home

Clinton Response To McCain "Passed Over" Ad

CNN reports:

Clinton’s team immediately dubbed the ad misleading. "Hillary Clinton's support of Barack Obama is pretty clear,” said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. “She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn't. It's interesting how those remarks didn't make it into his ad."

By Big Tent Democrat

< When McCain Attacks | Sunday Afternoon Photos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Zing! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    Nice job Hillary.  

    But it was her team (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cards In 4 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    that made the statement, not her.  Don't they know Keith O will be looking for an excuse to rip her?

    Parent
    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    think she should care about Keith O and his inane attacks anymore?  Why should she care about people who totally helped take the election from her with smears and slanders.  I love it.  This way she's the center of a big controversy and she's getting more attention than McCain or Obama.  The ad shows how inept the DNC is and also shows Obama's lack of political judgment.  I think it will create sympathy for Hillary.  It will make the 'bots mad, but they hate Bill and Hillary anyway.  So Obama created this little mess himself.

    Parent
    No, no (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:49:35 PM EST
    Now, if the spokesperson had said "clear enough" ....

    And it doesn't matter... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    ...since the ad wasn't aimed at Hillary supporters who will honor her request to support Obama, but those, and they are certainly out there in numbers, who have indicated they simply won't vote at all.  Unless Hillary comes out and speaks directly to those angry supporters who simply can't stand the thought of voting for Obama.  It's one thing to preach to those who will obviously listen to you, it's quite another to make a passionate pitch to those who have shown no inclination, who may simply believe Hillary is merely being a good party loyalist, to a party these disaffected supporters feel absolutely no connection any longer.  But we shall see.

    She has and is making passionate pitches. (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    What more can she do? At some point, Obama needs to make a pitch, too.

    Parent
    Or Obama could do that. (5.00 / 15) (#23)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    Given that he's the candidate, not Clinton.  Amazing that the lady who was called too polarizing to appeal to independents is now being saddled with the responsibility of winning them over because the great post-partisan messiah can't do it himself.

    Why don't you just save yourself the trouble and say that if Obama wins, it was because of him and if he loses, it was because of Hillary.   Nothing she does will never be enough and nothing he does will ever fall short.

    Parent

    Senator Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
    has gone FAR beyond the call of duty to prop up Obama and the DNC's failed journey to the center of the political universe.

    Anyone thinking person should be able to discern that the one GIVEN the mantle of leader, and yes it was given because of the popular vote victory by Clinton, should have the fortitude to move the voting masses his way.  Not Clinton's. Not at all.  She has been dismissed by the Pelosis and the Brazilles of the party.

    It is OBAMA's to win on his own, accompanied by the Oldsmobile Biden.

    Hillary has done ENOUGH.  BASTA!!!!

    Parent

    Is this not ... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    Amazing that the lady who was called too polarizing to appeal to independents is now being saddled with the responsibility of winning them over because the great post-partisan messiah can't do it himself.

    ... the definition of irony?

    Parent

    She has done so. (5.00 / 18) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    She has done all that she can.  I'm still waiting to see what he will do to speak to me.

    So far, since the end of the primaries, his votes and his words have only moved me farther away.  

    He could have voted as Clinton did on FISA.

    He could have spoken out as Clinton did on Bush's outrageous further inroads on women's reproductive rights.

    But instead, I found out that my daughter is supposed to consult her husband and minister on such matters.  My daughter isn't married.  But her minister is very cool.  Still, I would rather that my daughter and her doctor decide on her health.

    And there is more, much more, as you know as a regular here.  So I repeat:  Clinton has done what she can.  But she just can't seem to make Obama vote like a Dem or talk like a Dem.  There 'tis.

    Parent

    Hey Cream City (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    My girlfriend and I were recounting our days to each other last night and I mentioned that a kind stranger on a blog had talked me off my ledge. "hang in there and keep your head high" you wrote.

    I said that to myself a handful of times yesterday.

    Here's a video I made over a year ago when I began hearing the "i just don't like Hillary" from my liberal friends with no logical explanation of why.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Nz5UB-UCw

    It started me on a whole new journey of how women are viewed and treated. My eyes have been opened and I'm furious about what I see.

    I think I read that you teach? what do you teach?
    It's beautiful here in "frisco"! Look forward to seeing you
    stir the pot on Talk Left today!

    Parent

    Nice video (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    Hey, that was no ledge, hon -- (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    that was just a steppingstone in life.  Sometimes the fog is just so bad that we only see the edge of the stone we're on, not the next one waiting for us.  So sometimes we don't see who is waiting there for us.

    And my gosh, Sarah, I already found your video last year!  I use videos before classes to entertain the troops with peppy music to historical photos, and Ifind great ones on youtube.  I couldn't use this one because of the language, exact quotes that they are, of course.  But I already had it bookmarked in my fave file . . . 'cause I also love the blues.

    And as you can imagine, I teach American history, with a research focus on African American, women's, and media history.  It certainly makes this election year interesting.:-)

    Parent

    More great advice. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    "that was just a steppingstone in life.  Sometimes the fog is just so bad that we only see the edge of the stone we're on, not the next one waiting for us.  So sometimes we don't see who is waiting there for us."

    Wow, considering what you teach this must be a mind bending election to be watching.

    Parent

    Stepping stone (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    sounds so positive.  With Hillary, our nation would have been given ladders and stepping stones, not more failed "let's appease the center righties of the country" crap.

    I want REAL Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Sheila Jackson Lee, Paul Wellstone(RIP), Ann Richards (RIP)  and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones(RIP) fighting for us.

    Wow, typing those names just actually made me cry a little.  My liberal heroes are dying.

    The other day I asked myself with HRC out of the race & Tubbs-Jones death, "Who's going to fight for us? Who's going to speak for us?"

    I decided I would speak for me.  I will fight for Dem values.  And if I have to call in sick and pawn my sh1t to drive to Denver I will.

    I will be heard!

    Parent

    I so wanted to fill in the last frame (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    with madame president.

    now i can do a list of dozens and dozens of misogynistic quotes.

    how would you end it?

    Parent

    I don't think he's going to speak to us. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    I think that 3 a.m. call was a warning shot that he thinks we are seriously out of touch.  It was his nonverbal way of saying "Get over it."  

    Posting this makes me realize how angry I am at the DNC for putting us in this situation.  They could have had a winning candidate with Clinton and we wouldn't even be talking about "when Obama is going to speak to us."  

    Parent

    And come to think of it, she must have won (5.00 / 13) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    some over, or he did, that have moved away now.  See the drop in the polls.  Those were voters favorable to Obama after Clinton suspended and endorsed him.

    Now, they're not for him anymore.  Can you argue that Clinton wooed them away from him?  At the very time that she, alone of any of the other candidates, has been out there working hard for him?

    He did it to himself.  So he's the one to fix it.

    Parent

    Excellent point, (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    Cream City.

    Parent
    There is no drop in the polls. (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ennis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    The recent movements are all within the Measure of Error, and only one poll has shown McCain in the lead since Obama won the nomination.

    Moreover, all the polls are flawed because they don't reflect new "likely voter" models, cell phones and intensity - all of which are in Obama's favor.

    Obama is in good shape for having spent most of August out of the country or on vacation.  Yesterday was the first day of the General Election, and it was a good day for Obama - with many more to follow.

    Parent

    Go Ennis! Go! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    He was banned upthread - Ennis must GO (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    You are right !!

    Parent
    More fanboy gushing! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    Pump us UP, baby!

    Parent
    Oh, okay. Ennis knows all (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    and the polls I read today, including drops again, know nothing.  Even the ones that already have some bounceback from the VP pick.  (Yes, I read the details of the polls, too, not just the numbers.)

    Please provide the link to the Ennis Poll.  Can't seem to find it or on RCP or other sites.

    Parent

    There's not drop in the polls AND the (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    polls are flawed anyway reminds of the old joke

    "The food here is terrible...and such small portions"

    Parent

    Ah, yes, the "cell phone" myth. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:59:24 PM EST
    Let me know when you find the Loch Ness Monster.

    Parent
    It's not a myth... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Addison on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    ...when pollsters -- Zogby -- use listed numbers instead of randomly generated ones.

    However it is mostly balanced out by other factors.

    From all I've read, anyway.

    Parent

    Polling has moved into the modern era (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    they take into account cell phone users, etc.

    Parent
    Cell phones not counted? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Chisoxy on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    THis is such baloney. There is nothing to point to in the primary that shows a portion of Obama supporters were constantly undercounted. The biggest polling surprises were in Hillarys favor (NH, CA). Give this myth a rest already.

    Parent
    Intensity (none / 0) (#158)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    I disagree that the intensity is there for most voters.  The intensity we saw in the primary were Hillary voters going out in great numbers to make sure Obama wasn't the nominee. I don't see any intensity for the general election and Gallup has said so in one of the his polls.

    Parent
    Accountability! (none / 0) (#172)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    Paging accountability, party of one...Obama, u listening??!

    Parent
    Hillary is not doing enough... (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Check077 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:22:41 PM EST
    Unless Hillary comes out and speaks directly to those angry supporters who simply can't stand the thought of voting for Obama.

    I see this as another Hillary is not doing enough...talking point.

    Hillary is not on the ticket--Barack is.

    If he wants to be president, no one is going to be able to hold his hand to win those voters over but him...

    It's on the person at the top of the ticket.

    Parent

    Shorter Dadler: (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    obama is such a lousy candidate that someone else is going to have to work to get votes for him.

    Newsflash: The people who won't vote for Obama won't vote for him because of what he has done and has not done. There is nothing Hillary can say. You aren't going to be able to vote for Hillary.

    Parent

    I hate to say dumb (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    but what you say is dumb.  Hillary cannot get those voters to vote for Obama.  Obama has to do it. Obama can't do it. Obama will never do it.

    Parent
    But still, great on her for saying it. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Obviously.

    Parent
    She'd have to do that in such a way... (none / 0) (#11)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    ... that the independent voters that Obama's trying to attract/maintain don't get turned off by the "vibe" of the whole campaign.

    Tricky.

    Parent

    I've been digging the McCain ads because (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    they've been funny but this ad is really clunky. I get that they're trying to reach out to Hillary Dems and at the same time attack Barack but this ad fails.

    I was expecting an ad that tried to drive a wedge between women in Barack by talking about being passed over for a man or had the theme that Barack was petty and held grudges and who put his own ego over the good of the country and so couldn't be trusted to put America first.

    I don't think the ad is aimed... (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    This ad is not aimed at Clinton supporters.  Its aimed at the massive number of undecided voters who don't like the GOP this year, but don't trust Obama.

    Clinton supporters (at least those that I know) don't think that Clinton was "passed over" because she "told the truth."   They think its because Obama doesn't want to share the spotlight with her.  

    To me, what is most interesting about this ad is that it makes no sense in terms of the Biden "not ready" ad.  (Biden was picked despite the fact that he 'told the truth').  Team McCain is throwing the kitchen sink at Obama -- Obama was on the ropes, and the Biden pick was a desperate attempt to change the narrative, and convince voters that his hubris and inexperience would not lead to disaster... that Obama will listen to "his elders" rather than drive us off a cliff because he's arrogant and doesn't know anything.

    So we're getting this "do whatever it takes to prevent the Biden nomination from having its desired impact" campaign.  It doesn't have to make sense -- all it has to do is keep the questions that were being asked about Obama before the Biden nomination in play.

    Parent

    Hi, (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    Let me preface this by saying I'm a big fan of your comments here and at Corrente. But I don't agree this ad was aimed at Hillary supporters especially women. When I saw it was titled "passed over" I grimaced because I thought it would be an ad that appealed to women and spoke about how again a qualified woman is passed over for the popular guy in the office or because she wouldn't play along.

    I think a lot of women can related to the "passed over" theme that it started out with.

    But then it went into "telling the truth" and it seems to paint Hillary as a whistle blower which to me conjured up memories of Valerie Plame and I laughed at he irony of Republicans and the "telling the truth" line in the ad.

    I think if it had been aimed at independents the ad would have been more cerebral but it started out with a very loaded word for women. There are actually two ads in this one which is why I don't think it works.

    Parent

    Oh man. (none / 0) (#145)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
     
    But I don't agree this ad was NOT aimed at Hillary supporters, especially women
    .

    Parent
    This is a (none / 0) (#153)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    ad questions Obama's judgement to undecided voters.

    John McCain is not as doddering and clueless as Dems want to believe.

    Parent

    Hillary had crossover GOP women (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    I suspect McCain is calling them home and stirring the pot since mentioning Obama and Clinton in the same sentence stokes resentment. I'm interested to see if he does a "banana republic" ad. I would if I were him and I'd be playing it in FL and MI.

    Parent
    This is a very good point (none / 0) (#130)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    I disagree that its clunky (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    I think they have a very effective line of attack across the ads including this one, which I think taps directly into a perception that some democrats have of Sen Obama. Mainly that he was condescending towards Sen Clinton, that he can be petulant and he can't be trusted. Mind you I am NOT accusing him of these things, but rather pointing out that if you look at all the ads the images and message all tap into this.

    Which is kind of impressive considering quite a few women I know who were Clinton supporters and will not vote for Obama all feel this way. So they have tapped into something.

    Parent

    Yup! (none / 0) (#143)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:50:11 PM EST
    I was expecting a zany ad filmed in black and white set to the theme song from Leave it to Beaver that talked about how she was passed over for a lesser qualified man(clip of news program talking of how bad Joe Biden performed at a caucus) interspersed with black and white pictures from the 50s of a woman doing "womanly" things in the kitchen and Hillary looking wistful ending with a funny picture of Joe Biden as the voice over says that Barack didn't have the judgment to pick "unity" and unite the democrat party so couldn't be counted on to unite the country.

    Parent
    Well, I don't think there's anything (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    "misleading" about being passed over for VP - and that's the part that resonates with a lot of people - and the one thing Clinton did not address in the statement.

    How can McCain drive a wedge between women and (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    Obama...

    McCain would criminalize abortion.

    McCain is against equal pay for women.

    McCain voted against funding programs for early breast cancer detection.

    All McCain is doing is insulting women, by trying to get them to vote based on their emotions (anger), rather than their rational selves(policies).  He is perpetuating the sexist stereotypes, not trying to tear them down.

    Hillary understands this very well.

    Same old, same old (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    what part of the bad tactic trying to threaten women to get them to fall in line don't you get.

    Here's is what  works.
    Women are smart; they will choose the best candidate that meets their needs, that will push issues they deem as important.  Women will not be influenced by the republican attack ads.

    Parent

    Or overzealous Obama (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    supporters wo will do or say anything if they think it might help their candidate.

    Obama was never even a consideration for me when the primaries began, and he's done nothing to change my mind.

    On the contrary, I'm less impressed than ever.

    Parent

    Actually McCain is exploiting the wedge (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    Obama tried to drive between his younger and/or "feminist" resenting supporters and older, more-likely-to-be-Clinton-supporting women. This ad isn't designed to get women to vote for McCain -- its designed to encourage Clinton bashing by the media and Obama supporters.

    Bashing that constantly distracts from the campaign, creates mutual distrust, keeps animosities alive, and is MUCH more harmful to Obama than any one ad.

    Obama supporters keep getting rolled by this GOP tactic again and again and again.

    When will you guys wake up and see that maybe YOU, and your conviction that the Clintons and their supporters are evil, is the real problem for the Obama?

    Parent

    Inorite? (5.00 / 10) (#93)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    If the Obama campaign would tell his supporters very strongly to stop talking about Hillary and start selling his policies, they'd do themselves a world of good. They say she doesn't matter, she lost, get over it, but obviously they don't believe it or they'd take their own advice.

    Parent
    This makes Sen-O's RW pander more mystifying (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:13:41 PM EST
    Pointing out so vividly how McCain sucks only shines a spotlight on how Obama sucks equally or worse.

    If this list came from a recent Obama criticism of McCain -- rather than your own analysis (or Team Obama's gambit to whip "Clinton supporters" in line) -- why has Obama spent months shamelessly sucking up to the very anti- human rights faction that has advanced this odious agenda the hardest?

    I'm not talking about a RW spinbot working the latest media spin cycle here but fanatics working for DECADES to persecute extra-judicially people who access their inalienable constitutional rights.

    And why did Obama himself, and his insiders, deride, trivialize and dismiss people who have historically opposed the very agenda you listed as unnecessary for his GE win (as voters) and his platform?

    It does Obama no good when he or his supporters go after McCain for positions that Obama actually endorsed for the short-term gain of presenting himself as the post-partisan Uniter we've been waiting for.

    Well, we never included me or millions of other diehard opponents of that agenda, of course.

    It did provide media and @ss coverage for the phonily "progressive" bigots who use their support of Obama to (a) declare themselves non-racist, and (b) feign being beyond reproach in order to (c) go on a media spree of baldly repulsive bigotry unequaled in my lifetime.


    Parent

    At (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    one time or another Obama has held all these same positions.  Women are tired of being held hostage by "women's issues."  

    Parent
    Women are smart, (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    and we also understand the roles of the different branches of government.  So don't tell me about Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court appointments.  With the majority the Democrats are expected to have in the next congress, if the Democrats can't keep a Republican president in line, they are more pitiful than I suspect.
    Here in Massachusetts, the Democratic legislature has had much success in keeping our Republican governors in line over the years.  

    Parent
    Hillary pushes (4.88 / 9) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    the same issues TChris does here, speaking about equal pay in her speeches.

    But actually, in your comment, you are perpetuating sexist stereotypes:  "trying to get them to vote based on their emotions (anger), rather than their rational selves(policies)."

    Do you really see us wimmins as so easy to manipulate?  McCain is doing the same tricks Repubs have always done, to both genders.  So much of voting is emotional for everyone.  And Lord knows we've heard the wonderful gushing stories of Obama conversions from men and women who support Obama.  Isn't that emotional?

    Your framing is unimaginative at best, insulting at worst.

    Parent

    Of course that's what McCain is doing. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    He has no policy position that is consistent with progressive women's issues.

    Now, if I thought that approach would work, THEN I would be sexist too.  I do not expect it to.

    Parent

    The ad (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    is pushing the "Obama is an egomanical celebrity" angle as well.  "The truth hurt...and Obama didn't like it."

    I agree that McCain has no policies consistent with a progressive agenda for women.  I think he is trying to revive the security mom voter - he wants to bring up trust issues, executive experience issues, etc.  

    Like I said, all (most) voting has an emotional aspect.  

    Parent

    Democrats (4.87 / 8) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    helped criminalize third term abortions.

    didn't bother to address the fact that the SC ruled that BC pills don't need to be carried on formularies.

    helped create the loophole that caused BC pills costs to rise on campuses.

    You better play a better game then the one you're playing.

    McCain may not be my friend but from where I'm sitting neither are enough of the Democrats.

    Parent

    Insulting us? Nah. Not a woman, are ya? (4.73 / 15) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    He's amusing us.  He's pandering to us.  It's kinda nice, since no other presumptive nominee is doing it.

    But we were Clinton voters, so we understand you guys very well, too.  Not to worry.  If McCain wins, it won't be with voters who were for Clinton.

    But if Obama loses, it will be without voters who were for Clinton but just don't vote at all.

    Now, what would you tell Obama to do about that?

    Parent

    Yes, McCain is like an unwanted suitor.... (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    ...your not that into him, but no one else is paying any attention to you at the moment so, what the heck. You listen.

    Parent
    LOL-- good one, Maria n/t (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kempis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Cleaning my keyboard again (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    as that was just too perfect.  Ah, you remind me of the lean years in my dating life. :-)

    Parent
    True, but voters (none / 0) (#95)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    have let ginned up anger guide them for awhile now, Reagan, Bush, BushII, contract on America and so on. Anger and fear are probably the most useful tools for getting people to do what you want.

    Parent
    All that you cite are not (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM EST
    at all what worked to win voters to Clinton.

    Nice try.  Try again on point.  Then you might make the point -- as it may be one that can be made.

    Parent

    My post didn't make any (none / 0) (#127)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    assertions about Clinton, period. I was pointing to general GOP tactics, fear and anger. By using the inexperience line, McCain was using fear. By pointing out Obama didn't choose Clinton has his veep, thus ignoring her voters, he was trying to create anger amongst voters. Again, my post was about GOP tactics, they have two, from my perspective fear and anger.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    the inexperience line was used because Obama is INEXPERIENCED!

    Kinda like, "Does this dress make me look fat?"  "No your fat makes you look fat."

    Right there in front of you, sweetie.

    Parent

    True. So I'm still trying to figure out (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    how to take these examples from the past and see what they would use this time to try to get Clinton voters.  I'm not seeing it, other than this touchy-feely appeal to feelings, and that won't work with most Clinton voters, who are about issues.

    So we will have to see if they figure out something that will work.  I really don't quite see how, not with McCain's stands.

    Parent

    Eeeek! (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    You couldn't be more wrong.

    We're sick and tired of fear-mongering.  We may be angry, but I don't think that works in Obama's favor.

    At all.

    Parent

    Let's hope so. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:33:22 PM EST
    Let's be honest though, trying to persuade a person, using rational thought and argument, to get that person to do what you want, can be time consuming. Fear and or anger, can get a desired result much quicker.

    Parent
    If this is true: (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    Fear and or anger, can get a desired result much quicker.

    McCain will win in a landslide.  Experience is an issue for Obama.


    Parent

    No doubt about the experience (none / 0) (#150)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    question. The underlying emotion, however, is fear, no?

    Parent
    Unfortunately, Dems are angry (none / 0) (#155)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:03:41 PM EST
    at both the DNC and the Republicons. Which McCain is trying to perpetuate, at least the DNC part.

    Parent
    Ha ha, you beat me to it. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    Must be mindful of those modifiers.

    If Obama could refute the ad (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    by pointing out what he's done or said that makes these kinds of remarks inoperable, he wouldn't have to worry.

    But he hasn't.  He's made almost no inroads since the primary ended.

    Way to fire up the voters.

    Parent

    Obama cannot refute (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    the ad and could not refute Clinton when she made the comments

    Parent
    the ad will work (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by londonamerican on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:40:17 PM EST
    because it is true. at the end of the day, hillary owes obama exactly nothing.

    we, hillary's voters, will make up our minds by ourselves, on the basis of the candidates' actions. so far, obama has done very little to earn our votes.

    this is not about hillary. it is about obama and his actions.

    Parent

    After her harsh, negative, undignified campaign (5.00 / 13) (#18)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    Those endless months where she aided the enemy by attacking the chosen one in her selfish, greedy, quixotic quest for the presidency...

    All McCain can compile together from months of videotape is Hillary saying that Obama hasn't been specific enough and that his campaign had become increasingly negative.

    Ironically, the guy who took the "high road" could've supplied McCain with far better material for an attack ad, had Clinton been the nominee.

    Hillary bad. Obama good.  Black is white.  Up is down.  What a topsy-turvy world we're living in.

    I mean really! (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    Didn't she throw the kitchen sink at Obama?  Didn't her claws come out?

    Could it be that it was just people's imaginations playing tricks on them?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    The Unity Party arrives.

    Parent
    Periodically, you're feeling down, we know. (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    But the polls will bounce back in a few days.  For a few days.  Then it's up to Obama and Working-Class Joe.

    Clinton has her own work to do.  Y'know, like fighting for women's reproductive rights against the recent Bush moves.  And from the new leader of the New Dem Party?  Not a peep.  But maybe he'll get back to us on that, too.  Periodically, of course.

    Parent

    Oops. Just reread and realized (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    your comment was snark.  Gosh, you're good.

    Or else I'm just getting blinded by all the drive-by CDSers lately here.  So I'm outahere.  Sorry!

    Parent

    Snark's all I got these days. (5.00 / 8) (#118)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    It's the only thing keeping my righteous indignation in check.   Watching the family who made me a Democrat in the first place, who were the first family to represent all of America, be dragged through the mud by their own has been too painful to watch.  Especially after I let myself believe, foolishly, that redemption would come in the form of a VP slot.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#111)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    You apparently weren't the only one.  :)

    Parent
    Yes. Clinton cannot get him elected (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:08:16 PM EST
    no matter how many news releases come out of her office.  Not even Clinton and the DNC can carry him this time.

    He's the one who has to go for the Oval Office now, and not just with a stadium rally this week.  He is doing a lot more this week, elsewhere, I hope?  He's in northern Wisconsin today, and then Montana, so I read -- but is Montana this week, too?  I would gather that he really doesn't need to be in Denver until Thursday.

    I don't suppose that many of his followers know that nominees used to accept on their own front porches.:-)

    If Obama did events on Tue/Wed... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Addison on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    ...lots of people would complain about him trying to  distract from the Clintons. And, in the broader sense, in the sense of a distraction, they'd be right. If Obama does too much before Thursday the convention will get less coverage, and numerous downticket Dems will be out of the limelight: bad for them and bad nationwide for the Democrats.

    Anyway, this is yet another "damned if it does/doesn't" situation for Obama. He campaigns this week and he's making it all about him. He doesn't campaign and he's lazy and isn't working hard enough.

    Parent

    You're correct, of course. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    Certainly in terms of large events.  He must be doing some that don't make it into the media -- as he has done all along, although some make it into the media, anyway.:-)  (See Guns, Clinging.)

    Parent
    Here in frisco last weekend (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:54:00 PM EST
    at a fundraiser.
    "I will win. Don't worry about this"
    followed by our embarrassing speaker Pelosi claiming that
    "God has blessed us with the leader Obama".

    BLECH! Head spinning and green projective vomit spraying all over the walls.
    I can't wait to vote for Cindy Sheehan here.

    Parent

    I wish I could vote there! (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    BIG ED (none / 0) (#194)
    by jedimom on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    if you are in MASS you can vote for Ed O Reilly!! That is almost as good!!

    :0>

    Parent

    seriously?Pelosi said that? link? (none / 0) (#115)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST
    Here you go (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    Oh, and I forgot to say (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    This is way creepy.

    Parent
    She really said that? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    This is waywayway creepy!

    To think that I once thought Pelosi was a no nonsense down the earth kind of woman ... this is total over the top hype IMO.

    Or does she actually believe what she is saying?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    she did say that and his statement sounds suspiciously like the fix is in.

    Parent
    Yes, seems like by now Hillary is not (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    required to issue anymore responses on behalf of obama.  To my mind she has done her duty and now it is time for obama to "man-up" so to speak.

    Parent
    How long does she have to raise $$ for herself? (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:13:03 PM EST
    Obama has been no help retiring her debt - perhaps she should concentrate on raising $$ to retire her debt instead of raising $$ for Obama.  Whatever she does for him is never appreciated anyway.

    Parent
    Yep, We Know (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jade Jordan on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    And we also know that people traveled West in Wagons before cars were invented.  I wouldn't recommend that now either.

    Parent
    her rightful place? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MrPope on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    please tell me u didnt say rightful place... noone has a rightful claim on being president

    i will just assume you had too much chablis this afternoon to be serious

    True. No one is entitled (5.00 / 11) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    unless they get the most votes.

    Oh, wait.  She did.

    Parent

    ok (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MrPope on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    oh yeah Hillary go more votes.. more delegates and won the nomination  but the DNC stole it from her.

    is that what i am suppose to tell my kids fighting in Korea and Russia  in 2011?

    Parent

    Good grief. (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST
    Don't be ridiculous.  Hyperbole isn't going to get you or Obama anywhere.

    Parent
    yes... (5.00 / 10) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:49:15 PM EST
    explain to them how Obama was bullied because of his lack of experience and convictions into deploying US troops unwisely, and how had it not been for the corruption of the DNC, we would have had a Democratic candidate who has spent decades standing up to GOP bullying and attacks on her.

    Parent
    Tell your kids the truth, wherever they are (5.00 / 11) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    which is that she got more popular votes, but he got more delegates, especially the super-delegates.

    And no one has won the nomination yet.  Not of the Dems.  McCain, of course, did win the necessary number of pledged delegates months ago.  But neither Obama -- nor Clinton -- cinched it yet.

    You might also tell them the truth about the differences between rules and roolz.  If they're ready to serve in only a few years, they're old enough to have learn the truth about how the world is supposed to behave and how it really does.

    So the truth about the rest of the world would be wise to tell them, too.  But I think you have to read up more on that as well.  

    Parent

    You know, (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    I think that one of the main things I'm hearing that annoys alot of Clinton supporters about his not picking her is this: He DIDN'T earn the right to pick a VP, and neither would she have if she were nominated.  Because neither one could reach the magic number under their own steam, they should have been somewhat obliged to pick to other as VP. I don't think for a minute she would want to pick him as VP, but she's smart and probably would have done so if she thought it gave her a better chance at victory in November.  Unlike her, he lets his emotions (arrogance, ego?) get in the way of a smart decision IMO. And to me it seems arrogant for him to overlook a person that arguably got more votes than he did. Although I wouldn't have voted for him if he picked her anyway.  He's unqualified in my mind whether his VP is Clinton, Biden, or God himself (and by God I don't mean Obama).

    Parent
    "and expanding access to health care" (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    What?! Sounds awfully Obama-ish.

    McCain is playing for the Hilary Supporters (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    By being compassionate to Hilary in this ad. Got to say that's pretty smart.

    Except for one thing (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    Hillary voters are easily manipulated.  Despite the false generalization of some that Hillary voters are all emotional old women, with a few men, a few gays who all love to cry, it is not so.

    H*ll would freeze over before any McCain ad or republican ad could woo me anywhere.
    Women will take a stand on issues and the important issues are how the democratic party works; how the democratic party treats ALL it constituents.  Right now many women feel there has been a lot of unfair tactics at play.  If the dems do not address this, we are theirs to lose, but never the rethugs to win.

    Parent

    But Obama hasn't lost you, at (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    least according to something you said earlier today - you're voting for him, and somehow expecting change within the party, or some kind of "civil war" that is going to purge the party of the people who brought you the guy you're voting for.

    I see you standing strong against the GOP, which is great, but I guess I don't understand how you think accepting what has been wrought within the Dem party will be fixed by accepting it.  If you will pardon me for saying it, it's the same kind of rationale Obama gave for voting for that FISA bill - it was the best they could do for now, but it would get fixed later.

    Sorry, I just don't get it.

    Parent

    Hard to explain (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    myself.....

    I WON'T vote for McCain. Can't do it.  NO WAY, NO HOW.  I probably will vote for Obama/Biden.....but it is not 100% for sure.

    I honestly believe that change is possible.....with Hillary leading the charge.  She's smart.  She knows how to access power and she knows it is important to listen to her constituency. I guess I believe she is the catalyst for change and her presence in the party in power will be a starting point.


    Parent

    I think that's a little bit of wishful (none / 0) (#204)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    thinking on your part, to see Hillary leading the charge in the party that, where she is concerned, pretty much has yanked the welcome mat away from the door, and for good measure, has had the locks changed.

    I agree with you that she can be a catalyst for change, insomuch as how she was treated and how the rules were manipulated to keep her from winning has made her a symbol for what has gone wrong, but whether she, herself, will be a force for change - I just don't see it.

    I see her continuing to work hard for the causes she feels most passionate about, and I think she will be a great friend to people who need someone to be their voice in the halls of power, but I do not see her continuing to do battle with the new forces within the party.  For all the rap on her that she is divisive, I think she would not pick this particular battle precisely because she would see it as too divisive to the party.

    Parent

    Not a smart ad (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DanR3 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    This ad isn't targeting former Hillary supporters. In fact, it's an insult to her and everyone who voted for her to suggest that Clinton's criticism of Obama makes McCain the next best choice.

    Parent
    Yes, her (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    partial remarks were terrible criticisms.

    Just horrible.

    Oh, the humanity.

    Parent

    According to polls (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    He's already got over 20% of her electorate. He knows there are fence sitters out there.

    I'm looking forward to see who he chooses for VP. It's kinda nice to sit on the sidelines and watch to see how far he's willing to go to peel off the undecideds.

    Parent

    I wish McCain (none / 0) (#146)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    would throw us Hillary supporters a bone, but I don't think he can since his conservative voters don't think he is conservative enough.  Anything he would propose that would make him look more moderate would turn them off.  

    There are only two areas where I agree with McCain:  global warming and fiscal conservative.  Despite saying "Let's drill," McCain is more pro-environment than GWB was.  

    Parent

    Well, Romney (none / 0) (#173)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    wouldn't do it for anyone I know, except the Mormon kid in the local jewelry store and the undecideds in Michigan.

    Balancing act.

    Who won't make the RR mad but will get him votes?

    Lets out some interesting possibilities like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I guess.

    They're floating Colin Powell today...

    Parent

    THE... Colen Powell... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
    who LIED to the UN?????

    Parent
    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#80)
    by MrPope on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    Hillary supporters claim to be too smart to be tricked by McCain. McCain is banking on the so called " bitter knitters" to cross lines with his REACHING OUT TO HILLARY tactics.  He dont care about women in the least.

    Parent
    Which just goes to show how little he (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    understands Hillary supporters, most of whom did not then, and do not now, see McCain as being the "almost-Hillary" fallback option.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but there is nothing McCain can say that will get me to vote for him.  Nothing.  He may be smart enough to see that Hillary got the shaft, but that alone doesn't get him my vote, it just means that he's sentient.

    McCain is a mediocre candidate in a mediocre field - why on earth would I settle for either of them?

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    We tell 'em and tell 'em that there are other options on election day, but I begin to think these commenters may not have ever actually seen a ballot on an election day.  Or always stayed home on election day because they weren't old enough yet to consider that an option?

    Parent
    Indeed. (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    Not voting also sends a message.

    Parent
    Yep, unless you are in a very very blue state (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    -- then I think you send a better message by at least trying to make the vote margin a little narrower.  

    I like the idea of voting for the Green candidate too, though I don't know if she'll be on our ballot.  If a third party could get a good foothold in this country, I think we'd get better candidates.  2004 and now 2008, cwap candidates on both sides.  Gore was the last really good candidate.  

    Parent

    A real third party (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    would be effective, but it needs to be party based and not personality based.  Otherwise there will be no consistent threat to use as leverage against the Democrats and Republicans.  If all third parties combined start receiving at least 5% of the votes in a presidential election, then the big two will have to start paying attention.  Swing states are often decided by less than 5% - so third parties could literally decide elections just by affecting a few key swing states.

    Doncha just love the electoral college?

    Parent

    Just how the GOP started (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    in 1854, after a decade of all sorts of third parties.  Many of them named the People's Party.  Must have been confusing. :-)

    A triggering event was needed, of course, to bring them together for a mutual purpose that took priority.  I keep watching to see whether we have seen a triggering event this time, or when. . . .

    Parent

    We're on the same page (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    Hoping Biden can ad some humor on the Obama side. Right now, McCain is up in that column  ;)

    Parent
    Where would (4.90 / 10) (#91)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    we poor little womenfolk be without Mr. Pope here to tell us what to think and what to do.

    My goodness.

    Parent

    Mr. Cardinal and Mr. Bishop (5.00 / 8) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    have real good advice for us, too.  And of course, we are to consult our ministers, according to Mr. Obama.

    Parent
    And don't be fooled. (none / 0) (#161)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:08:35 PM EST
    Obama cares about women soooo much.  Bwhaaahaaa!

    Parent
    He don't? (none / 0) (#179)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:27:48 PM EST
    But Obama do?

    Where's the evidence?

    Let's ask Hil and Hill.

    Parent

    Ennis is banned from my threads (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:31:37 PM EST


    I would love to see a Clinton Add (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    For this campaign that pointed to how badly she has been demonized by the right.  And now they want to embrace her in order to divide us to put anti choice, anti-minority, anti-labor laws in place?  That is, almost as low as when the right uses Martin Luther King footage to attack Affirmative action.  

    She's not the Dem nominee. (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    Every moment we spend talking about her is a moment we don't spend talking about Obama/Biden. The R's are really good at getting us to play their game as a distraction from the issues, which are always better vote-getters for Dems. I hope we stop falling for it.

    Parent
    That's Funny (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    Not sure what 'it' is that's not about Hillary Clinton, because around here, among the commenters, an awful lot seems to be completely and forever about her.

    Parent
    My Point Is That Here (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    at a site with many, many more Clinton supporters than Obama supporters, Clinton is continually referenced. More often by her supporters than Obama's. But then, as I say, there are more of you here.

    I'm thinking this will change somewhat after the convention--Post primary considerations like whether she was being considered for VP, whether her name would be placed in nomination, etc. have reasonably  sparked lots of conversation about her and her ongoing role.

    As an Obama supporter, I don't usually refer to Senator Clinton unless in response to someone else's comment about her.

    Parent

    You continually fail (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:38:10 PM EST
    to understand (or maybe you're pretending to be clueless)that Obama isn't htting itout of the park.

    I've backed losers before.  I don't even like him as the nominee.

    I'm sure he's a great husband and father.  But he has no creds as a leader after eight years of Bush.

    You keep trying though to pretend it's about anything else.

    Parent

    You Talking To Me? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST
    Sorry, reading your response had Travis Bickle DeNiro's infamous character and his infamous line from taxi driver echoing in my head.

    Because, really, who ARE you talking to?

    Am I some generic Obama cheerleader to you?

    I ask, because:

    Far from "[continually]failing to understand that Obama isn't hitting it out of the park", the most enthusiastic I have EVER let myself get around here about his chances is "cautiously optimistic." More like a ground ball double with an error than a HR (sorry, my baseball is rusty).

    I'm not pretending he is anything else than my best chance to elect someone to the WH who advocates for the issues that matter to me versus someone who will give us Bush's third term.

    I think you're having trouble seeing that not all Obama supporters are the same. Or you're not really reading my posts.

    Parent

    It's Not About Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:23:07 PM EST
    I was responding to that point in my initial response.

    As to this site, I've lurked here for years because I found the focus on criminal justice issues interesting.

    In the wind-up of the primary season, I signed up and started participating knowing this was a Clinton supporter site and wanting to listen to Clinton supporters talk about their side. I probably couldn't have done this during the primaries because my emotions were pretty high and I wasn't (and am not) looking for a fight or to taunt etc. etc. And, I'm not looking for a site that kisses anyone's butt. I know where to find those if I was.

    Sorry to say I'm not the Obama supporter for you (to tell you why to vote for him). I don't proselytize about him. And I'm skeptical people can be persuaded who to vote for. I see his flaws, but I also see his potential. He advocates most strongly for the things that matter to me.

    I can say none of the statements you've apparently heard ad nauseum from others are ones I would say: 1) if Clinton were the nominee, I'd be supporting her.
    2)McCain has shown no commitment to any of the issues I hold dear and, in fact, has advocated some which are antithetical to my values, whatever his age or mental state.
    3) Well, yeah, I am concerned about more RW loonies on the SC.

    But everyone will come to their own decision esp. this season.
     

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#174)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    Obama wants to keep Clinton in low profile.  And Obama doesn't want PAC ads.

    Parent
    It would probably be a bad political (none / 0) (#198)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:17:18 PM EST
    Idea.  But I would like to see the add anyway.

    Parent
    It could be a feature film! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    The ad and the 18 million voters (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    The ad is not so much about what Clinton said, though on the surface it looks that way.  To me the ad is about Obama ignoring Clinton's supporters, 18 million of them.  McCain takes liberty by stating that Obama ignores those 18 million because Clinton told the truth. I know different.  I know that Obama would never have Clinton as a VP because the whole reason for Obama's support from the Democratic Party leadership is to remove the Clintons out of the party's leadership.  That's why Obama can never reach to the Clintons or their supporters.

    This ad SCREAMS (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM EST
    that BOTH parties need Hillary Clinton to win.  For the love of bernadette peters, will the BOIZ just get OVER their Hillary fixation and get ON with it?

    It reminds me of a line from Law and Order where S Epatha Merkeson's character says, "gentlemen, put them back in your pants!"

    For those who don't know, HILLARY has left the building.  This is YOUR fight.  Damm!

    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    but the problem is not Hillary, but her supporters. Both camps want those votes.  The only thing that's recognizable about them is that they supported Hillary.

    Parent
    No I don't think so (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    I am a Hillary supporter and I AM NOT THE problem!  Obama's ineffectiveness to convey whatever change and hope is!

    My vote is my own.  Hillary earned it.  Now it's Obama's turn to earn it.  Him hopping on over to Germany doesn't earn my vote, nor taking vacations in the middle of an election (Dukakis anyone?)

    To say that my vote might be as easily transferable speaks volumes about the assumptive nature of Obama and HIS supporters.

    You want something in life?  Gotta work for it or own it.  That simple.

    Parent

    I don't care. (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:57:15 PM EST
    Him hopping on over to Germany doesn't earn my vote, nor taking vacations in the middle of an election (Dukakis anyone?)

    He's never done or said anything to earn my vote.

    Yes, the bottom line.

    Obama?  Keep the change, and stop telling Americans about hope.

    You certainly aren't giving Americans any.

    Parent

    10 comments per day (none / 0) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:06:42 PM EST
    Second notice... new commenters are limited to 10 comments per day. You are at 24. Yesterday 18, the day before 22.  Please adhere to the 10 comment rule.  If you continue to violate the site rule, Jeralyn will list you as a 'chatterer' and you will be limited to 4 comments per day.

    Parent
    Hillary is going to realease (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    her delegates to Obama on Wednesday now.

    Wanna bet she got pressured into that decision?

    Nevermind (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    CNN doesn't have a clue. it's not official and she isn;t doing it at the speech.

    From the ticker:

    Hillary Clinton will meet with her primary delegates Wednesday - and will likely release them to Barack Obama at the event, CNN confirms.

    Two Democratic sources say the Clinton reception will take place at 1:15 p.m. MT, before that evening's roll call vote.

    Parent

    On TV, they seem pretty sure of it. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:44:50 PM EST
    I know but check the wording from the ticker (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton will meet with her primary delegates Wednesday - and will likely release them to Barack Obama at the event, CNN confirms.

    Parent
    This is going to get... (none / 0) (#209)
    by weltec2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    very interesting. The leadership has probably decided that it will lower the tension. In a way I fear they're right. Personally I wanted all the tension as high or higher than they could handle.

    Parent
    Clinton: Bad Friend Forever (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Lowtideppm on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned Obama undermined his whole New Politics of Unity.  I saw a couple of friends today.  Neither of them follows politics real closely. (Neither of them knew who Obama had chosen for his running mate.)  They both were totally surprised that  it was not Hillary Clinton.  "She came so close, she  has all that experience, and Bill  Clinton has even more - why NOT pick her?
      One of them said that not picking the candidate who had gotten the other half of the votes and who had been with Bill Clinton in the White House when we had such a better economy and better attention to social justice , just showed her that he didn't have the country's interest in mind.

      These are people who do  not read blogs, who pay notice to the  news but not at my news- junkie level, who are instead MUCH more in tune with their actual life reality and the reality that those around them have to live in.  ( This is not the same reality of the well-paid news presenters and Washington insiders or aspiring insiders).
      Neither of them has any interest in voting for McCain.
      My goodness, these are probably the same kind of American Voters of the type who actually voted for Hillary Clinton in the South Dakota (home of Tom Dashle, Obama mentor) primary  in JUNE.
       The other friend was puzzled that she hadn't heard a lot of notice that Clinton's candidacy was as groundbreaking as that of Obama.  She didn't  get why it was so much more newsworthy that an African American got so many primary votes and she didn't hear as much that a Woman got so many primary votes.  (Actually, she said she had never heard any reference to the significance of the first serious woman presidential candidate.)
      No.  The Reality as presented by the media and the blogs doesn't reflect the total picture which includes all kinds of Americans who are legally allowed to vote.
      What a shock, eh?   Or maybe that explains the mysterious recent  poll results.
      One of them is likely to vote for Obama in the hopes that he'll chose people around him with experience and knowledge of how to get things done.  The other hasn't always voted and isn't likely now to vote this election.
      I will vote, but will not vote for Obama.  In my state I'm allowed to leave the presidential slot blank and still have my down ticket votes registered.  
      Nah.  My arm would fall off and the rest of my body rot from there if I voted for any Republican.  If McCain were actually a "maverick" and actually a robust 72-year-old it might actually cross my mind.   Trolling among dissatisfied Clinton supporters is not real impressive to  me.
      It does cross my mind that he is making more of an outreach to Clinton supporters than is Obama.  Hillary is supposed to bring them all aboard.  As far as he is concerned, it should just be obvious that he should get their vote  - or something.  

    Thank you Hillary! (1.66 / 6) (#41)
    by Ennis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    It's clear now that the McCain campaign is exploiting die-hard Clinton supporters.  There are covert McCain supporters right here on TalkLeft, as well as other blogs, that are manipulating people and pouring gas on the fire - as small as the fire is.

    Beware.

    They must have moles (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    in the DNC then.

    Parent
    Die hard Clinton supporters? (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    No,  Obama chose Biden because of Biden's experience.  Obama lacks what it takes to be a good president.  Hillary will be seen as the reason for her supporters not voting for Obama until Obama's supporters recognize that Obama is the reason.  Flip the ticket and make Biden the president, and I'll vote for Biden.  I don't care for him and I'll never forgive him for his treatment of Anita Hill, but I would still vote for him and not McCain.  Right now I will vote McCain.

    Parent
    Great idea! (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM EST
    Flip the ticket!  I'd vote for Biden too.  

    I'm wondering if Obama is going to spell out what Biden's duties will be in an Obama administration?  Is Biden going to be doing all the work?  Or will Biden merely be the "Foreign Policy" figurehead?  

    Parent

    Biden is the dems' (none / 0) (#188)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    Cheney.

    Oh, yuk.

    Parent

    not quite (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    Biden could never be Cheney because, unlike Cheney, Biden has never met a microphone he hasn't liked.  Cheney is much more a lurk-in-the-shadows-type of guy.  Biden, much like Barack, is Me, Me, Me ... and more Me, please!

    My partner has a bet with a friend of his as to when Biden is going to have his "What the he** have I gotten myself into?" moment when he realizes Team Obama is not only NOT prepared for the General (as they seem to still be running on CDS), but is clearly unwilling to accept Biden's advice and strategy, to stick him in the corner and only bring him out as the Attack Dog.

    My partner thinks early September; his friend thinks any minute now.

    It'll be interesting to watch, that's for sure.  And we'll know how bad the Internal Polls are by watching Biden temper his attacks on McCain because he realizes this thing is lost and he'll want to suck up to the new Pres as much as possible after Inauguration.

    One can't help but wonder how Obama will adjust to being just a Junior Senator from Illinois after all of this.  I see another L-O-N-G vacation coming up.

    Parent

    Here's how it works (4.20 / 5) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    You're banned from my threads.

    This is me doing micro work for Obama.

    McCain agents like you are not welcome in my threads.

    I am serious. You are banned from my threads.

    Why? because I say so.

    You are still welcome to post in the posts of Jeralyn or TChris.

    Parent

    How is it (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    that the McCain people are able to come out with a new ad like every other day?  Maybe it's my imagination, but the ad wars seem more frenetic than usual.  And McCain doesn't seem short of dough in his ad fight.

    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    McCain's presumptive status was determined months ago.  His media machine has probably been working nonstop since then.

    I admit they are quick to respond.  Obama's Celebrity ad was certainly timely enough.  The only thing they needed to finish it was the crowds in Germany footage.

    They probably have scripts written for every hot button issue and an entire branching set of narratives for character attacks.  It's like playing a game.

    Parent

    While Democrats always (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST
    think they're playing chess, the Republicans win with checkers.

    King me.

    Parent

    good strategy too (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    This is not my favorite commercial but it does serve to keep Clinton and her supporters in the primary.  McCain has to spend his primary money before his convention when the GE technically begins.  The RNC seems to have some funds.

    Parent
    They're not real ads (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ennis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    Many are virtually YouTube productions that are not aired through purchase of advertising time.  They run a few times in one market, but the intention is to have the media pick them up and give them broader exposure.

    Parent
    Interesting. (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    I haven't seen the last two McCain ads on TV...all I've seen is "The Original Maverick."  I don't know the Obama one is called...it features seven steps to rebuilding the country or something like that.

    Parent
    Re the VP ads, Obama took so long (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    to wait for cell-phone messages from his best buds or whatever that was -- that the McCain camp had a week or more to do oppo research and ads on all four or more of the potential VPs.  

    Heck, this may be an adaptation of the ad that was going to go if Clinton had been the VP pick.

    If I were Kaine, Bayh, Sibelius, et al., I would be very worried come re-election time.  Their state GOPS already got faxed the oppo research on them by the McCain camp, you can bet.  And the ads.  Easily adapted with a tweak of the script and a new voiceover.  It takes only minutes to do -- and minutes to transmit to those state GOPs.

    The McCain camp may not be taking cell-phone numbers to bedevil their base, but they're clearly not incompetent in the technologies that still matter the most.  Their ads are good and out fast.  Btw, that also means they've got good people on market research and media buying. . . .

    Parent

    What was it I read? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    The repubs had 1000 pages of "research" they'd gathered on Obama?

    We're on, what, page 10?

    Parent

    I doubt the Republicans... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Addison on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    ...had just started putting together the oppo research last week while Obama was waiting to send out the text message. The short list has been known for a long, long time and the GOP was certainly not waiting until last week to work on their hits. I don't think it's accurate to tie Obama's rollout strategy to any increase or decrease in the GOP's ability to respond, except that perhaps the timing -- early AM Saturday -- of the final decision meant Republicans wouldn't get a weekday cycle to push their hits before the convention began.

    Parent
    Of course. As I said, "or more" (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    but the ads themselves can be put together so quickly these days, it's amazing.  Students do great ones in classes and have time to leave early.  Some of the stuff on youtube is stunning.  And it makes this ol' ad pro feel so old.

    Anyway, yes, oppo started at least a year ago.  But it probably was stalled for McCain when he was in budgetary straits.  Once he had the nomination, I'm sure the funds for more started to flow -- as did some oppo from the other GOP candidates, currying favor, as well as coming along with their staffers who switched to McCain.

    He must have well more than 1,000 pages of it by now.  Single-spaced. :-)

    Parent

    Change the Drill (none / 0) (#104)
    by Missblu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    I think the Obama people with all their persuasive
    talents, ought to conduct the 2008 election as a giant Caucus. They were so good at this. They,with the DNC,and with the help of the RNC, could hold caucuses from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM on election day. It would be so fun and of course all could get there.

    The McCain people at one end of the room and the Obama people at the other. Some discussion held. Then the vote. That way the orator and his people could sway the McCain people right there on that day. This would also be loved by John McCain who promotes town halls and discussion.  He could snare the Hillary people.

    The subjects today should include (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    why did the U.S. government send a military ship (as opposed to, say, a commercial vessel or something non-threatening) to deliver aid to Georgia?  I see an Aug.-Sept. "surprise" on the horizon.

    Sorry, meant to respond to waldenpond (none / 0) (#135)
    by Roz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    not you. I didn't intend to comment on your moderation.

    I didnt' realize waldenpond was a moderator (none / 0) (#186)
    by Roz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM EST
    of this site. Maybe I need to read the TOS before commenting again.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    My posts and threads are not for you.

    Just a thought.

    But in case you want to participate here are the rules for MY threads.

    No commenting on my commenting.

    No commenting on moderation in my threads.

    All other site rules also apply (no off topic commenting, no chattering, etc.)

    Parent

    Now I'm confused (none / 0) (#138)
    by Roz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:43:24 PM EST
    Which is the problem - accusing posters of being McCain trolls because they are considered to be inflaming Clinton supporters or posting comments that are considered to be inflaming Clinton supporters (and therefore assumed to be the work of McCain trolls)?

    A person after (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    my own heart.  What a team Hillary and McCain would make.  I could almost vote again.

    McCain/Clinton = Hoover/FDR (none / 0) (#211)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    Not possible.  Makes no sense.  Wouldn't vote for it.

    I'm still puzzled (none / 0) (#214)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:50:23 AM EST
    by the implication that I see so often here, that if one posts the facts about McCain: that he dosn't advocate equal pay, that he does want to do away with choice; that the commenter is somewhow sexist or insulting women "who will make up their own minds".

    Well then, do you agree with those positions?  Is that an agenda you want to see the President advocate?  Simple questions, really.  Rarely a direct answer, though...merely a whole lot of vitriol about Obama and the DNC and how they "stole" the primary.

    Someone above posted that they can't believe that the "family who brought them into the party, etc..."  That implies that the party can't evolve, or that the choice that other party members made is somehow not valid, or that the family is bigger than what the Democratic party represents.  I encourage you to  view those statements through the prism of an Obama supporter...you don't think they might be insulted?  And, aren't those folks, who made a different choice entitled to a little respect, even though they might disagree with your positions?  

    And, please, enough wtih the popular vote.  If the primary rules condidered the popular vote the determining factor, then fine, argue away.  Since it doesn't, enough.  It's the same with the electoral college...that's the system.  It can't be retroactively reconfigured to get you the result you want.  Going forward, sure, attempt can be made to revisit the party rule, but the electoral college ain't going away any time soon.

    I just don't see what could possibly be considered productive about walking away from the process, or injecting more vitriol.  No one is entitled to anything...Clinton isn't entitled to the VP role.  You might think otherwise, but arguments can be made that a choice for her as VP could work against both Obama and her.  With such a downside, why do it?  (Aside of that, her staff is on record that she didn't want to go thtrough the extensive vetting, so it's not like she wasn't given the courtesy she deserved.)

    I'm not trying to stir up.  I am though, looking for an acknowledgement that McCain will not be good for the country, that he will not be good for women (unless they're VERY pro-life and Donna Reed-ish...).  Do you relly think that HRC wants to be linked to people who would allow a man who can, by appointing to the Supreme Court, eradicate rights that women fought hard for for years?  I don't.