home
Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"He can't win" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
As long as she's in, these messages come out (I know the Clinton campaign is trying to turn this around on Richardson, but I don't buy it -- I think she said it).  These messages do more harm to Obama then a pretense of unity.

And if Hillary said "he can't win" Obama can't have her as a VP on a unity ticket.  He needs someone who believes he will win, not going through the motions.  

Since "she can't win" (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM EST
has been part of the Obama appeal since the beginning, how is pointing out the electoral college votes unfair?

[ Parent ]
The difference? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:10 PM EST
What is the difference between Obama saying "she can't win" and Clinton saying "he can't win"?

I'd like to know.

[ Parent ]

He's the likely nominee (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST


[ Parent ]
but not the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
it may have escaped your attention, the campaign is still going on.

[ Parent ]
I get it now (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
You just have to be the first to CLAIM that someone is unelectable.  Then if you are ahead, you get to whine about how mean the other player is.  I get it now...

[ Parent ]
Because he is not ready to be (none / 0) (#59)
by MichaelGale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:06 PM EST
President.  If he cared about the Democratic Party, he would have waited until he had "some"experience and some toughness for god's sake. He and his supporters are victims, just as this release states. Good.  Let them donate 24 million. The man's already spent 40 million. He could have rebuilt  south Chicago with that kind of money.

I thought this guy was a "community activist" and wanted to help the poor.

[ Parent ]

Gallup poll (none / 0) (#68)
by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
shows that lots of people have concerns about his qualifications.

Nearly 4 in 10 of those who least want to see Obama elected (39%) say they believe he is "inexperienced" or "not qualified" to be president.


[ Parent ]
Here's what Obama said in january (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
Jan 30, 4:33 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.


[ Parent ]

His quotes from that article: (5.00 / 0) (#51)
by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM EST
"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

 Nowhere in the article does he say "Clinton is too polarizing to win."  He certainly implies she will have a tougher time of it, but there is no direct quote to that effect.  The writer took liberties, but I guess the press is fair when it takes liberties with Obama's words. ;-)

[ Parent ]

Then how about this? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:20:57 PM EST
From last fall:

"If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then we have a repetition of 2000 and 2004," he said. "There's no change in the political map. I'm not making predictions specifically about which way Ohio or Florida will go, but what you do know is that 45 percent of the country will be on one side and 45 percent of the country will be on the other. . . . There's not going to be an expansion of the electorate. I don't think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters. I don't think it's realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her."

(This article also has some good stuff about the names he was calling her six months ago.)

I mean, this stuff isn't hard to find.  Obama (and others) were saying Clinton was unelectable for months - that she was too divisive and would fire up Republicans, etc, etc.  

[ Parent ]

Umm... (5.00 / 0) (#73)
by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
...he specifically said in that article he was not predicting who would win, just that the map would remain unchanged.

[ Parent ]
nice try (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:53:29 PM EST
He said he wouldn't try to predict florida and ohio - not the entire election.  Overall he said that it would be the same as 00 and 04 and the dems lost both of those.

I'm sure you can WORM this out a little more, but just do a google search - obama was making the case all last fall that clinton couldn't win a ge because she was too divisive (other candidates were too).  It's not a debateable point and moreover, it's another example of how clinton is held to different standards (in private conversations no less!) than obama.

[ Parent ]

She is firing up all right. (none / 0) (#71)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
She has fired up some of my Republican friends to vote for her. Mostly the women. So You Go Girl!

[ Parent ]
source? (none / 0) (#24)
by VicAjax on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:35:59 PM EST

I haven't seen this before... can you point me to where Obama said Hillary couldn't win the GE?

I've always personally been of the mind that whomever wins the Dem primary would be well-equipped to win the GE.  it's just been my opinion that Obama  would help more with state and congressional dem races.

[ Parent ]

check wasabi's post (none / 0) (#46)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
'cuz I'm feeling lazy.

You could also google.

[ Parent ]

one is about the primary (none / 0) (#63)
by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
and looks at delgate counts and likely super delegates no realistic path to victory, and one is a canard based on vague electibility arguments for the general election.

You are comparing apples to oranges here.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#66)
by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
Obama and other were talking about the general - saying that Clinton was too divisive to win against the Republicans.  This was an attack on her for months last fall.

[ Parent ]
It was the entire basis (none / 0) (#69)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST
of the original argument against Hillary being the nominee before the primaries started.

To argue he didn't say it is absurd.

Kind of the foundation for why he got into the campaign in the first place.

[ Parent ]

That and a lot of DC elders (none / 0) (#75)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
are still carrying grudges against Bill and don't want her to win because 'HE' will be back in the WH. I don't think she made so many enemies in her DC years to warrant the elders putting up a candidate against her. And it could have been a slew of others. No, they put a candidate up against her who could take away a lot of her base. As for Pelosi, I wouldn't want her to be President even if I would like to see a woman President. She has been tested and is failing right now. Maybe next semester.

[ Parent ]
I would like to see a woman President, but ... (none / 0) (#87)
by cymro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM EST
... that woman has to be a competent leader and manager. Since she became speaker, Pelosi has been proving she is neither. Instead, she seems to be demonstrating the truth of the Peter Principle. Howard Dean is another example. Obama is likely to become another, I believe.

[ Parent ]
I don't really (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
understand how that is a problem. If she said that to a superdelegate, it makes sense, since that is the whole point..making your case that you are more electable. The fact that Richardson spoke to someone about it and it made it into the papers is the problem.  That is the entire point. Convincing the super-ds you can win while the other one cannot.

Obama himself has said he has a better chance since HRC has such allegedly negative numbers.  

[ Parent ]

Maybe... (none / 0) (#41)
by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:45:00 PM EST
...the lesson should be that they both can't win, so the party should just choose someone else?

 If that's not the case, then the only reasonable measure is either popular vote or pledged delegates.

[ Parent ]

Not following (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
your thought process there.

[ Parent ]
I read Pelosi's statements (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST
as an endorsement of the theory that a protacted and quixotic challenge by Clinton does Obama irreperable harm in November.  You believe the party leaders should stay publicly neutral so that Clinton's supporters will be more mollified to rally around Obama when he finally wraps the nomination up.

Yesterday, when it was reported that Clinton was stating "He can't win, Bill" to Richardson in that awkward call, the message came out again from Clinton (albeit, not meant to be made public) that Obama is unelectable.  This message would not come out from Clinton if she was not in the race anymore.  This continued message does more damage to Obama in November than what you fear, IMO. This is why I don't mind Pelosi's statements.  And, further, I do not believe true unity will happen at this point.

And the last point was that your long held stance that the Cuomo doctrine should be adopted, there's no way Obama should name Clinton to that position if she truly does not believe he can win.  

[ Parent ]

but...... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST
the standard matra from Obama has been for months, her negatives are too high. She can't win.

So, is turnaround fair play, or divisive when it cuts against your candidate?

[ Parent ]

Pelosi harmed Obama and the Party (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM EST
You should be as upset about her statements as anyone.

[ Parent ]
Just to be clear... (5.00 / 6) (#19)
by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
I just need a refresher on Clinton/Obama Rules:

Clinton cannot say that Obama can't win even in a PRIVATE conversation?  

And

It was fine for Obama to say that Clinton couldn't win last fall when she was the presumptive nominee?  

[ Parent ]

She, for all intents and purposes, just ... (5.00 / 0) (#30)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
...made it public.

Rough transcript per MSNBC:

Q: Did you say "he can't win"?

Hillary: Well, in this campaign, there's phone conversations, and well it's a complicated... you know. So, it's like, you know, oh, ... I don't talk about the contents of private conversations. Yeah, that's it.

[ Parent ]

Uh (5.00 / 7) (#33)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
It was already public.  It was on the front page of the paper today.  It doesn't somehow become her fault because she refuses to lie about it now that it's already public.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough. Lying's worse. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:16:14 PM EST
But her non-denial denial was kind of funny.  She wasn't ready for the question.

[ Parent ]
magster wrote: (none / 0) (#53)
by Tortmaster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
"But her non-denial denial was kind of funny.  She wasn't ready for the question."

The reporter should try asking that question again at 3 a.m.     ; )

Speaker Pelosi is in a tight spot. Some want her to exercise "leadership," and some want her to exercise "discretion." What you want her to do seems to depend on who you support in the Democratic Primary.

I hope she continues to exercise her "leadership" on the issue.  

[ Parent ]

You repeatedly include (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST
only portions convenient to your positions. Where is the whole item?  Don't cut off the totality of questions and quotes.  It was much longer than that and you know it.

Sometimes I don't get people.  It's not like the rest of us can't view this at some point or another.

[ Parent ]

Funny you say that because you're actually right (none / 0) (#54)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
I just saw a post on Kos that showed that MSNBC cut off her last statement of "So that's a no" to make it look like a non-denial denial instead of an outright denial (of course the Kos diarist implied MSNBC was guilty of editing out an outright Clinton lie to protect her).

[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM EST
The only person who harmed the party was the one who leaked the conversation to the press.

The notion that if someone has concerns about Obama's electability, they can't even bring it up in a private conversation, is just silly.  Not that anyone has been bashful about attacking Clinton's electability in public, Obama included.

[ Parent ]

Your opinion that she can't win (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST
doesn't mean she can't.

How few Obama supporters seem to grasp that simple fact.

[ Parent ]

She'll win if there's a major meltdown by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
but yesterday, Obama got two more supers and probably Pres. Carter.  Today, a 2nd poll showing Obama and Clinton virtually tied in PA, Corzine hedging, and Obama doubling Clinton's $ in March 40 mil - 20 mil. I like Obama's odds.

[ Parent ]
Your opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
I completely disagree. Wright makes Obama unelectable, he has yet to win a big swing state in a primary, and the next few elections will show that he can't get the demographics he needs. The SD's will be looking at everything very carefully and could just as easily pick Clinton as Obama.

But at least I know that it's my opinion and that the election is not yet over.

[ Parent ]

The Carter's story is old news (none / 0) (#48)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST
he said that about his granddaughter months and months ago.

I always find it interesting how AP comes up with new articles using old quotes.

[ Parent ]

How 'bout his odds in the GE? (none / 0) (#77)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
I don't think his odds are so good there and in the end that is what is going to matter. You can't have a 50/50 and expect it to be 100%. It will not happen.

[ Parent ]
IACF (none / 0) (#9)
by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
;-)

[ Parent ]
HRC (none / 0) (#58)
by magisterludi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:02:24 PM EST
 was asked about the "he can't win" alleged quote and denied it pointblank. SHE said she stressed to BR she could win over Obama, not that he couldn't win. Believe her or not.

It occurs to me- what would be so wrong with her saying that, in confidence, to a purported "old friend"? She could very well believe that BHO can't win the GE. I know I do.

[ Parent ]

Obama doesn't seem to worry (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
about trashing Clinton vis-a-vis her chances in the ge.  He has called her desperate, unelectable, divisive, negative...the list is endless.

And yet she says one thing off the record to a friend--allegedly--and she gets blasted.  Why is there  a double standard here?

[ Parent ]

Delete me (none / 0) (#76)
by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST
because someone is getting a pony (gift) at the end of all of this and I want to know who it is because every time that pony walks across my front yard, it's doing it's business and leaving burn marks on my lawn (vote.)

Now in honor of that Unity pony I am going to go finish making up my own game of horse that uses the letters m.c.c.a.i.n.

M: Personal attacks such as untruthful, disingenuous, will say anything,
C: DNC/FL/MI/using attorneys in Il and again in MI
C: experience has been sacrificed to new, criticizing UHC, undemonstrated commitment to policy.
A: Wright, Obama supporters, inflated resume, etc.
I:


[ Parent ]

Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft