of Democrats has stated that they would be happy if Obama or Clinton were the nominee.  And I think that eventually the diehard Clinton supporters will at least see Obama as the lesser of two evils.

    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    ow many votes are you willing to throw away?

    Parent
    Well good for you! It's important to have faith .. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    ... in whoever the Democratic party convention selects in August!

    Parent
    Most primary voters probably will vote for (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Exeter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    the Dem nominee, because it is rather narrow demographic. But, 20-30% of Clinton voters that are of the conservative Dem variety, will vote for McCain, because they view him as conservative Dem. Plus, it is less about the primary voters and more about the voters they represent. Obama has difficulties attracting seniors, Latinos, Catholics, white blue collar, and many demographics of women.  

    Parent
    I Am In the Liberal Wing of the Party (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    I'm not voting for McCain.  But if the election were held tomorrow, I'm not voting for Obama either.  He has until November to give me reason to, but right now I'll vote third party.

    Parent
    are you quite certain (none / 0) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    that the senior advisor isn't Axelrod?

    You mean when he brushed Hillary off his (none / 0) (#152)
    by angie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    shoulders & his shoes? If that is your definition of "extremely gracious" no wonder the world is in the state it is in.

    Has Axelrod (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    Issued his rebuke yet?

    Clinton (none / 0) (#188)
    by eric on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    is supposed to unify the party for Obama?  He's the one that needs it to happen.

    Of course not... (none / 0) (#246)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    ...she's not supposed to unify the party for Obama.  She's supposed to help Obama unify the party.  The possibility of mutual responsibility here is surely pretty clear.

    Parent
    I no longer (none / 0) (#190)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    Have the option of voting for Clinton.
    I don't know but this hilarious (none / 0) (#192)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
    MSNBC, most silly news broadcasting company? WHAT DOES HILLARY WANT? Analysis: Perhaps a vice presidency, or a prime-time convention speech. are they serious?

    that was weird... (none / 0) (#245)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM EST
    I never hit post, and I was in the middle of writing more when my screen went blank... and two sentences showed up... so to continue...

    I'm uncomfortable with too much emphasis being placed on the spouses of candidates, however.  Spouse have a right to their own opinions and their own lives, and speculation about the relationship between husband and wife is just wrong.

    I would restrict any criticism of spouses to what they say (not how they look) when acting as public figures who are "spouses".... in other words, Michelle Obama is fair game if she is introduced as, or makes a point of being, the wife of Senator (or state Senator) Barack Obama.

    everything else SHOULD be off limits.  I don't want to hear about Cindy McCain's personal problems, or how horrible a person Michelle Obama in private -- either in campaign meetings, or at home.

    The top story on Kos... (none / 0) (#259)
    by Lupin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    ...right now is about the possibility of cabinet positions for Clinton, Edwards, etc.

    In effect, a "unity" government, which in my opinion, is a lot better than a "unity ticket".

    I'm entirely confident that Clinton and Obama will reach some kind of satisfactory agreement, one that will not ignore the majority of her constituents.

    thanks for sparing us a visit to them (none / 0) (#320)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST
    most anything meaningful they might say could be said in a few words.

    Parent
    There's a Difference Between (none / 0) (#262)
    by TooFolkGR on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    "Wooing people whose feelings are hurt," and unifying the party.  It was clear from Obama's speech last night that he knows we all believe in the same things.  Politico is just doing their job by spinning this into, "Go to hell Clinton supporters, who needs you."

    Pay more attention to the candidate himself instead.  We would have had a much cleaner primary if EVERYONE on ALL SIDES would have done more of that.

    that elephant has been in the Obama camp (none / 0) (#263)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    all along, his supporters were mean, vicious, and undemocratic from day 1. The spirit of the party of inclusion has been severely tested by his campaign.                                      Except until recently,when he told his supporters not to show up at the RBC over the weekend, you never heard Axelrod call off his supporters from the smears, you never heard a discouraging word  to stop the negative press as Hillary attempted to at least once when the pastor #1 thing became stale news.

    its the kind of cult worship that was by appearances welcomed with open arms and frankly it should scare people.

    But it was  the plan all along to be aggressive and cover the bases 24/7 in the most popular mediums, the internet and what is left of the media. Give him credit for the legions of spokespeople who made the case for his empty message and hooked the gullibles who happened to be part of the punditry.

    So I won't be expecting anything to discourage the trend from the Ax man now.

    But it will be to the detriment of the Obama campaign, because's not even a natural at being warm or sincere. He reminds me of GWB ALOT!

    If he had common political sense, Obama should  JTFU,and wait until Mrs. Clinton has a moment to de-compress from the gruel of the campaign and allow for calm.

    but he's so busy trying to seize the moment, its all about him now, and he can't see it not only because of the elephant but because the moment won't allow it and he's got to ride it until reality sets in.

    I'll be waiting.

    trends not looking good (none / 0) (#274)
    by pluege on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    the truth is that Obama peaked in January/February and its been all fingers in the dikes brigade, and same old same old since. HRC had a few early stumbles, but her trajectory since March has been steady upward. Obama needs a fresh face and strategy for winning over HRC supporters that he conveys as having no interest in.  

    LOL, BTD you sure know how to stoke the fire n/t (none / 0) (#284)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:07 AM EST


    Indeed (none / 0) (#287)
    by pb on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    For many people this primary has become very much about a cult of personality around their preferred candidate.  I think we'd see a similar trend if Clinton had won.

    But certainly, by any reasonable standard that Clinton is preferred to Obama, Obama is to be preferred to McCain.  Unless, of course, you care more about the candidate than the policies.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#359)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    I disagree.

    The cult of personality around Obama has allowed people, many of them women, many of them feminist women, but discount sexism and mysogeny and to "explain it away" (See the sweetie thread above. He apologised, so that makes it ok, right? Ummm... no.)

    I have not seem a similar trend in Clinton supporters in discounting racist attacks.

    This, to me, is the difference. The "Obama can do no wrong, so anything he does wrong is just the other people lying about him" premise vs the "Ouch. That's pretty racist, I wish he/she'd not said that"

    Parent

    i am sick of posters like you demonizing (none / 0) (#326)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    clinton supporters. puma

    Obama to move on (none / 0) (#333)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    I think Obama was very complimentary toward Hillary last night in his speech. This comes down to how Clinton supporters define 'reaching out'. Even if he takes her on as VP that won't please many Clinton supporters - and that is the best he can do. So, yes, he has to move on and hope the urge for most Clinton supporters is that they are Democrats first and supporters of a particular candidate second.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#350)
    by thentro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    Thank you Talk Lefter's who have supported your candidate because of who she is and and what she stands for. To many people on both sides have fallen away from their own campaigns message and taken part in a guerilla war of scandals and personal attacks and should feel embarrassed for their ignorant words designed simply to hurt. We can take some time now to figure out what to do next, but I have enjoyed getting to know Talk Left over the past few months even if I often disagree. Keep speaking up! And be kind to each other.

    Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them? | 309 comments (309 topical)